Personal Identity & Immortality - Research Paper Example

Millers main line of argument is that there is a correlation between body and soul and that even if the body dies, the soul may continue to live. Weiroib disputed this by asserting that there is no evidence that the soul exist and therefore we should not easily assume that something we know not of its existence will help us survive after we are dead (Perry 397). Here, miller tries to ask his friend if he can prove that he is the same person he ate lunch with last week to enable him see the sense of his claims of life after death.

This is based from the fact that the other week they were at lunch siting opposite each other on the table and communicating with each other. This example brings in an important fact that miller was not aware of that soul if immaterial and therefore one should not conclude that the soul you met last time is the same soul you are meeting today. When Miller claims that he is the same person he saw last week, he gives Weirob a chance to prove to him that what he saw was just the body and therefore, the claim that the soul exist cannot easily be substantiated.

The caramel example is used to by Miller in his desperate attempts to show that there is a link between body and soul of a person. This view of however criticized by when Weirob asserts that there is no link between the body and the soul of human beings. In the Blue River analogy, is used by Weirob to show that a river contains different water every time in his attempt to disqualify his assertion that souls and body are the same. The issue of same body same soul is thus an issue that can only be discussed on earth in human context.

Our personal identity is sometimes unknown since we are not sure whether there is a relationship between body and soul. The topic of the Blue river example is used to prove the concept that same characteristics do not necessarily require same substance and therefore, human soul and body may be different. Weirob tries to challenge her friend miller to comfort her on her death bead days before she passed away if there is a possibility of her surviving after her death. Miller claims that survival is possible after death for a person is identical to his soul and not his body as most people think.

Miller highly believes in this and he thus asserts that survival after her death is possible because her personal identity is tied to her soul. Weirob on the other hand challenges this view by asserting that soul is something immaterial and cannot be seen or felt unlike our bodies that are physical and can be seen and felt. This disqualified millers claim that people are identical to their souls and thus can have a life after their death. Miller further claims there is a correlation between bodies and soul but his argument is also criticized by Weirob who argues that such a claim is baseless since there is no evidence that the soul is exist in the first place.

Miller is never tired of her claims that soul exists and its correlated with the body by asserting that body exhibit certain behaviors that are in unison with certain psychological characteristics. Weirob criticizes this line of argument by asserting that similarity between psychological characteristic with the body since its not physical like most of the things we see around like rivers. He further states that human beings are not certain of how souls work and thus we can easily assume that there is a correl