The Dark Night of the Soul The Dark Night of the Soul

What If This Storm Ends?What If This Storm Ends?

FeracoFeraco

Myth to Science FictionMyth to Science Fiction

10 January 201210 January 2012

When asking about the soul’s nature, it helps to When asking about the soul’s nature, it helps to start with basic questions… something like “Where is start with basic questions… something like “Where is it?” it?”

Is it in your head? Heart? Pinky? Is it in your head? Heart? Pinky? Clearly, the soul isn’t something you can grab Clearly, the soul isn’t something you can grab

and rip out, Mortal Kombat-style. and rip out, Mortal Kombat-style. But how can we be sure it exists if we can’t find But how can we be sure it exists if we can’t find

it? it? To try solving this puzzle ourselves, we need to To try solving this puzzle ourselves, we need to

look at what constitutes a human being. look at what constitutes a human being. Our first school of thought today is Our first school of thought today is MonismMonism, ,

which holds that everything is made out of the same which holds that everything is made out of the same stuff – no blending between anything. stuff – no blending between anything.

This “stuff” could be matter, could be energy, This “stuff” could be matter, could be energy, could be thought – but whatever we’re made of is could be thought – but whatever we’re made of is uniform. uniform.

In other words, there’s no separation between In other words, there’s no separation between the “spiritual” and the “physical” – Monists believe the “spiritual” and the “physical” – Monists believe that everything is built from the same blocks. that everything is built from the same blocks.

Therefore, humans are either going to be all Therefore, humans are either going to be all spiritual “stuff” or all physical “stuff.”spiritual “stuff” or all physical “stuff.”

There are two subsets of thought that, There are two subsets of thought that, when combined, form the Monist school. when combined, form the Monist school.

Think of a coin representing the Monist Think of a coin representing the Monist spectrum, with each subset representing one spectrum, with each subset representing one of its faces.of its faces.

We’ll assign “heads” to the We’ll assign “heads” to the MaterialistsMaterialists, , who believed that who believed that everythingeverything is physical – the is physical – the energy/matter continuum, essentially. energy/matter continuum, essentially.

In this case, “thought” would not be In this case, “thought” would not be something that’s “intangible” – it’s a real, something that’s “intangible” – it’s a real, tangible electrical signal, carried from tangible electrical signal, carried from physical neuron to physical neuron. physical neuron to physical neuron.

Since nothing is intangible – and the soul Since nothing is intangible – and the soul would seem to be – the Materialists argue we would seem to be – the Materialists argue we don’t have them. don’t have them.

There’s some disagreement among There’s some disagreement among Materialists, however, on what constitutes a Materialists, however, on what constitutes a human being. human being.

We’ll only concentrate on two We’ll only concentrate on two sub-sub-subsets subsets in the interest of time. in the interest of time.

Eliminative MaterialistsEliminative Materialists take a hard line: take a hard line: “thought” doesn’t exist, nor does sensation. “thought” doesn’t exist, nor does sensation.

Everything is just an electrical event in your Everything is just an electrical event in your brain, and all events are made of the same brain, and all events are made of the same “stuff”: nothing that happens brain-wise is “stuff”: nothing that happens brain-wise is distinct. distinct.

Reductive MaterialistsReductive Materialists are gentler – they are gentler – they accept thought exists – but they also reduce it to accept thought exists – but they also reduce it to an electric event. an electric event.

In any event, all Materialists basically argue In any event, all Materialists basically argue that we’re just “stuff,” and there’s no mysterious that we’re just “stuff,” and there’s no mysterious or mystical “soul” in us because we’re uniform or mystical “soul” in us because we’re uniform and thus indivisible. and thus indivisible.

If Materialist Monists (say that five If Materialist Monists (say that five times fast!) have the right idea – that times fast!) have the right idea – that we’re uniform blocks of “stuff” – we can’t we’re uniform blocks of “stuff” – we can’t be divided into bodies and souls. be divided into bodies and souls.

