'Does it make sense to believe in life after death? Essay\r'

'In this es rate I will be arguing that you can intimately make no sniff out to believe in behavior before and aft(prenominal) death and that on that point is no humanly logical mood of proving every side of the argument.\r\nPlato acts on the words of his teacher, Socrates, and how he considered the someone to be separate from the soundbox only if conjugated until death. He says that the consciousness influences how we be go and tries to sway us from bodily desires. He says that the individual moves from one remains to another when death occurs and to be born into concomitant bo conk outs. This is a good indication from Plato to show sprightliness aft(prenominal) death because he says the sprightliness of the soul is unending the like an infinite line or a circle.\r\nPlato state that the soul is made up from three parts: the Logos, which is the mind and allows logic to prevail. Thymos is feeling and drives us to do heroic acts of bravery and courage. eros equates t o the appetite that drives humankind to seek out its basic bodily needs. There is no scientific way of proving life after death with this theory is condemn and no way of proving it incorrect so it would be false to say that Plato’s theory is maltreat because it made sense for Plato because they were his ethics, it would be bad to say that someone’s ethics were wrong because they aren’t like yours.\r\nAristotle’s view however is quite an similar in the characteristics but the concept of an everlasting soul to him makes no sense because he believed in the soul being created at birth and death at death. This doesn’t correspond with Plato because he utter that the souls come from the Forms (which is space-less and timeless) so the soul must alike last forever. Aristotle believed that the soul wasn’t made from visible tissue but of powers or skill, so then pointless talk about separation from the body because it just wasn’t logica l. The flaw in this educational activity is that it is impossible to connect meta-physics with logic so thither is no way to measure, see, touch or well-educated what the answer is.\r\nThomas Aquinas once give tongue to that the soul has the appetite for knowledge because he said, â€Å"since the understanding soul is capable of knowing all square things, and since in order to know a substantive thing there must be no material thing within it, the soul was definitely not connected and that it was an individual spiritual union and that it could survive on its own”. Aquinas said that the soul is subsistant and therefore can’t die with the body and cant be born with it. This is like saying the soul doesn’t even last in this form of life properly and provided exists partly with your body and outside it.\r\nJohn rube, a 20th century philosopher said that life after death is no where near provable but he said that a cerebral psyche would be able to accept it. John Hick discussed a theory he had that when you die, your separated soul and body will resurrect and be re-united in a new and glorified form. The example he uses is that he is giving a lecture in London at 2:00pm and died at that pack moment, his living tissue and soul were transported to New York in a new and glorified form at 2:00.0000001pm (London time) giving the contain same idiom as he was in London. Once once again there is no rational way of rationalizeing life before and after death because the soul isn’t a rational thing.\r\nA philosopher, Derek Parfit created a scenario where in the future and teleportation device was created to transport a mortal from one place to another without any material movement from the mortal or anyone or anything nigh that person. The teleportation device copied your living tissue and you’re desoxyribonucleic acid and even your thoughts and memories. Once the copying stage is complete, the elevator car will disin tegrate your body and a form at the receiving end will create an exact replica of you with everything perfectly the same (a clone).\r\nIf you had done this cytosine times and then one time it didn’t work to plan and it would take 30 legal proceeding to incinerate you, you would see an exact replica of you at the other teleportation receiver. Which one are you another person would ask, but the answer would be neither of them because the real person would be the very first incinerated person because only clones were created afterwards. I think this is one of the or so valid arguments because he uses knowledge and common sense in his story but doesn’t explain where the soul went.\r\nI think that there is no logical way of devising sense of life after death because to have sense, you must have proof and because there is no proof of and sides of the arguments aren’t logical there is no way of making sense of them. I think that it is still rational be open to the concept of life after death.\r\n'