Anthony objects that where one was born is a matter of biology and circumstance. Well, if it is a necessary or logical truth that the referent of 'I' or 'myself' is identical with my body, then of course. But suppose it isn't – and I can't see any reason why it should be. Suppose, for example, that reincarnation is possible. That means that I, me, myself could be re-born after my bodily death into a different body, and some indeterminate future point in time. Then biology could not explain why I was reborn with that particular body, in that particular place, at that particular time. Obviously biology would explain why that body had the parents it happened to have, and why it had the particular DNA it had. But biology could not explain why I, the person I am referring to now by the personal pronoun 'I', was reborn in that body.
Contra: perhaps it isn't logically possible, on account of the principle of sufficient reason. The principle says that there must always be a reason why something happens one way rather than another. But there is no conceivable reason why I should be reborn in one body rather than another. To be sure, there are religious views about karma that attempt to give reasons for a particular kind of rebirth. But these are hardly scientific, i.e. as far as I know they are not based in unassailable principles known per se and aided by logic.
Reply: But then we are back to the original question: if there is no reason to explain why anyone should be reborn - i.e. born again – in one body rather than another, there is no reason to explain why anyone is born – i.e. born the first time – in one body rather than another. The principle of sufficient reason does not, on its own, establish that reincarnation is logically impossible.
6 comments:
>> Anthony objects that where one was born is a matter of biology and circumstance. Well, if it is a necessary or logical truth that the referent of 'I' or 'myself' is identical with my body, then of course.
Well, I am not saying that "I" or "myself" is identical with your body. I am saying that your body, as well as your consciousness, is an aspect of you.
>> Suppose, for example, that reincarnation is possible.
So, beg the question?
>> The principle of sufficient reason does not, on its own, establish that reincarnation is logically impossible.
Certainly not!
Among other problems, "There is some textual evidence that suggests that only contingent truths are in the domain of ‘everything’ so that the PSR should be understood as saying that there is a sufficient reason for every contingent truth." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/)
A better way to describe the problem with theories of reincarnation (and dualism in general) is that they multiply entities unnecessarily. Instead of just Edward, a unity of soul and body, we have Edward the body and Edward the soul.
If there were some empirical evidence for reincarnation that might necessitate this multiplication of entities. But it seems there is not.
>>So, beg the question?
No, I am saying that if reincarnation is logically possible, then it is a reasonable question to ask why one was born into such a body. I.e. your objection presumes that reincarnation is logically impossible, without giving proof.
>>A better way to describe the problem with theories of reincarnation (and dualism in general) is that they multiply entities unnecessarily. Instead of just Edward, a unity of soul and body, we have Edward the body and Edward the soul.
Now that's more like an argument. To be continued.
>> No, I am saying that if reincarnation is logically possible, then it is a reasonable question to ask why one was born into such a body.
Logically possible? So, if reincarnation is "logically possible", but "biologically impossible", then "it is a reasonable question to ask why one was born into such a body"?
I agree that if you had been reincarnated then it would be reasonable to ask why you were reborn in the body you were reborn in. But if reincarnation is "logically possible"?
I guess part of the problem is I don't even understand what this "logically possible" thing is.
Do you think it is a reasonable question to ask why Kyawngtet is located in Burma? Why isn't it located in Bangladesh, or India?
Is it logically possible for a city to be reincarnated as another city?
I'm a bit surprised that one might recruit the PSR to prove a logical impossibility. I don't see why my inability to explain an event renders it impossible, let alone logically impossible. Maybe we just don't know enough about events of this type---in this case how reincarnation might work. Surely to show that my reincarnation is a logical impossibility requires showing that the concepts reincarnation and myself are somehow incompatible or contradictory, like married bachelor. (Actually I do think this, so maybe I'm conceptualising myself rather differently from someone who thought the concepts compatible.) Out of interest, Ed, do you know of any plausible argument for a logical impossibility via the PSR?
>>Out of interest, Ed, do you know of any plausible argument for a logical impossibility via the PSR?
Can't think of one.
Post a Comment