Since we can’t be divided, we can’t Since we can’t be divided, we can’t release anything separate when we die. release anything separate when we die.

(Also, if a soul’s not put in at birth, a (Also, if a soul’s not put in at birth, a soul’s not leaving when we die.) soul’s not leaving when we die.)

This, of course, doesn’t worry the This, of course, doesn’t worry the Monists much: as William Hazlitt put it, Monists much: as William Hazlitt put it, “there was a time when we were not: this “there was a time when we were not: this gives us no concern – why then should it gives us no concern – why then should it trouble us that a time will come when we trouble us that a time will come when we shall cease to be?” shall cease to be?”

Since we assigned “heads” to Since we assigned “heads” to the Materialists, we’ll assign “tails” the Materialists, we’ll assign “tails” to the to the IdealistsIdealists, who believed that , who believed that the only things that exist are minds the only things that exist are minds and ideas; anything that seems and ideas; anything that seems physical instead is simply a mental physical instead is simply a mental projection. projection.

In other words, we’ll move from In other words, we’ll move from being nothing but physical forms in being nothing but physical forms in the Materialists’ eyes to nothing the Materialists’ eyes to nothing butbut souls now. souls now.

This body is not a body; my eyes This body is not a body; my eyes aren’t being used; it’s all in my aren’t being used; it’s all in my head. head.

With the Materialists and Idealists With the Materialists and Idealists representing opposing sides of a coin, it stands representing opposing sides of a coin, it stands to reason that there’s a school that grabs the to reason that there’s a school that grabs the whole coin. whole coin.

That’s the That’s the DualistDualist school. school. They hold that both bodies (physical They hold that both bodies (physical

“stuff”) and souls (mental/spiritual “stuff”) can “stuff”) and souls (mental/spiritual “stuff”) can exist, and account for our inability to sense the exist, and account for our inability to sense the soul by proposing what amounts to a multi-plane soul by proposing what amounts to a multi-plane system. system.

Our bodies exist in this reality/plane of Our bodies exist in this reality/plane of existence, while our souls exist in another one – existence, while our souls exist in another one – one that’s perfectly laid over our own and runs at one that’s perfectly laid over our own and runs at exactly the same speed. exactly the same speed.

We’re linked together in time, if not in We’re linked together in time, if not in physical space, and we access what we can’t see physical space, and we access what we can’t see like an antenna that receives and processes an like an antenna that receives and processes an external signal. external signal.

If you like the concept of human If you like the concept of human beings as combinations – a fusion of body beings as combinations – a fusion of body and soul – you’re also accepting the idea and soul – you’re also accepting the idea of a “double reality” (the seen and of a “double reality” (the seen and unseen). unseen).

For that matter, you might buy into For that matter, you might buy into “double reality” without being a Dualist at “double reality” without being a Dualist at heart.heart.

You can propose that a human being You can propose that a human being is one thing (not body and soul is one thing (not body and soul components, but one whole object), then components, but one whole object), then assert that some “omni force” – a god or assert that some “omni force” – a god or gods – operates beyond your range of gods – operates beyond your range of sensory perception. sensory perception.

It affects your life, it can help you, it It affects your life, it can help you, it can sense you – but you can’t see it.can sense you – but you can’t see it.

In any case, each school of thought seeks to In any case, each school of thought seeks to address similar concerns. address similar concerns.

Is there more to man than what can be sensed? Is there more to man than what can be sensed? If there isn’t, how did we even conceive of a If there isn’t, how did we even conceive of a

“soul”? “soul”? (It’s not like anyone believes they have “secret (It’s not like anyone believes they have “secret

physical” components.) physical” components.) If there is, which part is more important – body or If there is, which part is more important – body or

soul? soul? Which part lives your life? Which part lives your life? Is what goes on in my head – my consciousness Is what goes on in my head – my consciousness

and thoughts – different from my soul? and thoughts – different from my soul? (Descartes said no – he felt that the mind and (Descartes said no – he felt that the mind and

spirit combined to form the “theatre of consciousness spirit combined to form the “theatre of consciousness and conscious experience.”) and conscious experience.”)

