A No Te on Immortality Macintyre

7/29/2019 A No Te on Immortality Macintyre

1/5

Mind Association

A Note on ImmortalityAuthor(s): A. C. MacIntyreReviewed work(s):Source: Mind, New Series, Vol. 64, No. 255 (Jul., 1955), pp. 396-399

Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2251083 .

Accessed: 20/11/2012 02:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press andMind Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toMind.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:19:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2251083?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2251083?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/5

A NOTE ON IMMORTALITYIN a paperon " The Relevance ofPsychicalResearchto Philosophy"Professor . D. Broad raises the questionas to whether xplanationsin termsof abnormal psychology nd paranormalcognition" willnot sufficeo account forthe phenomenawhichprimafacie suggestso strongly hat some persons survive the death of theirbodies andcommunicate throughmediums. This I regard at present as anopen question." (Religion,Philosophy nd PsychicalResearch,pp. 25-26.) I wish to argue that the question of whetherthesephenomenaare in fact evidencefor survival cannot be regardedasan open question on the grounds hat no meaning an be attached topredictions f survival, and that therefore he question ofverifyingthemneverarises.The case for immortalitywould, I take it, in these days runsomething ike this: the possessionofa body s causally necessary ovision,but what we mean by " seeing" is quite distinctfromwhatwe mean by " having eye-sight . To say " I see, but I have noeyes" would thereforee odd butnot self-contradictory. tatementsabout seeing do not entail statements bout eyes. Hence " sightwithouteyes " is a logically possible experience nd the prediction" Smithwill lose his eyes and yet see " is meaningfulf verifiable.The same moves couldbe made inthecase of the other enses. Howthen do we verify hese predictions By referring resumably othe evidenceprovidedby psychicalresearch, hereports f mediumswho allege communication rom he dead or who themselves peakwiththevoice of the dead. So that itwouldbe meaningfuln everysense to say " Jonestold me last nightthathe had just met Smith,althoughJones died last week,and Smith died last year ". HencewhenWittgenstein aid (Tractatus, .4311): "Death is not an eventof life. Death is not lived through , he was merelydogmatizing.The merit of this case is that unlike,for example, McTaggart'sargumentst can be discussed partfrom eneralquestionsabout thenature of time or of thehumanmind.Beforeweproceedto discusstheir ase it is perhapsworthnoticinghow many possibilities he proponents f the argument eave open.They tend for nstance,to ignorewhat we may call " the Hamlethypothesis : "to die,-to sleep ;-to sleep ! perchanceto dream". Dying on this view is a kind of sleep, survival a kind ofdreaming, nd communications rommediumsare merely videncethatthedead talk in their leep. The hypothesis hat survival s ofthis kind is not necessarily nconsistentwith the evidence. Andthisbringsus to the first reat difficultyn the notion of survival.As Wittgenstein ointsout,we understand heteaching hat the soulsurvives hebodyinthe sense that-" I can imagineplenty fthingsin connexion with it" (Philosophical Investigations, I. iv. 178).396

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

A NOTE ON IMMORTALITY 397Wecan picture urvival; the difficultys thatwe canpicturet intoo manyways. The mere ypothesisf urvival oesnot of tselfentail he predictionhat after eath we shall go on seeing r therival predictionhat afterdeath we shall go on dreaming. Andwhere urvival an mean so many hingswe cannotbe clear ustwhat s beingpredicted,nd hencewe cannot e clearwhatwouldverify he prediction.The upholders f thehypothesisf survivalwouldperhaps eply hat n certain ases the reports f mediumsindicate n apparently urposefulttempt o communicate,ndthatthisevidence xcludes he hypothesishat thedead sleep buttalk in their leep. The only replyto this is that the randommutteringsfothermediumsesemble armore alkingnone's leepthanpurposefulommunication. ence the third ossibility,fweallow the hypothesis f survival, hat some of the dead survivewaking, ome sleeping. It is obvioushowgeneral nd howvaguethe hypothesiss when its truth s compatiblewithso manypossibilities.But this s not ll.If the dead survive nd continue aving isual experience,t ispresumably isual experience etached rom he causalconditionswhichn this ife renecessaryo sight. This sadmittednprinciplebytheproponentsfthehypothesis-indeedt san essential tep ntheir rgument-but do not think hey ee how much hey readmitting.Whenwe talk of" seeing it normallylwaysmakessense o ask" Howwell anyou ee ? " or How much anyou ee "and to answer Perfectly,t's quite ightnow or " Notmuch,t'srather ark n here . But presumablyor hedead,whopossess oretina, ight s causally ndependentf ightwaves. Hencewecanhaveno grounds or elievinghatwith hedead tis eitheright rdark, nd, nanimportantense, ospeakof ightwithoutightstospeak ncomprehensibly.he reply o thiswouldbe no doubt hat" It islight doesnotentail Lightwaves restrikingheretinaany more han" I see" entails I have eyes . But what amarguings that" I see" entails It is light and hence hat theprediction After eath, will see" if t is to be comprehensiblemustentailthe prediction, It will be light . Consequentlynpredictingurvival neis involvedn predictinghe occurrenceflight ndependentf ightwaves ndthis s an oddprediction.Forhowwouldtbe verifiedSo farwehave assumedhatpredictionsf urvival ould nsomesense or otherbe meaningful.We have merely rought ut thecomplexityoncealedy" some ense rother . Butnowwemustquestionwhetheruchpredictionsre in factmeaningful. or Iwant o suggesthatthemeaningf" seeing is inexorablyinkedto themeaningf" looking andthat hehypothesisfsurvivalsmeaninglessecausewecannot ive meaningothephrase lackinga body, ut ooking. Considerhepossiblenswerso the ssertion," I can't see ": " Open youreyes , " Turnyourhead", " lookcloser . All these nswerswouldbe senselessna situationwhere



