In John Perry’s “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality,” there are many arguments that discuss the criterion of personal identity. Within The First Night, Gretchen Weirob and Sam Miller begin to discuss the idea of an immaterial soul and its reasonability of existence, which is the main idea. Miller discusses the various reasons why an immaterial soul exists while Weirob argues its existence and eventually, its relevance. Throughout the dialogue, Miller introduces various theories to support the idea of an immaterial soul and its use of allowing the survival of a person after death. His main theory represents the principle of “Same body, same self” (Perry, 325) otherwise discussed as “same body, same soul.” His theories allow several
…show more content…
Weirob argues that if a box of Kleenex was burned down to ash and flushed down the toilet and an “exactly similar” box was found on a shelf the next day that it would not be the same box and would be the end of the original box (Perry, 324). Miller then rebuttals with the idea that, “you are more than that… what is fundamentally you is not your body, but your soul or self or mind” (Perry, 324). Miller proceeds to discuss that, “[the] mind or soul is immaterial, lodged in your body while you are on earth” and that “[the] soul sees and smells, but cannot be seen or smelt” (Perry, 325). Millers argument is saying that a person’s soul is what makes up a person and that the body is just a form of housing for it in the world. His beliefs are grounded in the concept that if the same body is experienced, the same soul lies within it because of the experiences had with said body. Weirob proceeds to question this theory by asking, “…what makes you think the one you are confronted with now is the very same soul you were confronted with” (Perry, 325)? Weirob’s question leads to another one of Miller’s …show more content…
Her argument is based on the idea that “…the immaterial soul which you think is lodged in my body might change from day to day…replaced each time by another soul psychologically similar” (Perry, 327-328). She continues on to say that there are several possibilities. Whether it be a single soul for a lifetime, a soul for a majority and then a new one inherits the past, or the constant flowing of souls (Perry, 328). Weirob is proposing the possibility of everyone being thousands of different souls throughout their life. The issue with this idea is that if a person had that numerous souls, they would never meet, or even initially create, the expectations that others have made for them because of the instability of so many souls. A person can portray a single soul and still experience changes such as attitudes, growth, and other characteristics. Changes throughout life don’t require a change of soul. Another flaw in Weirob’s belief is that, everyone in the world is unique in their own way because they’re one body, and one soul. If everyone shared souls, everyone would become the same and that is an unrealistic
Weirob argues that if a box of Kleenex was burned down to ash and flushed down the toilet and an “exactly similar” box was found on a shelf the next day that it would not be the same box and would be the end of the original box (Perry, 324). Miller then rebuttals with the idea that, “you are more than that… what is fundamentally you is not your body, but your soul or self or mind” (Perry, 324). Miller proceeds to discuss that, “[the] mind or soul is immaterial, lodged in your body while you are on earth” and that “[the] soul sees and smells, but cannot be seen or smelt” (Perry, 325). Millers argument is saying that a person’s soul is what makes up a person and that the body is just a form of housing for it in the world. His beliefs are grounded in the concept that if the same body is experienced, the same soul lies within it because of the experiences had with said body. Weirob proceeds to question this theory by asking, “…what makes you think the one you are confronted with now is the very same soul you were confronted with” (Perry, 325)? Weirob’s question leads to another one of Miller’s …show more content…
Her argument is based on the idea that “…the immaterial soul which you think is lodged in my body might change from day to day…replaced each time by another soul psychologically similar” (Perry, 327-328). She continues on to say that there are several possibilities. Whether it be a single soul for a lifetime, a soul for a majority and then a new one inherits the past, or the constant flowing of souls (Perry, 328). Weirob is proposing the possibility of everyone being thousands of different souls throughout their life. The issue with this idea is that if a person had that numerous souls, they would never meet, or even initially create, the expectations that others have made for them because of the instability of so many souls. A person can portray a single soul and still experience changes such as attitudes, growth, and other characteristics. Changes throughout life don’t require a change of soul. Another flaw in Weirob’s belief is that, everyone in the world is unique in their own way because they’re one body, and one soul. If everyone shared souls, everyone would become the same and that is an unrealistic