Consolation and the Afterlife

Profound arguments are no help. -Socrates.
Only what gets down to my level consoles me. -Axiochus

Rational inquiry into the afterlife originated as an attempt at consoling those who were facing imminent death. This is evident in the works of Plato, who wrote the first, rational discussions of immortality. In Apology for example, he attributed the following argument to Socrates.

“There are two possibilities as to the nature of death. Firstly, it maybe a complete cessation of all consciousness. In that case, it is comparable to a deep, dreamless and restful sleep. Secondly, it may be a transition to another world, the abode of the spirits of the dead. In that case, it will be a joyous experience of communion with all the great and wise human beings of the past. Either way, death is a blessing”.

Books brimming with arguments of this kind were a major genre of popular literature in antiquity. The books supposedly soothed about the inevitability of death. Many of the arguments even addressed the prospect of a life hereafter. Philosophers of all the major schools wrote consolation literature, although the Stoics were most noted for such books.

The authors of some consolation books took a scattershot approach. They threw in every argument they could find or dream up that they felt might comfort someone. Sometimes, the arguments in a single book would even be inconsistent with one another! Truth did not seem to matter to the authors, as long as their arguments had the intended emotional impact on their readers.

Thus began the quest to apply reason to prove life after death. Unfortunately, few modern investigators have been unable themselves oft his historical taint. Several years ago, a noted, parapsychologically-minded researcher explained the motivation for his “scientific” study of mediums. He said that he launched his study because he wanted to comfort his girlfriend who was grieving after a major loss! Of course, even with such a motivation, it would be possible for an investigator to proceed objectively. In this particular case, though, the results of the” experiment” speak for themselves. Finding out the truth and alleviating sorrow are distinct goals. However, it is not easy to keep them separate when investigating the afterlife. So, anyone who puts forward “evidence” of life after death needs to be honest about which goal is uppermost in his or her minds. The failure to do so ought to be plainly labeled as what it is: intellectual dishonesty.