Body and soul
The Man is still a Machine.
Today's problem is that Dr Descartes is talking about the division of body and soul, which makes the former little more than a machine controlled by the latter, which is independent of it. The question is that if the body's a mere machine and the soul is independent and immortal, then is there any reason why people could not be killed as freely as animals?
Of course, this would assume that animals don't have a soul or, at best, have lesser souls than ours, which makes them fair game.
When you live a short, miserable life, where Death waits round every corner with Famine, Pestilence and War, perhaps you want some reassurance that there is something beyond death to make the brevity of life seem less of a waste of time. Also, what an odd sort of existence, to be alive so briefly and then spend eternity either strumming a harp on a cloud or having demons prod your arse with pitchforks. The afterlife does seem sadly unproductive, pointless and rather dull.[1]
But the the soul, the human spirit, is merely in the mind. Our sense of self-consciousness seems to lead humans to the belief that there's a dichotomy between our spiritual and corporeal selves. But it seems difficult to sustain such a belief, if it is that the alleged soul is dependent on the body during the lifetime of the body and only released by death. If the two are truly independent, then the soul should be able to pop out for a night on the town, get hammered, and get laid, while the body is at home safe and sound. But it doesn't. The soul merely seems to be a term for certain human attributes such as our self-consciousness and morality which we've elevated to the status of an entity.
I've noted before that morality is independent of divinity since our morals come from the societies in which we live. What may be acceptable behaviour in China is not acceptable elsewhere and vice versa. Similarly, if morality came from the soul and all humans have souls, wouldn't all morals be uniform across the whole of humanity? But like much else when we're born, we don't know it till we learn of it. Babies would happily eat human flesh without demur. Babies would commit mass murder because they are born without a sense of morality. In fact, without morality, babies are potentially very evil and hardly the innocent little darlings we claim they are. Fortunately, the most evil they can do is cry, puke, piss and shit, the toxic little monsters.
The soul would also seem to be a weak source of morality since, if one is necessary for the body to be animate, how would we explain tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others whose morality is entirely contrary to that of the vast majority of humanity.[2] So if there is a soul and the soul is, in part, responsible for morality, it's force is easily overridden.
So, what has been mistaken for the soul? Life, I think. Life is the animating principle without which the body would remain inert. It means that animals would have "souls" just as humans have "souls", since both have life. We cling on to life. Life is precious to us. Nobody gives a second thought about their soul when a bunch of lions is looking to make you a light snack before lunching on antelope. Our first thought it to preserve our own lives and, where necessary, those of others.
Notes.
1. Not all afterlives are quite as dull as the ones Christians would suffer. I can imagine that when Christians arrive in heaven, it takes them a couple of minutes to say, "Is this it? For eternity?" As for Hell, how long does anyone need to be punished to learn their lesson? Or perhaps sinners are a bit thick. "Oh," they say 10,000 years later, "did I do something wrong?" If you like violence, then Valhalla would be quite fun; the Elysian Fields would be quite pleasant, I expect, although all those Greek heroes are probably a bit of a pain.
2. This assumes that most humans are capable of controlling great power without becoming grossly corrupted by it; although I'd expect most people would come to some sort of accommodation with it, being neither corrupted completely by it nor completely unaffected either.
Today's problem is that Dr Descartes is talking about the division of body and soul, which makes the former little more than a machine controlled by the latter, which is independent of it. The question is that if the body's a mere machine and the soul is independent and immortal, then is there any reason why people could not be killed as freely as animals?
Of course, this would assume that animals don't have a soul or, at best, have lesser souls than ours, which makes them fair game.
When you live a short, miserable life, where Death waits round every corner with Famine, Pestilence and War, perhaps you want some reassurance that there is something beyond death to make the brevity of life seem less of a waste of time. Also, what an odd sort of existence, to be alive so briefly and then spend eternity either strumming a harp on a cloud or having demons prod your arse with pitchforks. The afterlife does seem sadly unproductive, pointless and rather dull.[1]
But the the soul, the human spirit, is merely in the mind. Our sense of self-consciousness seems to lead humans to the belief that there's a dichotomy between our spiritual and corporeal selves. But it seems difficult to sustain such a belief, if it is that the alleged soul is dependent on the body during the lifetime of the body and only released by death. If the two are truly independent, then the soul should be able to pop out for a night on the town, get hammered, and get laid, while the body is at home safe and sound. But it doesn't. The soul merely seems to be a term for certain human attributes such as our self-consciousness and morality which we've elevated to the status of an entity.
I've noted before that morality is independent of divinity since our morals come from the societies in which we live. What may be acceptable behaviour in China is not acceptable elsewhere and vice versa. Similarly, if morality came from the soul and all humans have souls, wouldn't all morals be uniform across the whole of humanity? But like much else when we're born, we don't know it till we learn of it. Babies would happily eat human flesh without demur. Babies would commit mass murder because they are born without a sense of morality. In fact, without morality, babies are potentially very evil and hardly the innocent little darlings we claim they are. Fortunately, the most evil they can do is cry, puke, piss and shit, the toxic little monsters.
The soul would also seem to be a weak source of morality since, if one is necessary for the body to be animate, how would we explain tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others whose morality is entirely contrary to that of the vast majority of humanity.[2] So if there is a soul and the soul is, in part, responsible for morality, it's force is easily overridden.
So, what has been mistaken for the soul? Life, I think. Life is the animating principle without which the body would remain inert. It means that animals would have "souls" just as humans have "souls", since both have life. We cling on to life. Life is precious to us. Nobody gives a second thought about their soul when a bunch of lions is looking to make you a light snack before lunching on antelope. Our first thought it to preserve our own lives and, where necessary, those of others.
Notes.
1. Not all afterlives are quite as dull as the ones Christians would suffer. I can imagine that when Christians arrive in heaven, it takes them a couple of minutes to say, "Is this it? For eternity?" As for Hell, how long does anyone need to be punished to learn their lesson? Or perhaps sinners are a bit thick. "Oh," they say 10,000 years later, "did I do something wrong?" If you like violence, then Valhalla would be quite fun; the Elysian Fields would be quite pleasant, I expect, although all those Greek heroes are probably a bit of a pain.
2. This assumes that most humans are capable of controlling great power without becoming grossly corrupted by it; although I'd expect most people would come to some sort of accommodation with it, being neither corrupted completely by it nor completely unaffected either.
Comments