Monday, November 18, 2013

Personal Identity and Surviving One's Death

From guest blogger, Rashad.  

I am looking to write my paper on personal identity and how it relates to the soul. Using Christianity and the karmic religions, mainly Hinduism, I look to take a combination of the psyche-soul philosophy. In this sense, the body does not matter in defining the self. In defining the self, I look to attempt to explicitly define the soul as its meaning and concept is similarly in share din both religions. When thinking about person-/self-hood, I would argue that the mind is dependent of the soul, yet, the soul is independent of the mind. For instance, with the Bucky-Everglades case, all they did was just switch bodies. How they realized something was wrong was through the conscience; the mind. The mind travels, and so does the soul, because without the soul, the mind can not function. Does anyone have any advice or opinions to counter or support my claims that will help strengthen my paper?

6 comments:

Michael Dean Hebert said...

I'm confused about your thoughts on the relationship between mind and soul. Can you try to explain that a little better? If I understand you correctly, you want to argue that the existence of a mind depends on the existence of a soul. What reason do you have to argue this? If a soul can exist without a mind, why can't a mind exist without a soul?

Annalee Galston said...

In saying that "the mind is dependent of the soul but the soul is independent of the mind" you are going to have to clarify where thoughts are sourced/originated. Otherwise, it seems to imply that the brain serves no purpose. And the brain serving no purpose and/or not being the source of thought may be apart of your claim but you'll want to make it explicit.

isaac scott said...

I agree with Michael. There needs to be some kind of distinction between the mind and the soul, and from that distinction you can show that the mind is dependant on the soul. It also seems to me that you are saying the soul is not conscious in itself. In other words, the soul is not self aware. I have taken a similar stance in my paper. I claim that the soul is the principle by which the body and mind are organized. It is what constitutes the being of the person. I hope this helps.

Joshua Adams said...

Yeah I feel like the difficulty that comes with all these things is the fact of it being impossible to prove on a evidence basis. Everything will have to be in the form of rational arguments not dealing with the world around us. Also I would say be very careful about just presupposing that souls exist when looking at both religions, as most of the time this is something they do with the soul

Zach Wrublewski said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Enrique Franco said...

I think Annalee raises a pretty crucial point; if there is a distinction between mind and soul how then could my soul be associated with me? In the example of the body switch the consciousness of each individual remained consistent. I guess my question would real just be is how much of me is retained in my soul if there is a separation of consciousness. Maybe it's an easy fix, but if there's this distinction then the soul would seem to me as arbitrary as the body. I also think the issue the Steinbergs raised would have to be addressed, ie. what really distinguishes my soul from yours? Is it merely location? Is it it's past experiences/lives?