Ever wonder if you have a soul? Of course you have! We all have! It’s The eternal question and a rather boring one at that — or so I thought until recently. It’s a boring question because the obvious answer is: we don’t know — we can’t know until we ourselves die (even though some would argue this point ad nauseam). So, as I said, until recently I was quite content not to give it more than a passing thought; nothing beyond the usual mind-boggling implications of the possibility of other dimensions for example. I was satisfied with the knowledge that every life had an abundance of meaning just by effecting everyone it touched. But things change: we get older; we learn to love, some of those we love get sick, others die... and we need more.

I decided to look for answers. A good place to start was to read about how philosophers dealt with the question from the beginning of the written word until now. I actually thought that a chronological approach to western thought would divulge an emerging theory; that I would be able to clearly see that, as a species, our capacity to reason has evolved and thus, contemporary beliefs are founded on a clearly demonstrable thought progression. I was disappointed. I saw no evidence of evolution in our thinking. I did, however, find a multitude of varying opinions on the subject. So, I’ve decided to start from scratch: take a step-by-step approach at examining what little facts we have (not expecting any answers - just clarifying our position) and insert (where I can) the different schools of thought.

In the interest of clarity, I will forego all religious connotations (beyond the basic need to answer the burning question) and define the soul as “that which separates us from the animals: the capacity to reason” (Aristotle 384-322 BC). Plato (427-347 BC) defines reason as being in radical opposition to perception and sentiment (both belonging to the world of the senses and thus subject to interpretation); it is therefore eternal because it is applied to that which is eternal and immutable.

If we accept this definition, we admit the existence of souls; the next question is: are they immortal? Epicure (341-270 BC) believed that they were not. He felt simply that death need not concern us because: for as long as we exist death does not, and when death comes, we no longer exist. Seen in that light it is true that we rarely hear the dead complaining of their plight (this, again, can be argued ad nauseam - but we’ll just let it go). Epicure’s point is moot since we’ve already decided to search for answers.

So let us assume the immortality of souls. This requires a clearer definition of “immortal”, ie: can something be considered immortal if it does not remember ever having been? I guess that’s a question of perspective. Democrites (460-370 BC) developed a theory from which he concluded that, though the soul is immortal, it does not retain any memories of a past “life”. He believed that the changes we witness in nature do not amount to a true transformation but rather a redistribution of the basic elements of construction common to everything; he called these fundamental building blocks atoms. Even the soul was made up of an infinite number of atoms which, after death, were dispersed only to be reassembled to form a new soul. Though I find this explanation interesting, it does not seem to apply to the “soul” as we have previously defined it; Does it really amount to no more than a mere sand castle? Many (most really) would say it does.

I find that there is a disturbing explanation for our “loss” of memory which seems to be spreading even into the bowels of government buildings. This new bread of “philosophers” believes that our soul reincarnates many times and chooses, knowingly, the life that it will lead. “You have a shitty life? Well, that’s because your soul felt that it needed to learn more about suffering in order to grow and reach... (?).” I find this theory alarming for many reasons the most notable of which is that it implies a total lack of free will, placing all in the hands of Fate. Isn’t that too easy? I can’t help but mistrust anything that robs us of all responsibility for our actions; that just takes us down the slippery slope into the land of the Cilistine Prophesies and we really don’t want to go there!

On the other hand, if we do retain our memories, there is an implicit assumption that we are currently living on the first step of a long (?) ladder for we (at least most of us) have no recollections beyond our childhood. A possible analogy would be that we now live in a black and white world, the next would be in colour (assuming of course that there is a progression involved) and the next? Well you can try to imagine (I’m at a loss).

Still wondering if you have a soul? Of course you are! Have I answered the burning question? Of course I haven’t! I never thought I could. I’m not sure what my purpose in writing this was except maybe to demonstrate what a pointless exercise existentialism really is. And yet, is our constant need to define and redefine ourselves and the world around us not the clearest proof that we are more than just the sum of our parts?

March 1997

S. Tanguay