INTRODUTION My objective in this paper is to critically evaluate the plausibility of reincarnation from different perspectives.

I will also critically evaluate the question of personal identity and its relation to reincarnation. The question of the distinctness or universality of the human soul will also be examined. My ultimate aim is to analyze the plausibility of reincarnation and to find out if there are other ways of thinking of this belief, outside the traditionally held views. Reincarnation is the belief that a persons soul continues to exist after his or her death and actually comes back to earth to reside in human beings, animals or trees. Reincarnation is viewed differently among various cultures. Some believe that the soul comes back as an animal, a tree or even a mad person. These viewpoints are not the focus of this paper, but rather the claim that the soul of a particular dead person has come back into anothers body. Some cultures hold that, the soul comes into an adult body, whilst others hold that, the soul comes back into an infant. Reincarnation is generally known as rebirth or transmigration. Transmigration is the supposed passage of a dead persons soul into

anothers body at or after death. So simply reincarnation can be understood as the transference of a soul from a dead person to a living a person. In the case study of the people of Sekyere, an Akan group in Ghana, members of particular families or friends have identified certain infants as being the reincarnated of the dead they knew. Reincarnation raises questions about who is a person? it also raises the question of personal identity, that is what makes a particular person the person that he or she is, or to put it better what makes an individual distinct from another individual.

Since this paper will be dealing with an analysis of the plausibility of reincarnation, the questions of personal identity and who is a person cannot be ignored, for the people of Sekyere make claims of having recognized known dead people in the lives of other living people. An understanding of what constitute a person will help in the analysis of the plausibility of reincarnation Another issue closely related to reincarnation which I will examine in this paper is the distinctness or universality of the human soul. That is, are there distinct souls or is there just a universal soul which somehow finds a relation to all human beings? I believe the understanding of whether there are distinct souls or not will help in a clearer understanding and evaluation of reincarnation.

CHAPTER ONE Personal Identity and the Concept of a Person Personal identity in philosophy refers to the conditions under which a person is said to be identical to him or herself through time. What makes me who I am? What am I made up of? What makes me identify myself as ME and not some other person? What

makes it possible for other people to identify me as ME and not some other person? What makes me the same person as I was 10 years or 15 years ago? These are some of the questions that arise as one tries to deal with the issue of personal identity. What is necessary and sufficient for one to say that a past or a future being is him or her? To understand personal identity, one needs to fully understand what a human being is made up of. That is, what does it constitute for one to be categorized as a person? For some philosophers, the person is one that has a body and a mind or a body and a soul. In western philosophy the functions of the soul and mind seem to be synonymous. Though this is not true for all philosophers, so for those who do not see the soul as the mind, the person is made up of body, soul and mind. In African philosophy, especially among the Akan, they believe that a person is made up of the honam, sunsum and the okra. The honam is the body, the sunsum is the spirit but it is widely not agreed on what the okra is. But in some cases, people do associate the okra with the soul as we will see of the Sekyere in a later chapter. But for some philosophers a person just consists of a purely physical being. It can be seen in most cases that in trying to explain the concept of a person most philosophers adopt a dualistic view of a person, whether is body and soul, body and mind or body, spirit and

mind, they all seem to suggest that a human being is made up of a material and an immaterial side. For instance some philosophers ascribe thinking or intellect to the mind; some ascribe consciousness to the mind, and ascribe sensory experiences to the body. In Akan for instance the okra is said to be that which carries a persons destiny and thus returns to God for judgment. The sunsum is said to contain the personality of the person. In all these cases there is an understanding that there is a part of the human being that persist with time and this makes it possible for that person to identify him or herself as being him, and also enables others to be able to identify the person as that particular individual. It is at this juncture that the issue of personal identity arises, what makes me the same person I was 10 or 15 years ago. What makes me distinct from other individuals, that makes people identify me as who I am and not some other individual. Everyone maintains a personal identity; it is an intuitive feeling which cannot be shirked. People believe that they are distinct from other people, and sentence such as you are unique states the belief that each person is different from the other. But the question is where does this difference lie? Why do I strongly hold on to the fact that there is something about me that no one else has? There have been various approaches to answering the question of personal identity, but two approaches stand out; the Same Body Approach and the Psychological Approach. The Same Body Approach: this theory states that what makes a persons personal identity is his physical composure; his looks, his outward features, which makes him distinct from other individuals. Everything that is physical is what makes up the individual, the brain, the

