Immortality of the soul?

[white camellia]

The <Physical> arguments from the analogy of nature are strong for the mortality of the soul, and are really the only philosophical arguments which ought to be admitted with regard to this question, or indeed any question of fact. -- Where any two objects are so closely connected that all alterations which we have ever seen in the one, are attended with proportionable alterations in the other; we ought to conclude by all rules of analogy, that, when there are still greater alterations produced in the former, and it is totally dissolved, there follows a total dissolution of the latter. -- Sleep, a very small effect on the body, is attended with a temporary extinction, at least a great confusion in the soul. -- The weakness of the body and that of the mind in infancy are exactly proportioned, their vigour in manhood, their sympathetic disorder in sickness; their common gradual decay in old age. The step further seems unavoidable; their common dissolution in death. The last symptoms which the mind discovers are disorder, weakness, insensibility, and stupidity, the fore-runners of its annihilation. The farther progress of the same causes encreasing, the same effects totally extinguish it. Judging by the usual analogy of nature, no form can continue when transferred to a condition of life very different from the original one, in which it was placed. Trees perish in the water, fishes in the air, animals in the earth. Even so small a difference as that of climate is often fatal. What reason then to imagine, that an immense alteration, such as is made on the soul by the dissolution of its body and all its organs of thought and sensation, can be effected without the dissolution of the whole? Every thing is in common betwixt soul and body. The organs of the one are all of them the organs of the other. The existence therefore of the one must be dependant on that of the other. -- The souls of animals are allowed to be mortal; and these bear so near a resemblance to the souls of men, that the analogy from one to the other forms a very strong argument. Their bodies are not more resembling; yet no one rejects the argument drawn from comparative anatomy. The <Metempsychosis> is therefore the only system of this kind that philosophy can harken to.

From David Hume On the Immortality of the Soul

So what is your argument for the im/mortality of a human's soul? Do you agree with the physical argument - the soul will be dissolved as the body - or with metempsychosis, or simply a soul of the dead once and forever but then where would the soul be - return as part of the deity?

[johann cruyff]

I don't believe in deities,as a matter of fact,I'm not too sure that this what we call 'soul' exists either - a man is dead not when his heart stops,but when his brain dies,and that's it,I think. I'm usually not the one to look for every single answer in science,but this seems like a pretty straightforward one to me.

[white camellia]

Yes, that's a question too - the existence of "soul", or the like.

[NikolaiI]

"The organs of the one are all of them the organs of the other. The existence therefore of the one must be dependant on that of the other. -- The souls of animals are allowed to be mortal; and these bear so near a resemblance to the souls of men, that the analogy from one to the other forms a very strong argument. Their bodies are not more resembling; yet no one rejects the argument drawn from comparative anatomy. The <Metempsychosis> is therefore the only system of this kind that philosophy can harken to."

This is incomprehensible. Why would an animal have a mortal soul, when humans souls are immortal? We are alike in every way, we breathe, we eat, we drink, we mate, we defend, we sleep, and so by the law of similarity, the quality of our souls must be the same...

And the soul has organs-- as in a liver, kidney, and skin?

I like this thread, because you ask, "What is your argument...?"! :)

A Vaisnava would say, first of all, the most immediate error in David Hume's writing, is that he is going on the basis that we are this body. We're not this body. What are we? The answer is universally accepted either that we are a soul, or a consciousness. Buddhists and Hindus both say that we are not the body-- Hindus say we are a soul, Buddhists say we are not body or soul in actuality. The Buddhists analyze what we think we are, our ego, into five aggregates. http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud14.htm (this) website describes that.

A Vaisnava would say, we are not a body that has a soul, but a soul that has a body. The material universe is but an imperfect, impermanent, impure reflection of the spiritual universe. The material universe is like an upside down tree, like we would see in the water, and we must cut through the tree with knowledge. No matter where we go in the material universe-- even to the highest planet of Brahma, it is still material

But I haven't given an argument so far. I guess the main thing, the most important thing, is to understand that we are more than this body. Srila Prabhupada called it the skin disease, the bodily conception, to think we are this skin, this body. I have a great analogy for this. Suppose you are a limo-driver, and you are driving a very nice limo-- or let's say, you are driving a very spacious, luxurious car. As you drive down the road, then you want other, cheaper cars to get out of the way of you. You assume arrogance, and you even associate with the car. But you are not your car, you are the driver inside the car. Without you, the car would not run by itself-- the same with our bodies. We are not the body, but the soul. Actually, the way that our systems are supposed to work is like this: the senses are controlled by the mind, which is controlled by the intelligence, which is controlled by the soul-- which we are. We are not the senses or the mind or the intelligence. This is all written and explained thoroughly in the Bhagavad-Gita, and is part of the science of self-realization.

