Survival of the self is a consistent question which has punctuated human thought throughout time. Whether embodied or disembodied, survival of the soul seems to be dependent on forces that humans do not have the technology to scientifically prove right now. The most plausible stance about life after death is no personal survival. To prove this, first, I will describe the arguments for personal survival, which I oppose, and then present an argument based on the unintelligibility of souls with Sosa’s “Spatial Awareness” debate. A criticism for this will be presented that uses a rebuttal against Sosa. My counter argument consists of observable explanations for why a soul seems to exist. Next, I will contend blank death being bad. However,
…show more content…
Replies to the arguments that souls are unintelligible still look at supposing there are no other reasons for each person’s experiences. However, with the development of neurology, we know why a person feels, makes associations, and develops through her life. From the moment we are born, humans are bombarded with stimuli that cause chemicals to be released into their brain. At first, they are instinctual and as someone grows, she makes associations with different stimuli that cause her to form ideas about the world and other people. Because these stimuli and chemicals can be accounted for, there is no reason to believe that a soul is responsible for these identities. Similarly, animals experience these stimuli and fear of death as well. Yet we do not argue for their personal survival after death. Why then should it be considered that we survive? Further, because most societies have a religious basis, it is hard for a young person to escape the touch of these beliefs. Were someone to grow up with no one teaching them about the existence of a god, and by extension souls, it can be assumed she would not necessarily believe they exist. If a soul is not a natural conclusion for the individual, it is unlikely they exist outside of an old explanation for scientific phenomena. Since we have the knowledge of neurology, religious reasoning begins to lose its hold in reality. …show more content…
The argument against the intelligibility of souls was brought up to argue their non-existence. A rebuttal against Sosa’s position considered how one soul can examine its own mental state but not another gives a sense of relation. However, neurology can explain the existence of mental states which again shows how souls are improbable to exist. Next, an argument for the neutrality of a blank death discusses how it does not lead to an existence past this life. Nagle argues that this death is still unpleasant because of the possibilities that are removed. To counter, I argue that specific examples of youths dying does not change the overall neutrality of death. Overall, the most plausible existence after death is no personal survival. Yet, that does not need to be feared. Perhaps in the future there will be a way to accurately perceive a soul on a scientific level. Once that occurs, we can begin further, more accurate, analysis on how the self might continue surviving. Regardless, the important observation is that we do in fact exist. Whether by God or evolution does not change the miraculous state of sentience the human race has achieved and that we can question existence at all. The question of why we exist may become more prominent then what happens after. If nothing waits for us after we die, at least we can say we had the opportunity to experience the beauty of life at
Replies to the arguments that souls are unintelligible still look at supposing there are no other reasons for each person’s experiences. However, with the development of neurology, we know why a person feels, makes associations, and develops through her life. From the moment we are born, humans are bombarded with stimuli that cause chemicals to be released into their brain. At first, they are instinctual and as someone grows, she makes associations with different stimuli that cause her to form ideas about the world and other people. Because these stimuli and chemicals can be accounted for, there is no reason to believe that a soul is responsible for these identities. Similarly, animals experience these stimuli and fear of death as well. Yet we do not argue for their personal survival after death. Why then should it be considered that we survive? Further, because most societies have a religious basis, it is hard for a young person to escape the touch of these beliefs. Were someone to grow up with no one teaching them about the existence of a god, and by extension souls, it can be assumed she would not necessarily believe they exist. If a soul is not a natural conclusion for the individual, it is unlikely they exist outside of an old explanation for scientific phenomena. Since we have the knowledge of neurology, religious reasoning begins to lose its hold in reality. …show more content…
The argument against the intelligibility of souls was brought up to argue their non-existence. A rebuttal against Sosa’s position considered how one soul can examine its own mental state but not another gives a sense of relation. However, neurology can explain the existence of mental states which again shows how souls are improbable to exist. Next, an argument for the neutrality of a blank death discusses how it does not lead to an existence past this life. Nagle argues that this death is still unpleasant because of the possibilities that are removed. To counter, I argue that specific examples of youths dying does not change the overall neutrality of death. Overall, the most plausible existence after death is no personal survival. Yet, that does not need to be feared. Perhaps in the future there will be a way to accurately perceive a soul on a scientific level. Once that occurs, we can begin further, more accurate, analysis on how the self might continue surviving. Regardless, the important observation is that we do in fact exist. Whether by God or evolution does not change the miraculous state of sentience the human race has achieved and that we can question existence at all. The question of why we exist may become more prominent then what happens after. If nothing waits for us after we die, at least we can say we had the opportunity to experience the beauty of life at