4/5

398 A. C. MACINTYRE:there s no possibilityf moving ne's imbsor one's head becauseonehasneitherimbsnorhead. In otherwords,t is impossibleoenvisage situation fterdeathwhere ither he complaint Ican't see" or the injunction Look! " wouldbe in place. Weshouldnever e able to sayof one whosurvived He looked ndsaw" but only He saw". But if thiswas all we could say,wecould not say this. For whatwould the dead see ? Our visualfield s limited ythe ocation fourbody, ut where here s nobodyhow s thevisualfieldimited If onehas no bodywhatdoesit meanto say " He moved n order o see better ? Phrases ikethismusthavea meaning hen poken f hedead, fpredictionsfthedeadseeingreto bemeaningful; or isionhathad no ocationwouldpresumablye visionofeverythingnd this s a notion owhich omeaninganbe attached. To seeeverythingould ntailbeing ble tosee throughverythings wellas being ble to see t,and we can only ttachmeaning o the expression see through,becausewe canspecifyhe ituations heret sapplicablend thosewheret snot. Wheretwasapplicable o every isual ituationtwould cease to be meaningful.And so wemust hoose he otheralternativendsaythat fpredictionsf urvival re to be meaning-fultheymust nclude redictionsf movement n thepartof thedead. Hence" He is deadbutsees" entails He is deadandcanmove . But to this atterphrasewe cannot ttacha meaning.Foreven f" I see" doesnot ntail I haveeyes , " I move doesentail I have imbs . " Movement ithoutimbs ismeaninglessbecause hepossessionf imbs s notmerely causal conditionfmovement,ut to move s to moveone's limbs. Hence thepre-dictionfvisual xperiencefter eath smeaningless.And imilararguments ill pply otheotherenses.Suppose however, hat thiswerenot so. There s one otherconsequencef thehypothesisf survivalwhichweought onote.For even f" Jones s dead but ees weremeaningful,Jones eesthe nvisible never ould be. NowJoneshimselfeingwithouta bodywouldbe invisiblendall his fellowurvivors ould lso bebodiless nd hence nvisible.So Jonesmight ee thevisible ivingbutcouldnot ee the nvisibleead,mightouchbodiesbutnottheintangibleodiless. In otherwords e couldhavenoawareness fother eadsouls ndno evidence fthe urvival fother eadsouls.Ifthedead survivedheywould urviveachalone, nd thepredic-tionof urvivals a predictionf n eternityf oneliness.

Whatthen re weto sayofthefactual vidence Simplyhatgreat eal of peculationnthese opics aspicturedhemediumsa telephone,nd nottaken ufficientlyeriouslyhenotion hat hemediums a gramophone. f mediumistichenomenare to beexplained heymustbe explained n terms f otherphenomena.Thehypothesisf urvivalsnomorexplanatoryhan hehypothesisofa Godand Hume'sargumentsgainst heexplanatory ower fthe atter,n hischapternProvidence, ould ll holdgood gainst



5/5

A NOTE ON IMMORTALITY 399the former.Hume arguestherethat those whobelieve n Godneverthelessave exactly hesameexpectationss to thefuturecourse fevents s unbelieversave. For ffrom hepast course fevents hey nfer God,from God they an infer othingmore stothefuture hanthey ouldhave nferredrom hepast course fevents. And so it is withsurvival. What we can inferfrommediumistichenomena re other uchphenomena. A necessary,although otperhaps ufficient,onditionf nferringromwhatmediumays thatJoneshas survivedwouldbe at leastone provedcase ofsomeone irst aving n experiencef hearing mediumreport message rom hedead, thendying ndhearing romhedead man hathedid n fact end hemessage. Now this onditioncouldnever e fulfflledor woreasons. First, ince, s we haveseen,ftheres tobe survivaltmust esurvival lone, vendeathcouldnotgiveus communicationith hedead. And, econdly,oshow hat his ondition ad beenfulfilledould e already o haveproved urvivalnone case. Hencethefact hatthefulfillmentfthisconditions necessary o infer urvival rovesthatsurvivalcannotbe inferred.To suggest s Professor road does thatsurvivaln theonehandandparanormalognitionntheotherrerivalhypotheseso explainmediumistichenomenas to mislead.For survival s not a significantypothesis.One might erhapsconclude hat thosewho wish o believe hat death s not theendwoulddo well to abandon the subtle but meaningless latonicdoctrinef mmortalityor hecruder hristianredictionfbodilyresurrection. ow desperate his expedientwouldbe it is outsidethe copeof hisnote o discuss. A. C. MACINTYRE.UniversityfManchester


A No Te on Immortality Macintyre

Documents

Transcript of A No Te on Immortality Macintyre