Q&A: Survival of the Soul
Survival of the Soul
Question
Hello Rabbi, and happy holiday!
It is accepted in your writings that since there is duality, there is some probability to the claim that the soul continues to exist after death. One can feel and see the connection that has formed between dualism and the survival of the soul.
And here the questioner asks: is it equally reasonable to claim that the duality of the mental and the physical exists only when both exist—that is, only when the physical and the mental are together do they have existence. Even though the mental is not physical, one could argue that it exists only together with the existence of the physical, and is lost when it stops interacting with the physical. One could also argue for a reasonable assumption for this—namely, that I did not feel the existence of the mental before the physical. That is, as far as I could tell, there was nothing before I was born, and the connection between the physical and the mental came into being only after my formation. If so, then it would be reasonable to claim that the mental will not exist after death, just as it did not exist before life.
Therefore, if it is reasonable to argue this, then at the very least this assumption should offset the probability of the connection between dualism and the survival of the soul. And the answer regarding the survival of the soul should be silence, rather than the probability that it will remain.
Thank you very much!
Answer
This is a pointless discussion. You can argue anything. I wrote what seems reasonable to me, and everyone can decide for themselves. I’ll only say that your claim that you did not feel anything before life is not something you can know. The “you” that exists now senses through its senses and its body. If the soul passes from the world together with the body, then there is no logic in assuming these are two different things.
Discussion on Answer
Adding: the logic for nevertheless assuming that these are two different things is because of libertarianism, which is not inherently tied to the concept of the survival of the soul.
Correction to the last line of the summary: that the mental is not subject*** to the laws of physics.
It sounds, looks, and feels like my speculations are getting nowhere.
I’ll ask the Rabbi another question, but one related to the topic, that came up following a discussion with friends (determinists): is there a “mental” dimension in an animal the way there is in a human being? (There are practical implications for body-soul duality in an animal, and for the probability of survival of the soul. They argued that animals have it too—so then what is unique about a human?)
Thank you very much!
I tend to think that an animal also has a soul (the kabbalists say that it does not have spirit and higher soul, but it does have a basic soul). But apparently it has no free choice, and its intellect is quite limited. It is doubtful whether it has consciousness, and it probably is not on the level that we have.
Thank you very much for the response.
Indeed, this is a pointless discussion from a practical standpoint (at least for me). But still, we may have fulfilled our practical obligation—we have not fulfilled our intellectual obligation of plausibility… 😉
My question is: do you think it is reasonable to argue that the state before life indicates the state after it? That just as I did not exist in a conscious mental form before life, so too I will not exist that way afterward? According to what you wrote, “the fact that you did not feel before life is not something you can know”—that is, in your view, even if one argues for the survival of the soul—that the soul will exist after life—does the survival of the soul, in your opinion, mean that this will be in an unconscious form like the state before life?
The claim that the mental—which is something not subject to the laws of physics—exists, is an assumption whose reason is libertarianism. The probability that it exists only when it is interacting with the physical is because if it had existed before the physical, I should have been able to feel or sense it.
You wrote, “If the soul passes from the world together with the body, then there is no logic in assuming these are two different things.” And here I ask—why? Logic says that I should have sensed the mental before life, just as I am supposed to sense the mental after life. If that did not happen, then there is some reason to think that it is “created” (in a way that cannot be understood scientifically), exists overlapping with the physical, and is lost when its dependence on the physical ends. —
To sum it up: why is it not reasonable in your opinion to say that the beginning indicates the end? That the mental does not overlap with the laws of physics, and it is created in a way that cannot be understood scientifically, overlapping with the physical, and so too its end will coincide with the physical. ?
Thank you very much.