In this technologically-advanced century that we are currently in, science have proved so much that

almost all claims must be proven by it. The soul, where until now has yet to have a definitive
answer, is an element far from the reach of science. Whether it exists or not, or whether it was just
an idea made by previous philosophers and theologians, are questions that are not within the
boundary where experimental analysis could resolve. It needs higher thinking, not necessarily
based on reason and our intellect alone, but with accordance to our experiences.
Empiricist David Hume introduced a new way into the approach of determining the existence or
immortality of soul. Now in seeking further knowledge of the soul, we must imply everything that we
have learned, from being a critical reader to a logical thinker. In one of Hume's claim where he
stated that the soul is mortal due to the fact that we have no memories of what the soul have
encountered during its existence before our life could be contradicted with the theory of Plato.
Plato' Dualism states that due to the imperfection of our body, the soul which contains all perfect
ideas lose most of it. In addition, science has already proved that dreams occur everyday, it is just
that our mind could not recall these mental activities. So does this suggest that since we have an
ongoing mental activity, even when asleep, that the soul must exist eternally? And in relation with
this, must Hume's view on the temporary extinguishment of our consciousness leading to the
possibility of the disappearance of the soul be considered false?
Concerning Descartes, a rationalist, if mental activities are controllable then how about those that
are in a condition that prevents them from their ordinary cognitive activity, for example those that
have experienced brain damage. In addition to this, St. Thomas Aquinas said in his metaphysics
that the soul could not have perception without its dependence on the body's sensation. Since
perception involves a thinking process, thus concerning mental activity, then its inability to do so
due to the lack of elements such as the sensation of the material body would mean that the soul
could not do all levels and kinds of thinking that it is capable of, thus the capability is restricted. A
circus actor could do all of his tricks but when a single prop is missing, he could not do the act that
involves the prop thus the capability or the overall acts that the circus actor can do is limited, when
this lack of that single act is compared to a performance where the actor did all of his acts, we
could say that the performance lacking a single act is imperfect as compared to the one that is
complete. Using this analogy with the soul, if it is unable to do a single kind of thinking then it is
imperfect when compared to a substance that can perform all thinking independently. This could
suggest that the soul is imperfect. But according to Descartes, the composition of the soul is this
spiritual substance that he claims to be eternal and immortal. Since the soul is imperfect, the
substance that composes it must also be imperfect. Thus the eternality and immortality of this
imperfect substance could be subject to questioning. But in a sense that if we still regard that the
substance is immortal and eternal while being imperfect, then there is this substance more perfect
than that of the substance of the soul giving it the ability to do so - to be immortal. This
imperfectness of the substance could also lead to the doubt of whether there is a law superior to
that of the natural law that governs the soul.
The soul is said to be the root of our intellect. The soul as stated by Descartes is not bound to the
laws of the universe. However, the laws of the universe are defined back then very physical, gravity,
force, and others. We must then add that time is the ultimate law where all beings are subjected to.

The daily routine of a human being is subjected to time. This then leads us to our concern with one
of the most mysterious activities of the mind, the consciousness. When we sleep, it is said that our
consciousness is altered. The soul being not subjected to the universal laws must be deemed to be
always awakened. It does not sleep. In contrast with this Hume pointed out that we are
unconscious during dreamless sleeps. Hume has some point because even in dreaming, we only
remember fragments of it, or sometimes does not remember anything at all. Such event implies
that we are not fully aware of what was happening which is why nothing is stored in our memory.
However, this is only true if we wake up during the stage of sleep known as the Non-Rapid-EyeMovement stage, which is known as where the real sleep takes place. During this stage brain
activity is minimal as suggested by the brain waves during this stage. However, when an individual
who is dreaming is awakened at that very instance, he or she vividly remembers what he or she
was dreaming about. He or she may be upset because he or she wants to continue and see how it
ends. This implies that when we sleep there are moments that we are conscious. As proven by
science, dreams mostly occur at a stage called Rapid-Eye-Movement wherein the brain activity is
very similar when we are awake. This is implied by the similarity of brain waves during the said
stage and during when an individual is fully alert.
Now the question lies with these two phases of sleep. Are these two stages of sleep actually
phases wherein the soul sleeps and wakes up? If so, the soul is not exempted from the universal
laws because it sleeps causing our consciousness to drift off for some period of time. Hence
Descartes is wrong. But so is Hume who said that if consciousness can disappear for moments,
the soul could also disappear forever. Its like saying that the soul is the consciousness and vice
versa. Consciousness does not disappear. When we are unconscious, it is not necessary that our
consciousness is absent. Even if we are awake there is unconsciousness. The mind as theorized
by Freud has the conscious, the subconscious, and the unconscious. Unconsciousness, with
regards to sensation and perception as how Hume used the term is simply the brain in its minimal
functioning wherein an individual is very passive to stimulus.
A good idea to consider would be our nature of seeking happiness or eudaemonia. Which
according to Aristotle is our final cause. St. Thomas and St. Augustine also believed that humans
are bound towards happiness. And if so, this is just another point to consider to back Descartes on
his immortality of the soul. Why? We have known that the happiness or at least as long as the type
of happiness is concerned, it is true happiness that we are directed to, that which is not found in
this physical realm. If the soul is mortal then why do we need to seek this true happiness well in
fact our life, being and substance as in our case, cease to subsist after death. We should have just
satisfied ourselves during our existence in the physical world if the soul is only with us during our
time in Earth. We must have indulged in more physical pleasure than finding the Summum Bonum.
Thus the fact that we are directed towards eudaemonia suggests that the soul is still subsisting
after its role of animating the body. It is the soul that needs eudaemonia. True happiness is very
pure, it is very abstract and perfect, even humans' intelligence could not explain what that is. This
further proves that eudaemonia is indeed for the soul for it is the soul that is capable of perfect
ideas as what Plato have pointed out in his theory of Dualism. These being said, if indeed humans
seek for eudaemonia, then immortality is a natural phenomena of the soul.

