Abarca, Ronel Wynlor

Adarna, Andrew John Levic

Co, Josh Jarold

Angeles, Alfonso Luis

Radam, Ricsoon

PHILOSOPHY OF MAN:
THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL

I.

On the argument of Descartes and Hume

Rene Descartes, known as the father of modern philosophy, proposed that the
physical world is governed by a fixed set of laws that is universal, and applies to all
thing, in all places, at all times- except the soul. He proposed that the soul/
substance is not under the universal laws, not governed by gravity, force, work, etc.
The soul for him was something that existed forever, something that cannot be
touched by the natural laws of life and death; it was something that we humans
(rational/thinking beings) have that brutes such as dogs or cats, do not.

David Hume opposed Descartes, saying that if the soul- the one that which
governs our thoughts, does indeed last forever, then when people sleep, our mental
activities come to a halt; what was to say that that couldnt happen forever, thus
eliminating the immortality of the soul. Humes view was rather, although not directly
stated, on the side against the immortality of the souls. Humes most convincing
point is that the soul and the body work hand in hand, in every aspect, that when one
ceases to exist, both will cease to exist. So when the body, which is under the laws
of nature, dies and rots, so will the soul.
II.

Descartes and Hume are both right and wrong.

The soul, where until now has yet to have a definitive answer, is an element far
from the reach of science. Whether it exists or not, or whether it was just an idea
made by previous philosophers and theologians, are questions that are not within the
boundary where experimental analysis could resolve. It needs higher thinking, not
necessarily based on reason and our intellect alone, but with accordance to our
experiences.

Empiricist, David Hume, introduced a new way of tackling the existence or

immortality of the soul. In seeking further knowledge of the soul, we must imply
everything that we have learned, from being a critical reader to a logical thinker. In
one of Hume's claim where he stated that the soul is mortal due to the fact that we
have no memories of what the soul has encountered during its existence before our
life could be contradicted with the theory of Plato. Plato's Dualism states that due to
the imperfection of our body, the soul which contains all perfect ideas loses most of
it. In addition, science has already proven that dreams occur everyday, it is just that
our mind cannot recall these mental activities. So does this suggest that since we
have an ongoing mental activity, even when asleep, that the soul must exist
eternally? And in relation with this, must Hume's view on the temporary
extinguishment of our consciousness, leading to the possibility of the disappearance
of the soul, be considered false?

Concerning Descartes, a rationalist, if mental activities are controllable then how

about those that are in a condition that prevents them from their ordinary cognitive
activity, for example those that have experienced brain damage. In addition to this,
St. Thomas Aquinas said in his metaphysics that the soul could not have perception
without its dependence on the body's sensation. Since perception involves a thinking
process, thus concerning mental activity, then its inability to do so due to the lack of
elements such as the sensation of the material body would mean that the soul could
not do all levels and kinds of thinking that it is capable of, thus the capability is
restricted. A circus actor could do all of his tricks but when a single prop is missing,
he could not do the act that involves the prop thus the capability or the overall acts
that the circus actor can do is limited, when this lack of that single act is compared to
a performance where the actor did all of his acts, we could say that the performance
lacking a single act is imperfect as compared to the one that is complete. Using this
analogy with the soul, if it is unable to do a single kind of thinking then it is imperfect
when compared to a substance that can perform all thinking independently. This
could suggest that the soul is imperfect. But according to Descartes, the composition
of the soul is this spiritual substance that he claims to be eternal and immortal. Since
the soul is imperfect, the substance that composes it must also be imperfect. Thus
the eternality and immortality of this imperfect substance could be subject to
questioning. But in a sense that if we still regard that the substance is immortal and
eternal while being imperfect, then there is this substance more perfect than that of
the substance of the soul giving it the ability to do so - to be immortal. This

imperfectness of the substance could also lead to the doubt of whether there is a law
superior to that of the natural law that governs the soul.

The soul is said to be the root of our intellect. The soul as stated by Descartes is
not bound to the laws of the universe. However, the laws of the universe are defined
back then in physical forces of nature such as gravity. We must then add that time, in
all aspects, is the ultimate law where all beings are subjected to. The daily routine of
a human being is subjected to time. This then leads us to our concern with one of the
most mysterious activities of the mind, the consciousness. When we sleep, it is said
that our consciousness is altered. The soul being not subjected to the universal laws
must be deemed to be always awakened. It does not sleep. In contrast with this
Hume pointed out that we are unconscious during dreamless sleeps. Hume has
some point because even in dreaming, we only remember fragments of it, or
sometimes does not remember anything at all. Such event implies that we are not
fully aware of what was happening which is why nothing is stored in our memory.
However, this is only true if we wake up during the stage of sleep known as the NonRapid-Eye-Movement stage, which is known as where the real sleep takes place.
During this stage brain activity is minimal as suggested by the brain waves during
this stage. But, when an individual who is dreaming is awakened at that very
instance, he or she vividly remembers what he or she was dreaming about. He or
she may be upset because he or she wants to continue and see how it ends. This
implies that when we sleep there are moments that we are conscious. As proven by

science, dreams mostly occur at a stage called Rapid-Eye-Movement wherein the

brain activity is very similar when we are awake. This is implied by the similarity of
brain waves during the said stage and during when an individual is fully alert.

Now the question lies with these two phases of sleep. Are these two stages of
sleep actually phases wherein the soul sleeps and wakes up? If so, the soul is not
exempted from the universal laws because it sleeps causing our consciousness to
drift off for some period of time. Hence Descartes is wrong. But so is Hume who said
that if consciousness can disappear for moments, the soul could also disappear
forever. Its like saying that the soul is the consciousness and vice versa.
Consciousness does not disappear. When we are unconscious, it is not necessary
that our consciousness is absent. Even if we are awake there is unconsciousness.
The mind as theorized by Freud has the conscious, the subconscious, and the
unconscious. Unconsciousness, with regards to sensation and perception as how
Hume used the term is simply the brain in its minimal functioning wherein an
individual is very passive to stimulus.

