The popular concept of the existence of a “soul,” a person’s personality separate from the body, which survives the body’s death and lives on for eternity, while accepted as axiomatic by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, is not in the Hebrew Bible. The Torah has the Hebrew word nefesh, which means “soul” in Modern Hebrew, but only denotes a person in the Torah. The current idea was taken from ancient pagan cultures. The Greek philosopher Plato was probably the most responsible for influencing popular thinking. He helped mold this Christian, Jewish, and Islamic belief. However, not all people of these faiths accepted the idea, and some religious thinkers took the teachings of Aristotle.
The popular view about the afterlife is enshrined in the post-Hebrew Bible holy books. The New Testament speaks about Jesus going to heaven. The Quran proclaims, “I swear by the day of resurrection.” Jews recite a prayer three times daily, “who caused the dead to come to life.”
This is the popular view. What does Aristotle say?
Like many people today, Aristotle’s teacher, the famous Greek philosopher Plato (428 or 427-348 or 347 BCE), believed that the soul exists independently of the body. The real me, the soul, is clothed in the body, which is not me. It may or may not have existed from the beginning of time, but it will survive for all eternity with the same personality it had when it was joined to the body.
In The Apology, Plato describes his teacher discussing death just before he died. Socrates said there are two possibilities: nothingness after death or “as people say, a change and migration of the soul from this to another place.” Plato seems to believe the second because he also says that people “must bear in mind this one truth, that no evil can come to a good man either in life or after death, and God does not neglect him.” However, there is no certainty that Plato accepted the second possibility because, as Plato wrote in his Republic, it is necessary to teach the masses false ideas, called “noble lies,” to control them from misbehaving and to weaken their worries.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) rejected Plato’s notion that the soul is an independent body. Aristotle contended that the “soul” is part of the body. It is the life force that makes it possible for something to live and think. It is “the cause or source of the living body.” It is “the essential whatness of the body.” In humans, the soul comprises five parts or systems: the nutritional system, the appetitive (desires and passions), senses, locomotion, and thinking. Since they are alive, plants and animals have souls, but not all five parts. According to Aristotle, plants only have the nutritive part of the soul. Animals have four of the five. They lack thinking.
Aristotle stated that the “thinking” part cannot be destroyed. It will continue to exist after the body dies. Older people have difficulty thinking not because their mind deteriorates but because their bodies deteriorate. This is similar to what happens when a person is drunk or sick; the body does not let the mind work.
He agreed that the thinking intellect survives the death of the body. However, it appears from his writing that he felt that this surviving intellect knows nothing about its prior existence.
Did the great Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1138-1204), who accepted many Aristotelian teachings, take this view of the soul? Scholars disagree. Some say “yes,” others “no.” I am convinced it is the former.
Reading this, I imagine that it reminds some readers that they fear dying. So, let me tell you a true story.
One night, when I was twelve years old, I awakened scared stiff. I feared that one day I would die. I thought of rushing into my dad’s bedroom and begging for help. I was sure my dad, Rabbi Dr. Nathan Drazin, was more intelligent than me and could solve my fear. (Later, I found he was continually smarter than me.) But then I thought it would not be nice to awaken him.
So, I tried to solve the problem myself. And I did. I realized that there were two possibilities. One was that after I died, I would live a life of some sort after death if I was worthy of it. Two, there is no afterlife, and after death, I would have no feelings, so why worry? Since that time, I never feared death again.
Later, when I read Pato’s report of his teacher Socrates’ death, I discovered that Socrates said the same thing. In Greece, in 399 BCE, the Athenians forced Socrates to kill himself by eating Hemlock because they disliked his teachings. Before he did so, his disciples asked him if he was afraid to die. He gave them my answer.
This is one of two sayings I especially like about this brilliant scholar, Socrates. Plato reports that an inquiry was once made of the prophets at Delphi who was the most intelligent man alive. The response was Socrates because he realized that no human could know anything fully.
I did not know this until I was twenty when I read what Plato wrote.
Aristotle felt that the “soul” is the life force of thr body. He said the “thinking” part, the mind or intellect, cannot be destroyed. It will continue to exist. However Aristotle rejected metempsychosis, saying, “as if it were possible for any chance soul to enter into any chance body”.
I understand that Aristotle did not think there is a separate item called soul. He thoght that a part of a human’s body is intelligence. It continues living after the body dies – because nothing on earth disappears entirely. However he is unclear as to what happens to it after the body’s death.
Yes, being brilliant, Aristotle did not accept what was not logical.