Why would I think the soul is immortal? It's hard to say. Revelation, as well as what it says in the scriptures. I believe the soul is somewhat like the wind, or any other part of nature. I believe that we imagine we are separate, but this is an embarrassing illusion. In reality subject and object are in a relationship in which they are not separate.

So, I hope these thoughts add some value of interest...

[jgweed]

From a philosophical perspective, the definition of what one means by "soul" is prior to whether it is immortal or not, and certainly there has been little agreement hitherto about that definition.
Hume's argument is that to the extent the soul is considered (or defined as) a part of the natural world, then it must suffer the same decay and decomposition as any animal's, and to that extent, cannot be considered any more immortal than is one's pet dog.
"Every thing is in common betwixt soul and body," is his second argument; if the latter dissolves, then so does the former. This argument depends for its force on the identification of soul with a physical existence, with nothing "left over" with qualities that are powerful enough to endure (or: avoid dissipation).

It seems difficult enough to argue for the existence of something like a "soul" for a living being, let alone to argue that whatever it is endures after death.
Cheers,
John

[Smoogles]

I am looking at this in a perspective of my own, not Hume's; and in that Immortality is defined as always has, and always will.

People have claimed to have had out of body experiences in hospitals, (things related to deja vu, dreaming, etc.) where they were floating above their bodies watching the team of doctors working on them. To test and see if this were real out of body experiences, in the eastern portion of the US, they placed bicycle reflectors on the floor of the emergency rooms, so that people should be able to see them if they were floating. It was done in hundreds of hospitals for many years, after all this time hundreds of people stated they had, had an out of body experience. Out of all those hundreds of people not one stated ever seeing the red bicycle reflectors on the floor through the interrogations. They were asked to describe the scene of their out of body experiences in exact detail, many got most of the details right, some details wrong; but none, not one, ever admitted to seeing a RED bicycle reflector even when hinted about it being there. So what does this bring to mind? That it takes a couple of minutes for you to actually die, slowly the brain shuts down parts of the body and there is an electrical explosion within the brain. This can mean that, from past mental experiences of watching TV and such (your senses are still active when asleep) that your brain infers a situation of what is happening withing your head, gathering scenarios and connecting them into the situation your in. You can tell when people are around you, and when you are sleeping you can recall noises and such that you faintly remember caused by an external force. And furthermore from this perspective, this is all nothing more than brain activity.

BUT! I do firmly believe in resurrection of the body, because if we are just soul and senses are physical things then how do people claim to have seen their relatives in 'heaven'? Souls have no eyes! That's a sense, that would make it a physical thing! Is there really anything that can be explained as non-physical to us? The resurrection of Jesus, thus, the resurrection of the body into heaven. And (If you are of the christian faith) if your soul is immortal this would bring upon a huge problem of God creating you, how could he create you if you are immortal, which is always has existed and always will exist. This would separate you from God, and in the end make no sense. So there must be an explanation, God created you and granted you eternal life.

[blazeofglory]

There are two souls. One for revolution and the other for peace.

[jgweed]

There are two souls, one for looking up and one for looking down.

[blazeofglory]

In fact all I believe is ,whether or not the soul exists, we are all one and of course integrally and cosmically one. Whether you call soul or some entity or force or anything else you do it as you feel convenient.

Strewn we are here and there, countless forces or quivers. There are zillions of small rivers and streams, yet water is the same characteristically or intrinsically one and the same.

I too believe and would like to subscribe to the idea of Nikolai that all are one indivisibly one.

I feel something among us is common, and that commonness ties up all invisibly.
All beings, even non-beings are thread by a string. I can not say it is the soul the way theologically or mythologically taken.

I can not simply satisfy myself with the idea that life ends, or existence ends at death. It is just a little respite and nothing else. Entities, material or immaterial, earthly or unearthly, matters or energies keep on traveling through eternities beyond time and space.