Oddly enough, these questions go to the heart of Oddly enough, these questions go to the heart of our earlier explorations of choice and morality. our earlier explorations of choice and morality.

If we’re just programmed by cells and chemistry, If we’re just programmed by cells and chemistry, are our “infinite possibilities” actually limited – at a sub-are our “infinite possibilities” actually limited – at a sub-molecular level? molecular level?

(It’s the same question we considered when we (It’s the same question we considered when we introduced the “divinely guided” artist, except here introduced the “divinely guided” artist, except here biology, not divinity, provides the guidance.) biology, not divinity, provides the guidance.)

As you can imagine, Monists and Dualists As you can imagine, Monists and Dualists can’t reach common ground while considering can’t reach common ground while considering these matters (mainly due to the Monists’ these matters (mainly due to the Monists’ perspective), and they don’t take too kindly to each perspective), and they don’t take too kindly to each other. other.

The Monists believe that we are complex – but The Monists believe that we are complex – but uniform – beings, with our uniformity eliminating uniform – beings, with our uniformity eliminating the possibility that we possess souls. the possibility that we possess souls.

The Dualists believe the opposite – that we’re The Dualists believe the opposite – that we’re divided at a metaphysical level, and that there’s divided at a metaphysical level, and that there’s something to us that we aren’t seeing. something to us that we aren’t seeing.

But even if we do have souls – if we are living But even if we do have souls – if we are living a Dualist existence – the Hazlitt quote is still worth a Dualist existence – the Hazlitt quote is still worth pondering. pondering.

After all, none of us can remember a time After all, none of us can remember a time before our births. before our births.

What was our soul doing before then? What was our soul doing before then? Where does the river begin? Where does the river begin? Where do we go after – if there’s anywhere to Where do we go after – if there’s anywhere to

go?go? And where does the river end? And where does the river end?

Moreover, if one does have a soul, one has to Moreover, if one does have a soul, one has to wonder whether it can be changed (consciously or wonder whether it can be changed (consciously or unconsciously), damaged, etc. unconsciously), damaged, etc.

At a minimum, if the soul can’t be changed, At a minimum, if the soul can’t be changed, character and personality certainly can; this would character and personality certainly can; this would indicate that soul and character are separate. indicate that soul and character are separate.

If the soul can’t be changed, is it more If the soul can’t be changed, is it more important than our character – our self-constructed important than our character – our self-constructed personas, the ones that we shift in accordance with personas, the ones that we shift in accordance with the experiences and knowledge we gain throughout the experiences and knowledge we gain throughout our lives? our lives?

Which one governs our behavior – soul or Which one governs our behavior – soul or character? character?

And if souls can’t be changed, why bother And if souls can’t be changed, why bother being good? being good?

Your soul’s going to be the same anyway. Your soul’s going to be the same anyway. Is it a matter of fearing the karmic Is it a matter of fearing the karmic

consequences? consequences? Are we afraid something bad will happen to Are we afraid something bad will happen to

our souls after we die regardless of whether the our souls after we die regardless of whether the soul was “responsible”? soul was “responsible”?

In In What is Morality?, What is Morality?, I made the same point I made the same point about a dozen times: our morals provide a about a dozen times: our morals provide a scaffold in order to stop us from behaving scaffold in order to stop us from behaving (naturally) badly. (naturally) badly.

What would have motivated that awful What would have motivated that awful “natural” behavior, however? “natural” behavior, however?

Our souls? Our souls? If not, why do we believe our soul’s If not, why do we believe our soul’s

eventual fate depends on what we do here? eventual fate depends on what we do here? How is it any more fair to punish a soul for How is it any more fair to punish a soul for

something it couldn’t control than it would be to something it couldn’t control than it would be to punish someone who didn’t mean to commit a punish someone who didn’t mean to commit a crime? crime?