But then, if the soul is immortal then it does not change, it is what it is from the beginning, from the
time of its creation. Now taking into consideration Aristotle's hylomorphism and aitiai, it stated that
for change to takes place, a minimum condition or alteration of both material cause and formal
cause must take place in order for change to take place. Assuming that the soul is immortal, as we
have mentioned, then the soul from a deceased person would be the soul to animate the other
person. Since it is the same soul, then the formal aspect of both specie must also be the same. If
so, then this implies that change did not take place, it is just the material cause (body) that was
altered and thus does not meet the minimum requirement for the event of change. So does this
mean that every person that was animated by the same soul is the same? And if so, this would
also mean that as long as that soul subsists, eternally as we claim, then the person that is
connected with this soul is also immortal - only the body changes, the animator is the same soul
that came from a previous body. If the soul cycle works this way, then does it mean that logically all
humans are immortal in that sense? There are 2 possible explanations to negate this. This is
where mortality of the soul comes in. First would be the mortality of the soul, if the soul is mortal,
then no two bodies animated with a soul will have the same soul, as compared to the case when
the soul is immortal. This would then suggest that the matter and form of a new born is very
distinct, it is a new matter (body) and a new form (soul). Second would be that of a theory made
personally. This theory is not logically proven nor scientifically proven but are just mere speculation
and predictions on how the soul cycle actually work. What if we assume that yes, the soul is
immortal, but then we might think then this would lead to the same cycle stated previously that
humans are immortal. No, since we are adding a new element to this. As we have said also earlier,
eudaemonia is for the soul, in this theory, when the soul departs the body, it is in the process of
completing its final cause, to achieve eudaemonia. Eudaemonia for the soul is being reconnected
and going back to the Kingdom of God, as basing on St. Augustine. It is in this reconnection with
God that the soul is cleansed, the sins that it was able to commit are erased from the soul. This is
going against Augustine's Original Sin for he believed that we are not cleansed from the sin of
Adam. But what if the soul is cleansed of the sins that was done by the man but original sin
remains, then this would go in accordance with Augustine. Moving forward, when the soul is
cleansed of sin, a part of the soul is being removed, the soul does not have trace anymore of the
sins of the person it animated. But, if we thought that only sin is removed then we could say that
the moments of the person not connected to sin still exists. Thus a further explanation is needed
here. The separation of men from the City of God to continue the pleasure of the City of Man alone
is separation from God and thus can be considered a sin, as being sinful is a state of separation
with God. In addition, separation from God is the reason of evil according to St. Augustine. And if
evil persists, we are not pure, we are tainted. Because of this, during the process of cleansing the
soul of its sin, the memories of the soul in the physical world or City of Man is also erased since
this is impure, since not only does evil exists in the City of Man but the separation from God is a
very selfish desire, the desire that concerns the pleasure of the human. This could also be a
possible explanation on why the soul does not recall its past memories when it reanimates another
person. Because of this drastic change in the intellect aspect of the soul, considering that the soul
is what brings intellect in humans, we can say that the soul is changed during the cleansing of sin
since a major aspect of the soul, intellect, which Descartes claims to be one of the characteristic of
the soul, was manipulated. This now could explain that while the soul could be immortal, through
this cleansing process that it undergoes, it could not be possibly the same substance with that of

the uncleaned soul. If the soul is now different and the material aspect of man also different, we
could now break the immortality trend of man thus reverting man again to being mortal.
Wynlor please dagdag mo nalang. The idea hereafter ay dapat ipakita mo ang solution ni Kant dito.
Alam ko na ang sagot ni Kant dito ay combination ng rationalism and empiricism please search on
it. Napagod na ako sa kakaisip dito.