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

In this essay I willing be lean that you buns almost make no moxie to believe in life before and later on wipeout and that on that point is no humanly logical elan of proving either side of the argument.Plato acts on the words of his teacher, Socrates, and how he considered the mortal to be separate from the body but linked until dying. He says that the mortal influences how we behave and tries to sway us from bodily desires. He says that the individual moves from one body to other when death occurs and to be born into succeeding bodies. This is a good indication from Plato to show life after death because he says the life of the soul is everlasting deal an infinite business concern or a circle.Plato said that the soul is make up from terzetto parts the Logos, which is the mind and allows logic to prevail. Thymos is emotion and drives us to do deluxe acts of bravery and courage. Eros equates to the appetite that drives humankind to jut outk out its prefatory bodil y needs. There is no scientific way of proving life after death with this theory is correct and no way of proving it incorrect so it would be false to say that Platos theory is wrong because it made good sense for Plato because they were his ethical motive, it would be bad to say that someones ethics were wrong because they arent like yours.Aristotles view however is kinda 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 tolerate and dying at death. This doesnt correspond with Plato because he said that the souls complete from the Forms (which is space-less and timeless) so the soul must also last forever. Aristotle believed that the soul wasnt made from visible tissue but of powers or skill, so thence pointless talk about separation from the body because it just wasnt logical. The flaw in this statement is that it is impossible to connect meta-physics with logic so there is no way to m easure, see, touch or knowing what the resolvent is.Thomas Aquinas once said that the soul has the appetite for companionship because he said, since the intellectual soul is capable of knowing all corporal things, and since in order to know a material thing there must be no material thing within it, the soul was definitely not connected and that it was an individual spiritual substance and that it could prevail on its own. Aquinas said that the soul is subsistant and therefore cant die with the body and cant be born with it. This is like saying the soul doesnt even exist in this make up of life properly and only exists partly with your body and outside it. prank countryfied, a 20th century philosopher said that life after death is no where near provable but he said that a demythologised mortal 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 standa rd he uses is that he is giving a lecture in capital of the United Kingdom at 200pm and died at that exact moment, his hold tissue and soul were cargo shipsed to New York in a new and glorified form at 200.0000001pm (London time) giving the exact equivalent speech as he was in London. Once again there is no rational way of explaining life before and after death because the soul isnt a rational thing.A philosopher, Derek Parfit created a scenario where in the future and teleportation device was created to transport a person from one place to another without any physical movement from the person or anyone or anything around that person. The teleportation device copied your living tissue and youre DNA and even your thoughts and memories. Once the copying stagecoach is complete, the machine will disintegrate your body and a machine at the receiving end will create an exact replica of you with everything perfectly the same (a clone).If you had done this 100 times and then one time it didnt work to plan and it would take 30 minutes 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 conjecture this is one of the most valid arguments because he uses knowledge and common sense in his story but doesnt explain where the soul went.I think that there is no logical way of making sense of life after death because to have sense, you must have demonstration and because there is no proof of and sides of the arguments arent 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.