A good idea to consider would be our nature of seeking happiness or

eudaemonia. Which according to Aristotle is our final cause. St. Thomas and St.
Augustine also believed that humans are bound towards happiness. And if so, this is
just another point to consider to back Descartes on his immortality of the soul. Why?
We have known that the happiness or at least as long as the type of happiness is

concerned, it is true happiness that we are directed to, that which is not found in this
physical realm. If the soul is mortal then why do we need to seek this true happiness
well in fact our life, being and substance as in our case, cease to subsist after death.
We should have just satisfied ourselves during our existence in the physical world if
the soul is only with us during our time in Earth. We must have indulged in more
physical pleasure than finding the Summum Bonum. Thus the fact that we are
directed towards Eudaimonia suggests that the soul is still subsisting after its role of
animating the body. It is the soul that needs Eudaimonia. True happiness is very
pure, it is very abstract and perfect, even humans' intelligence could not explain what
that is. This further proves that Eudaimonia is indeed for the soul for it is the soul that
is capable of perfect ideas as what Plato have pointed out in his theory of Dualism.
These being said, if indeed humans seek for Eudaimonia, then immortality is a
natural phenomenon of the soul.

But then, if the soul is immortal then it does not change, it is what it is from the
beginning, from the time of its creation. Now taking into consideration Aristotle's
hylomorphism and aitiai, it stated that for change to takes place, a minimum
condition or alteration of both material cause and formal cause must take place in
order for change to take place. Assuming that the soul is immortal, as we have
mentioned, then the soul from a deceased person would be the soul to animate the
other person. Since it is the same soul, then the formal aspect of both specie must
also be the same. If so, then this implies that change did not take place, it is just the

material cause (body) that was altered and thus does not meet the minimum
requirement for the event of change. So does this mean that every person that was
animated by the same soul is the same? And if so, this would also mean that as long
as that soul subsists, eternally as we claim, then the person that is connected with
this soul is also immortal - only the body changes, the animator is the same soul that
came from a previous body. If the soul cycle works this way, then does it mean that
logically all humans are immortal in that sense? There are 2 possible explanations to
negate this. This is where mortality of the soul comes in. First would be the mortality
of the soul, if the soul is mortal, then no two bodies animated with a soul will have
the same soul, as compared to the case when the soul is immortal. This would then
suggest that the matter and form of a new born is very distinct, it is a new matter
(body) and a new form (soul). Second would be that of a theory made personally.
This theory is not logically proven nor scientifically proven but are just mere
speculation and predictions on how the soul cycle actually work. What if we assume
that yes, the soul is immortal, but then we might think then this would lead to the
same cycle stated previously that humans are immortal. No, since we are adding a
new element to this. As we have said also earlier, Eudaimonia is for the soul, in this
theory, when the soul departs the body, it is in the process of completing its final
cause, to achieve Eudaimonia.

Eudaimonia for the soul is being reconnected and going back to the Kingdom of
God, as basing on St. Augustine. It is in this reconnection with God that the soul is

cleansed, the sins that it was able to commit are erased from the soul. This is going
against Augustine's Original Sin for he believed that we are not cleansed from the sin
of Adam. But what if the soul is cleansed of the sins that was done by the man but
original sin remains, then this would go in accordance with Augustine. Moving
forward, when the soul is cleansed of sin, a part of the soul is being removed, the
soul does not have trace anymore of the sins of the person it animated. But, if we
thought that only sin is removed then we could say that the moments of the person
not connected to sin still exists. Thus a further explanation is needed here. The
separation of men from the City of God to continue the pleasure of the City of Man
alone is separation from God and thus can be considered a sin, as being sinful is a
state of separation with God. In addition, separation from God is the reason of evil
according to St. Augustine. And if evil persists, we are not pure, we are tainted.
Because of this, during the process of cleansing the soul of its sin, the memories of
the soul in the physical world or City of Man is also erased since this is impure, since
not only does evil exists in the City of Man but the separation from God is a very
selfish desire, the desire that concerns the pleasures of us humans. This could also
be a possible explanation on why the soul does not recall its past memories when it
reanimates another person. Because of this drastic change in the intellect aspect of
the soul, considering that the soul is what brings intellect in humans, we can say that
the soul is changed during the cleansing of sin since a major aspect of the soul,
intellect, which Descartes claims to be one of the characteristic of the soul, was
manipulated. This now could explain that while the soul could be immortal, through

this cleansing process that it undergoes, it could not be possibly the same substance
with that of the uncleansed soul. If the soul is now different and the material aspect
of man also different, we could now break the immortality trend of man thus reverting
man again to being mortal.

Theologically speaking, there is a possibility that the soul is neither mortal nor
immortal. When he dies the soul does not necessarily die with the body but it does
not necessarily follow that it is immortal. It is possible that the soul goes somewhere
to wait for the judgment of God. Eternal life is given to those who are good. This is
when the soul becomes immortal. Hence immortality is to be reaped. For the evil
ones, there is a vagueness. There are passages in the bible wherein it speaks about
the death of the souls of evil. In Ezekiel 18:4 God speaks: Behold, all souls are
Mine; The soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins
shall die. Some accounts in the bible speak of eternal punishment. If the soul is to
die during the judgment, it is not immortal. But on the day of judgment, all souls that
ever lived in a body are present. These would also imply the necessity that the souls
are not as mortal as the body that rots because of its prolonged existence. Hence it
poses the possibility that the soul is neither mortal nor immortal but is something in
between, waiting for an attribution.