And if there’s some meaning to our lives at And if there’s some meaning to our lives at the time we die, will we have been defined by the time we die, will we have been defined by who we are…or what we’ve done? who we are…or what we’ve done?

Jesse Lacey, Brand New’s lead vocalist, once Jesse Lacey, Brand New’s lead vocalist, once sang, “…I’m not scared to die / But I’m a little bit sang, “…I’m not scared to die / But I’m a little bit scared of what comes after / Do I get the gold scared of what comes after / Do I get the gold chariot? / Do I float through the ceiling? / Do I chariot? / Do I float through the ceiling? / Do I divide and fall apart?”divide and fall apart?”

William Ernest Hocking wryly notes that William Ernest Hocking wryly notes that “man is the only animal that contemplates death, “man is the only animal that contemplates death, and also the only animal that shows any sign of and also the only animal that shows any sign of doubt of its finality.” doubt of its finality.”

Numerous cultures and theologies provide Numerous cultures and theologies provide different explanations for what death actually is. different explanations for what death actually is.

(One wonders why we don’t have a “Unified (One wonders why we don’t have a “Unified Theory of Death.”) Theory of Death.”)

However, it’s useful to begin with our old However, it’s useful to begin with our old logic, the Laws of the Excluded Middle and logic, the Laws of the Excluded Middle and Noncontradiction: either something lies beyond Noncontradiction: either something lies beyond death – regardless of what it is – or nothing does. death – regardless of what it is – or nothing does.

For the sake of our exploration today, we’ll For the sake of our exploration today, we’ll consider both.consider both.

Scientifically speaking, death Scientifically speaking, death represents the end of corporeal existence. represents the end of corporeal existence.

(“Corporeal” = “Physical” – “Corpus” (“Corporeal” = “Physical” – “Corpus” Body Body Corpse.) Corpse.)

It seems like such a simple deal, and It seems like such a simple deal, and to a Materialist, it is – but to others, not to a Materialist, it is – but to others, not so much. so much.

Remember, if you’re a Materialist, Remember, if you’re a Materialist, you don’t believe in a division between you don’t believe in a division between realms – you think this is it. realms – you think this is it.

This doesn’t mean that a Dualist can’t This doesn’t mean that a Dualist can’t believe this is it; it’s just that dualism is a believe this is it; it’s just that dualism is a prerequisite belief if one wants to believe prerequisite belief if one wants to believe in some sort of afterlife or reincarnation. in some sort of afterlife or reincarnation.

As you might expect, a Monist doesn’t think As you might expect, a Monist doesn’t think anything happens after death – or happened anything happens after death – or happened before life. before life.

This works for Idealists (who believe we’re This works for Idealists (who believe we’re nothing but mental energy and projections), as nothing but mental energy and projections), as well as for Materialists. well as for Materialists.

The Idealists, after all, recognize that death The Idealists, after all, recognize that death “happens,” even if they don’t believe a physical “happens,” even if they don’t believe a physical body is actually expiring. body is actually expiring.

Instead, they simply assume death Instead, they simply assume death represents the fundamental ending of a represents the fundamental ending of a consciousness.consciousness.

A Dualist, on the other hand, operates A Dualist, on the other hand, operates under the principle that there’s more to us than under the principle that there’s more to us than meets the eye. meets the eye.

Again, you don’t have to believe in an Again, you don’t have to believe in an afterlife if you’re a Dualist, but a belief in some afterlife if you’re a Dualist, but a belief in some state of being that persists after death requires state of being that persists after death requires you to assume that humans are more than sacks you to assume that humans are more than sacks of meat and bones. of meat and bones.

If you’re a Monist, can you fear If you’re a Monist, can you fear death? death?

Sure – there’s a push and pull Sure – there’s a push and pull between accepting what you see as the between accepting what you see as the natural necessity of death and facing the natural necessity of death and facing the overwhelming terror of oblivion. overwhelming terror of oblivion.

