Critically assess the view of John Hick and Plato on the distinction between the body and the soul.
Hick (materialist) can have life after death without the need for a soul. This fails due to issues of personal identity. Plato (dualist) the body and soul are opposites and so are both necessary just like light and dark. Fails on the same grounds that dualism fails on.
Plato: Story of the soul (past, present and future) in regards to the Realm of the Forms and appetites etc. 1st argument for dualism = Meno's paradox of learning. 2nd argument for dualism = life and death are opposites so like life is an event so is death. Death is the soul leaving the body to rejoin the realm. How can a physical entity interact and affect a non-physical entity? Aristotle would argue that the soul does not need to be seperate... axe example.
Hick: Offers three thought experiements to explain his replica theory. The theory concludes that it is logically possible for God to create an afterlife without a dualist soul. This fails on the grounds of personal identity. He argues memory is what certifies whether it is the same person after checking they appear iddentical in his thought experiment. But does that mean someone with alzhiemers is not a person? What makes a person? Cell continuity, there is a break in this continuity when the person is replicated. Finally is it the soul? Descartes argued that it is the soul. Argument for soul, being able to doubt the body and not the mind and so they must be two seperate entities.
Hick and Plato wrong, Descartes right
Candidates may begin…