Exercise 6:   Swinburne's Argument for the Existence of Souls

Due Date:   Wednesday, February 23

Proportion of Final Grade:  10%

          Richard Swinburne is a dualist, and someone who believes, as Descartes did, that it is possible to offer a philosophical proof of the claim that one has an immaterial soul.  The third paragraph in the passage below contains a recast version of Swinburne's argument.

        This exercise parallels the previous exercise.  In part 1, the object is to find the inference indicators contained in the third paragraph of the passage below.  Then, in part 2, the goal is to make use of those inference indicators to determine what the sub-arguments in the passage are.  Part 3 is then concerned with locating possible weaknesses in the argument.

        Do I have a non-physical, immaterial soul or not?  This is an important issue.  For one thing, if one does have an immaterial soul, death need not be the end of an individual's existence, and there is a real ground for thinking that one may very well survive the destruction of one's body.

        One way of attempting to establish that people have immaterial souls would be via empirical investigations.  If people have paranormal powers - such as telepathy - that one might be able to show cannot be explained in physical terms - then one might be justified in concluding that there is something immaterial in human beings.  Even more dramatic, in this regard, might be evidence, provided by seances, that people survive death.

        There is, however, a much surer road to the conclusion that people have immaterial souls - namely, a purely philosophical argument of a sort that Descartes advanced, and which may be put as follows.  In the first place, it is clear that it is logically possible for one to continue to exist even if one's body is completely destroyed.  One can easily imagine, for example, witnessing the destruction of one's body, while still having experiences similar to one's present experiences, along with memories of one's past and present experiences, together with desires, attitudes, and personality traits comparable to those one presently possesses.  To imagine all of this, however, is to imagine surviving the destruction of one's body.  So one can imagine surviving the destruction of one's body, which, in turn, entails that it is logically possible to survive the destruction of one's body. Clearly, however, it is logically impossible for one’s body to survive the destruction of one’s body.   Suppose, then, that one were identical with one’s body.  It would then follow that it was logically impossible for one to survive the destruction of one’s body.  Hence, if one were identical with one’s body, it would be logically impossible for one to survive the destruction of one’s body.  Therefore, one is not identical with one’s body.  But if one were composed only of physical, or material things, one would be identical with one’s body.  Hence, one is not composed only of physical, or material things, and so one must involve some sort of immaterial substance.

        Earlier, however, we saw that it is logically possible for one to survive the destruction of one’s body.  In the case of such disembodied survival, however, that immaterial substance would be the only thing that would continue to exist.  Therefore, that immaterial substance must also be sufficient to ensure one's continued identity, even in the absence of one's body.  Any immaterial substance that can do that, however, is appropriately referred to as a soul.  Hence, surprising though it may initially be, we have succeeded in proving that each of us does have an immaterial soul.
 
 
 
 

Part 1:  Inference Indicators

Instructions

        The philosophical argument is set out in the third paragraph of the above passage.  (Ignore the empirical argument set out in the second paragraph.) That paragraph contains nine words, or phrases, that indicate that an inference is being made.  Circle each of those inference-indicators.  (1 point each, for a total of 9 points.)
 

Part 2:  The Nine Sub-Arguments

Instructions

1.  With one exception, each inference involves two premises - one of which may be implicit, rather than being explicitly stated.  In the case of the eight inferences for which this is so, set out the two premises, and the conclusion.  (1 point for each correct premise, and for each correct conclusion, for a total of 24 points.)

2.  List the inference indicator for each inference in the indicated place.

3.  In working out the premises and the conclusion, remember to make use of information about the type of inference indicator involved, and what that implies about the likely locations of the relevant conclusion, and at least one of the premises.

4.  One of the inferences - inference number 4 - is of a different type.  It involves discharging an assumption that the author has made only in order to establish a conditional result that does not really rest upon the assumption in question.  The way this works is as follows.  One assumes that p, where one may not think that p is true.  One then deduces q, say, either from p alone, or from p together with one or more additional premises.  Having done this, one can then "discharge" the assumption that p by moving from q to the conditional statement "If p, then q" - a conclusion that does not depend upon the assumption that p.

5.  In the case of the one inference that is of this type, indicate the assumption that is to be discharged, and the conditional conclusion that is ultimately established.  (1 point for each, for a total of 2 points.)

6.  An important thing to keep in mind is that, in a complex argument, the sub-arguments have to link together in a certain way - namely, every conclusion of a sub-argument, with the exception of the grand, final conclusion, must serve as a premise in some other sub-argument.

7.  Finally, in examining a passage for possible inference indicators, it really pays to do this very carefully, in order to make sure that you haven't classified as an inference indicator a word or phrase that is not really functioning to point to a specific step in the reasoning, involving a conclusion and at least one relevant premise.  For mistakes in the identification of inference indicators will almost always make for problems in working out exactly what the sub-arguments are.
 

Sub-Argument 1  -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 2  -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 

Sub-Argument 3 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 4 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise being discharged:
 
 

Conditional conclusion:
 
 

Sub-Argument 5  -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 6 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 7 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 8  -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 

Sub-Argument 9 -  Inference indicator  =

Premise 1:
 
 

Premise 2:
 
 
 

Conclusion:
 
 
 
 

 Part 3:  Preliminary Assessment of Dubious Parts of the Argument

        The argument set out in the above passage contains, I believe, two basic, or independent weaknesses - where an independent weakness is defined as either a case of fallacious reasoning in a sub-argument, or a case of an implausible, independent, premise, and where a premise is an independent premise only if it is not a conclusion of an earlier sub-argument.  (Note, too, that when a premise is introduced only as a premise that is going to be dicharged in a conditional proof, it is not open to objection.)

        Indicate which two parts of the argument seem to you most problematic - specifying the sub-argument in question, and whether it is the reasoning that seems suspect, or one of the premises.  Then try to say, very briefly, what you think is wrong with the inference, or with the premise, in question.
 

        The weaknesses in this argument are not that easy to locate, and one of them, in particular, is really quite subtle.  Because of this, completing Parts 1 and 2 of this exercise correctly will give you a 100% score of 35 out of 35 on this exercise, and any additional points you get on this third part will be bonus points.  (2 bonus points for each correct identification and explanation of either of the two weaknesses, making a maximum possible score of 39.)
 
 
 
 
 

 Weakness 1:   Sub-Argument Number

Is the reasoning fallacious?  Yes       No

Or is a independent premise  implausible?  If so, which one?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Weakness 2:   Sub-Argument Number

Is the reasoning fallacious?  Yes       No

Or is a independent premise  implausible?  If so, which one?