Plus, there’s always that final Plus, there’s always that final possibility: what if you’re wrong? possibility: what if you’re wrong?

(Would this be a good or bad thing? If (Would this be a good or bad thing? If you’re a Monist, I suppose it depends.) you’re a Monist, I suppose it depends.)

If you’re a Dualist, should you fear If you’re a Dualist, should you fear death? death?

Sure – what if Sure – what if you’reyou’re wrong? wrong? Plus, who’s to say you lived well Plus, who’s to say you lived well

enough to enjoy a second life even if enough to enjoy a second life even if you’re a Dualist? you’re a Dualist?

Imminent death tends to elicit a number of Imminent death tends to elicit a number of different fearful reactions from people. different fearful reactions from people.

We may fear that, as I alluded to before, We may fear that, as I alluded to before, something we did in life will come back to haunt something we did in life will come back to haunt us. us.

Others may fear that nothing we do, for Others may fear that nothing we do, for good or ill, will impact our fate after death. good or ill, will impact our fate after death.

Still others fear death because it is a Still others fear death because it is a mystery, and our minds respond oddly to mystery, and our minds respond oddly to perceived dangers that aren’t fully understood. perceived dangers that aren’t fully understood.

We may fear that the end will involve We may fear that the end will involve suffering, or that nothing awaits us on the other suffering, or that nothing awaits us on the other side. side.

But our greatest fear may also be the But our greatest fear may also be the simplest: the possibility that our deeply-held simplest: the possibility that our deeply-held beliefs about the end are, in fact, wrong – and beliefs about the end are, in fact, wrong – and that something else, something unanticipated, that something else, something unanticipated, will happen instead. will happen instead.

The great philosopher Plato took a physically-The great philosopher Plato took a physically-oriented approach to the study of death. oriented approach to the study of death.

He argued physical objects don’t just stop He argued physical objects don’t just stop existing. existing.

If you want to “kill” a chair, what do you do? If you want to “kill” a chair, what do you do? Breaking it up just separates it into its Breaking it up just separates it into its

components, and even burning it leaves ashes.components, and even burning it leaves ashes. The chair’s been transformed into something The chair’s been transformed into something

else, but not eradicated from existence; whatever you else, but not eradicated from existence; whatever you started with remains. started with remains.

The same thing holds true for a statue – if it The same thing holds true for a statue – if it falls over, it breaks into little shards, but the stone falls over, it breaks into little shards, but the stone remains. remains.

This, Plato asserted, is how things get This, Plato asserted, is how things get destroyed in our world – they break down into destroyed in our world – they break down into components, but they aren’t eradicated or erased. components, but they aren’t eradicated or erased.

Plato, a Dualist, then went on to argue that Plato, a Dualist, then went on to argue that since the soul is not substance, it cannot be broken since the soul is not substance, it cannot be broken down into parts – and since it can’t be broken down, it down into parts – and since it can’t be broken down, it cannot be destroyed. cannot be destroyed.

Plato’s thought process may hold true Plato’s thought process may hold true for physical things – but is everything in for physical things – but is everything in this world physical? this world physical?

This is the sort of question that This is the sort of question that makes a Materialist angry, as one would makes a Materialist angry, as one would insist that everything is physical, and that insist that everything is physical, and that it therefore makes no sense for there to it therefore makes no sense for there to be this mysterious thing composed of be this mysterious thing composed of something unknowable beyond sensation. something unknowable beyond sensation.

If you’re not a materialist, however, If you’re not a materialist, however, you acknowledge that there are a variety you acknowledge that there are a variety of different “substances” in the world. of different “substances” in the world.

Is the beam from my laser pointer Is the beam from my laser pointer made from the same “stuff” as the grass made from the same “stuff” as the grass on the softball field? on the softball field?

