Synthese

, Volume 159, Issue 2, pp 215–233 | Cite as

Imagination and immortality: thinking of me

Article

Abstract

Recent work in developmental psychology indicates that children naturally think that psychological states continue after death. One important candidate explanation for why this belief is natural appeals to the idea that we believe in immortality because we can’t imagine our own nonexistence. This paper explores this old idea. To begin, I present a qualified statement of the thesis that we can’t imagine our own nonexistence. I argue that the most prominent explanation for this obstacle, Freud’s, is problematic. I go on to describe some central features of contemporary cognitive accounts of the imagination, and I argue that these accounts provide an independently motivated explanation for the imaginative obstacle. While the imaginative obstacle does not dictate a belief in immortality, it does, I maintain, facilitate such a belief.

Keywords

Afterlife beliefs Death Imagination Immortality Self 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett J. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God? New York, Altamira PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Bering J.M. (2002). Intuitive conceptions of dead agents’ minds: The natural foundations of afterlife beliefs as phenomenological boundary. Journal of Cognition and Culture 2, 263–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bering J., Bjorklund D. (2004). The natural emergence of afterlife reasoning as a developmental regularity. Developmental Psychology 40, 217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bering J., Hernández-Blasi C., Bjorklund D. (2005). The development of “afterlife” beliefs in religiously and secularly schooled children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23, 587–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackburn, S. (Ed.). (1993). Morals and Modals. In Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom P. (2004). Descartes’ baby. New York, Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  7. Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Castañeda, H.-N. (1999). The phenomeno-logic of the I: Essays on self-consciousness. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Craig, E. (1975). The problem of necessary truth. In S. Blackburn (Ed.). Meaning, reference and necessity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Craig, E. (1985). Arithmetic and fact. In I. Hacking (Ed.), Exercises in analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Currie, G. (1990). The nature of fiction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Currie G. (1995). Imagination and simulation: Aesthetics meets cognitive science. In: Stone A., Davies M. (eds) Mental simulation: Evaluations and applications. Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  13. Currie G., Ravenscroft I. (2002). Recreative minds: Imagination in philosophy and psychology. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Field H. (1978). Mental representation. Erkenntnis 13, 9–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fodor, J. (1990). Substitution arguments and the individuation of belief. In his A theory of content and other essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Freud S. (1915). Thoughts for the times on war and death. Standard Edition 14, 273–300Google Scholar
  17. Gendler T. (2000). The puzzle of imaginative resistance. Journal of Philosophy 97, 55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldman A. (1989). Interpretation psychologized. Mind & Language 4, 161–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon R. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind & Language 1, 158–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon R., Barker J. (1994). Autism and the ‘Theory of Mind’ debate. In: Graham G., Stephens G.L. (eds) Philosophical psychopathology: A book of readings. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris P. (1992). From simulation to folk psychology: The case for development. Mind & Language 7, 120–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris P. (2000). The work of the imagination. Oxford, Blackwell PublishersGoogle Scholar
  23. Kant I. (1968). Kant’s critique of pure reason (N. Kemp Smith, Trans.). New York, St. Martin’sGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Leslie A. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of ‘theory of mind’. Psychological Review 94, 412–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leslie A. (1994). Pretending and believing: Issues in the theory of ToMM. Cognition 50, 211–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford, Blackwell PublishersGoogle Scholar
  28. Lycan W. (1988). Judgement and justification. New York, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Marcus E. (2004). Why Zombies are inconceivable. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82, 477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meskin A., Weinberg J. (2003). Emotions, fiction, and cognitive architecture. The British Journal of Aesthetics 43, 18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nagel T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagel T. (1987). What does it all mean? New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Nichols S. (2000). The mind’s “I” and the Theory of Mind’s “I”: Introspection and two concepts of self. Philosophical Topics 28, 171–199Google Scholar
  34. Nichols S. (2004a). Imagining and believing: The promise of a single code. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62, 129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nichols S. (2004b). Is religion what we want? Motivation and the cultural transmission of religious representations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 4, 347–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nichols S. (2006a). Imaginative blocks and impossibility: An essay in modal psychology. In: Nichols S. (eds) The architecture of the imagination: New essays on pretense, possibility, and fiction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nichols S. (2006b). Just the imagination: Why imagining doesn’t behave like believing. Mind & Language 21, 459–474Google Scholar
  38. Nichols S., Stich S. (2000). A cognitive theory of pretense. Cognition 74, 115–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nichols S., Stich S. (2003). Mindreading. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Peacocke C. (1985). Imagination, experience, and possibility: A Berkelian view defended. In: Foster J., Robinson H. (eds) Essays on Berkeley: A tercentennial celebration. Oxford, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Perry J. (1977). Frege on Demonstratives. Philosophical Review 86, 474–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perry J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Nous 13, 3–21Google Scholar
  43. Predelli S. (1998). I am not here now. Analysis 58, 107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rey G. (1997). Contemporary philosophy of mind. Oxford, Blackwell PublishersGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosen G. (1990). Modal fictionalism. Mind 99, 327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shalkowski S.A. (1996). Conventions, cognitivism and necessity. American Philosophical Quarterly 33, 375–392Google Scholar
  47. Sorensen R. (1996). Modal bloopers: Why believable impossibilities are necessary. American Philosophical Quarterly 33, 247–261Google Scholar
  48. Unamuno, M. (1921). Tragic sense of life. J. Flitch, Trans. Dover.Google Scholar
  49. Vision G. (1985). I am here now. Analysis 45, 198–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walton K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinberg J., Meskin A. (2006). Puzzling over the imagination: philosophical problems, architectural solutions. In: Nichols S. (eds) The architecture of the imagination: New essays on pretense, possibility, and fiction. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations