Philosophy Post #1: Souls, Faith, and a Buddhist Contrast
I’ve decided to start sharing a few reflections on philosophy (and soon, economics as well). Here's the first post — prompted by a recent review of Edward Feser’s book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature by Sam Nicholson in Catholic World Report.
At Catholic World Report, philosopher Sam Nicholson kindly reviews my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature. From the review:
"As its title suggests, Immortal Souls by Edward Feser provides a robust philosophical defense of the immortality of the soul. The scope of the book reaches far beyond this one topic, however, as Feser methodically exposits and defends the entire Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics of the human person, addressing in depth such topics as personal identity, freedom of the will, perception and cognition, phenomenal consciousness, and artificial intelligence. The result is an extraordinarily comprehensive and detailed sweep through contemporary philosophy of mind, addressing nearly every major topic of interest. Feser makes a forceful case that Thomism remains a live option, able to resolve many seemingly intractable problems at the intersection of philosophy and the sciences of cognition…
Immortal Souls covers so much ground, and is so dense with argumentation, it would be impossible to survey every topic it addresses in a short review…
Those who work their way through its five hundred plus pages will come away with a solid grasp of the current state of play in contemporary philosophy of mind, which is a richly interdisciplinary field that incorporates findings from psychology and cognitive science in addition to the traditional categories of metaphysics and epistemology. Feser displays an impressive breadth of knowledge in this area, showing himself conversant not only with Thomism and the analytic tradition, but with recent discussions that draw upon phenomenology and empirical psychology as well."
Feser’s book offers a deep Aristotelian-Thomist defense of the soul’s immortality and delves into areas like personal identity, cognition, consciousness, and AI. The review praises it as a rigorous and wide-ranging survey of contemporary philosophy of mind.
Alrighhht, Sam, thank you. But here’s something worth thinking about.
Catholicism holds that there is a soul, but there’s never been any concrete proof of such a thing. Nobody has ever seen a soul. No one has measured one. It’s not like a heart or a brain — it’s not something empirical. So how do we know a soul exists at all?
Here’s where it gets tricky: Sam Nicholson, the reviewer, is writing for Catholic World Report. Is he, perhaps, Catholic himself? If so, how neutral is the review? He might be ideologically or theologically committed to believing in the soul — in which case, his praise for the book becomes less a matter of reasoned evaluation and more one of reinforcing prior belief. That doesn’t mean the book isn’t thoughtful or valuable, but it raises an important question: when metaphysics is tied too tightly to theology, how do we maintain intellectual independence?
Contrast this with Buddhism, where things are quite different.
In classical Buddhist thought, there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul. The doctrine of anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) explicitly denies the existence of an eternal soul. What we think of as a “self” is actually a collection of changing phenomena — thoughts, sensations, memories — which arise and pass away moment to moment. Holding on to the illusion of a permanent self, say the Buddhists, is a root cause of suffering. Liberation lies in letting go of that illusion, not reinforcing it.
This idea — no eternal soul, no unchanging essence — stands in radical opposition to Catholic and Thomist metaphysics. And yet, it leads to an equally rich philosophical and ethical framework. So it’s worth asking: is it more intellectually honest to begin with no assumptions about the soul, and see where experience and reflection take us?
More philosophy posts coming soon. Including some thoughts on Stoicism, Epicureanism, and a new philosophical proposal - really, a whole new Philosophy which stands as a rival to Stoicism, Epicureanism and even Scholasticism and arguably even Catholicism itself - of my own.