However, things do exist that stop existing. However, things do exist that stop existing. Where does light go when you shut off its Where does light go when you shut off its

source? source? Possibly nowhere – possibly everywhere. Possibly nowhere – possibly everywhere. If I play a note on the piano, however, does If I play a note on the piano, however, does

it play forever? it play forever? What if I destroy the piano? What if I destroy the piano? Can the note live on without its host – its Can the note live on without its host – its

source? source? How does Plato know that the soul isn’t How does Plato know that the soul isn’t

made of something as transitory as a musical made of something as transitory as a musical note – or a physical body? note – or a physical body?

Then again, if the soul isn’t meant to Then again, if the soul isn’t meant to endure forever, what’s the point of having one? endure forever, what’s the point of having one?

With death – as with many other things – With death – as with many other things – humanity’s questions just lead to more humanity’s questions just lead to more questions.questions.

We often wonder about the meaning We often wonder about the meaning of life in the context of the meaning of of life in the context of the meaning of death. death.

If there’s no “beyond,” many wonder, If there’s no “beyond,” many wonder, is there any point to the “here and now”? is there any point to the “here and now”?

I would argue that the lack of a I would argue that the lack of a “beyond” would make the good we “beyond” would make the good we perform in this life even more important; perform in this life even more important; if this is all we get, why not make it as if this is all we get, why not make it as wonderful for everyone as possible? wonderful for everyone as possible?

William Penn phrases it better than William Penn phrases it better than me: “I expect to pass through life but me: “I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore, there be any kindness I once. If therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do to can show, or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now, and not any fellow being, let me do it now, and not defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again.” way again.”

What if there’s nothing after this? What if there’s nothing after this?

How would our lives in this “plane” How would our lives in this “plane” (using the Dualist system) change if (using the Dualist system) change if nothing lies beyond? nothing lies beyond?

Is Penn’s philosophy best? Is Penn’s philosophy best?

Should we instead simply throw Should we instead simply throw morality out the window and take what we morality out the window and take what we want while we can? want while we can?

Does the mystery surrounding death Does the mystery surrounding death actually help us live better lives? actually help us live better lives?

(It depends on your view regarding (It depends on your view regarding fear, I suppose – is it a positive or fear, I suppose – is it a positive or negative force?) negative force?)

Many theologies and cultures account Many theologies and cultures account for some sort of continued existence. for some sort of continued existence.

One wonders if this shared tendency One wonders if this shared tendency towards a reverence for an “afterlife” is towards a reverence for an “afterlife” is meaningful in and of itself, or if it merely meaningful in and of itself, or if it merely reveals something interesting about the reveals something interesting about the human character – whatever that human character – whatever that interesting thing may be. interesting thing may be.

We have people who claim to have We have people who claim to have been contacted from beyond, or to have been contacted from beyond, or to have come back from the brink of death. come back from the brink of death.

In some cases, people insist that they In some cases, people insist that they remember previous lives.remember previous lives.

But in any event, the mystery surrounding But in any event, the mystery surrounding death – the sheer enormity of all that we don’t death – the sheer enormity of all that we don’t know – isn’t necessarily a prescription for know – isn’t necessarily a prescription for negative possibilities. negative possibilities.

After all, if we don’t know whether we After all, if we don’t know whether we continue beyond our corporeal end, we don’t continue beyond our corporeal end, we don’t know that we know that we can’tcan’t continue. continue.

Perhaps that’s part of the meanings of both Perhaps that’s part of the meanings of both life and death: that without definite knowledge, life and death: that without definite knowledge, all doors remain open to us, and we have an all doors remain open to us, and we have an opportunity to explore the infinite possibilities of opportunity to explore the infinite possibilities of existence – and, in turn, the infinite possibility existence – and, in turn, the infinite possibility for discovery, both of new answers and new for discovery, both of new answers and new questions, a billion targets at which to fling the questions, a billion targets at which to fling the arrows of our selves…or souls.arrows of our selves…or souls.

We just have to hope we lived well enough We just have to hope we lived well enough to make the adventure worth taking.to make the adventure worth taking.