I hope we go to a place called heaven. But all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence is the only conceivable idea we can have of another life, and the continuance of that consciousness is immortality. Although we do not know what becomes of our minds, we agree that it must continue living after the body dies, because, as you said, nothing on earth disappears entirely.
Although Aristotle was unclear about what happens after, he was clear that whatever happens, it is not metempsychosis, “as if it were possible for any chance soul to enter into any chance body.”
We can only hope.
Dear Rabbi Israel Drazin ! My thoughts are the following: from the perspective of available texts, the concern isn’t necessarily about how one might feel after death, but more about the spiritual implications of our actions in this life. They speak to the importance of our deeds, righteousness, humility and piety during our lifetime and how they affect our spiritual growth and even our honor after death. In addition, they hint at the continuation of the soul’s journey and the potential for ongoing spiritual elevation in the afterlife. The idea is not to worry about death, but to live a virtuous life so that we may depart from this world “in peace.” Moreover, our available texts suggest that aspects of our spiritual endeavors, like the Torah study, continue in the World to Come. So, it’s not about worrying over death, but about embracing life and living it in a righteous and moral way. Best: stephen
Dear Stephen, I did not mean to suggest that Judaism causes people to fear dying. I meant that religion aside, many people, like me at age 12, fear death. Religion, as you point out correctly, gives a reason why one should not be afraid. You described the teaching correctly. I was not addressing this. I was, as I said, addressing the fear many people of all ages have. And I gave the solution I came to, unrelated to the traditional one, but related to Socrates.
Aristotle and Maimonides felt that nothing disappears from the world. It only changes its shape. It transforms into something else. What becomes of our minds? Perhaps it gets absorbed by the active intellect. Another possibility is that it remains somewhere locally.
There is evidence that the consciousness of existence is not dependent on the same form or the same matter in the writings of the deists.
“The most beautiful parts of the creation to our eye are the winged insects, and they are not so originally. They acquire that form and that inimitable brilliancy by progressive changes. The slow and creeping caterpillar worm of today, passes in a few days to a torpid figure, and a state resembling death; and in the next change comes forth in all the miniature magnificence of life, a splendid butterfly. No resemblance of the former creature remains; everything is changed; all his powers are new, and life is to him another thing. We cannot conceive that the consciousness of existence is not the same in this state of the animal as before; why then must I believe that the resurrection of the same body is necessary to continue to me the consciousness of existence hereafter?
In the former part of The Age of Reason. I have called the creation the true and only real word of God; and this instance, or this text, in the book of creation, not only shows to us that this thing may be so, but that it is so; and that the belief of a future state is a rational belief, founded upon facts visible in the creation: for it is not more difficult to believe that we shall exist hereafter in a better state and form than at present, than that a worm should become a butterfly, and quit the dunghill for the atmosphere, if we did not know it as a fact.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
This is possible. But as Sacrates realized and was praised for this understanding, we do not know the full truth.
Yes. I am like Sacrates. We do not know what becomes of our minds. We cannot know if heaven exists or if we go hopping about from snake to wasp to tree. But all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence is the only idea we can have of another life.
I agree if we recognize that Socrates would say your last statement is uncertain.
I think the belief of a future state is a rational belief, founded upon visible facts in nature. The fact that caterpillars transform into butterflies shows that consciousness is not dependent on the same form or matter. Socrates lived before this observation was made. I like to think that we can be almost certain.
You may be right. Let’s hope so. I am uncetain.
I agree with Aristotle. I also think the soul has five parts and, I am convinced that the mind or intellect survives. I also think that since they are alive, plants and animals have souls, but not all five parts. Aristotle stated that the “thinking” part cannot be destroyed. It will continue to exist.
Spinoza agreed. He said, “The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but there remains of it something which is eternal… Yet it is not possible that we should remember that we existed before our body, for our body can bear no trace of such existence, neither can eternity be defined in terms of time, or have any relation to time. But, notwithstanding, we feel and know that we are eternal… Thus, although we do not remember that we existed before the body, yet we feel that our mind, in so far as it involves the essence of the body, under the form of eternity, is eternal.”
“Older people have difficulty thinking not because their mind deteriorates but because their bodies deteriorate.” I think this is what is happening to Joe Biden. His mind has not deteriorated but his body has and this unfortunately affects his thinking.
I agree with you that there are two possibilities. Either we continue to exist or we have no feelings.
Epicurus said not to fear death since “death is nothing to us; while we are here, death is not, and when death is here, we are not.”
I am very impressed that you said what Socrates and Epicurus said at twelve years old! You are still brilliant.
Thanks for the compliment Turk.