D.N.A of the person and so on ,all come to make up the physical composure of the individual. For this position these features varies from individual to individual, and it is only by this features that we can identify individuals. The only way that people can identify ME as me is by my physical appearance and nothing else. Supposing I were to enter professor Lauers office at the philosophy department, the first thing she would say is hi Naa or Welcome Naa, even without me necessarily uttering a word. She does this on the basis of recognizing my physical appearance as that of the Naa she knows. This view seems plausible but it comes with its own problems. Ones physical appearance changes over time. For instance we dont look physically the same as we did when we were 5 0r 10 years old. Most of our old school mates would probably not be able to make us out unless we mentioned our name, the school we went to, the class and most importantly some incidents that happened during that time. It is by virtue of all these things that, the person might recall you and probably add that you have really changed over the years. In this case even though you dont look the same as you did when you were 5 or 10 years old, it doesnt change the fact that it is still you. Another problem with the same body approach is that it ignores the possibility of a plastic surgery which could alter ones looks; there are also those who go for a sex change. For instance lets say Mr. A has a terrible accident where his face gets marred and what he prefers to do is actually to go under a total facial reconstruction. In doing this, he goes in for a new look, does Mr. A cease to be Mr. .A because he has a new face. What about those that go in for a sex change surgery? Will they cease to be who they are simply because they changed their sex? No, because in the eyes of their families and close friend they will always be the same people. Another example can be taken from Franz Kafkas novel the
5

metamorphosis, in which the main character Gregor Samsa wakes up only to find out that he has turned into a monstrous insect. At this point Gregor Samsa retains his human memories and habits, thinking about the consequence of being late to work, thinking about catching the next available bus and so on. What would the same body theorist make of that? Would the insect cease to be Gregor Samsa when he still recognizes himself as Gregor? In the case of D.N.A, twins are known to have the same D.N.A, but they are not the same person numerically. Thus it is seen that something beyond our physical appearance is needed as a necessary and sufficient foundation of personal identity, and this leads to the second approach, which is the psychological approach. The psychological approach: this approach uses memory or consciousness as the basis of personal identity. For Locke, consciousness is the basis of a persons personal identity. For Locke, consciousness is the repeated self identification of oneself. In Lockes view we are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions, the way we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. (Stewart, 1999). For Locke a person can claim to be the reincarnation of Plato if the person has the same soul substance as Plato, but can claim to be the same person as Plato if he has the same consciousness as Plato. (Olson, 1997). Here it seems very puzzling to me what Locke means by someone can claim to be the reincarnation of Plato if he has the same soul substance a Plato. What does Locke mean when he uses the word soul? For some philosophers use soul to mean mind which they say is the seat of consciousness, and in that case if consciousness forms the basis of ones identity then the soul is the basis of ones personal identity.

Wayne Stewart explains the idea of Lockes memory in the following way, for Wayne, memories can be long term or short term. Long term memories must be retained for a life time span, and it is this long term memory that forms the basis of our personal identity. Long term memories can be explicit or implicit. Implicit memories are the skills and habits that we have, and these have no truth value. Explicit memories have truth value; they include our recollection of events in our lives which can be true or false. In the case of implicit long term memory, amnesia or memory loss will not change the skills, habits or behavior of that person and therefore the criticism that Lockes memory criterion as a basis for personal identity will fall short in the case of memory loss will not hold since the individual will still retain certain habits or skills as Wayne Stewart explains. Another criticism of Lockes memory criterion is that it seems to suggest that, one is only responsible for those acts which they are conscious of. This is what leads to the plea of insanity in most criminal cases, where the culprit goes unpunished because he was supposedly unconscious of the crime that he committed. This leads me to another issue which is closely related to personal identity in my opinion, and this is the issue of multiple personality disorder. Multiple personality disorder is a mental illness in which a person has two or more distinct identities or personality states, which recurrently take control of the persons consciousness and behavior. The person often gives the alternate identities their own personal names and these identities may have characteristics that differ sharply from the persons primary identity. (Spiegel, 2008).

In addition, a person with this disorder experiences some degree of amnesia, in that one personality usually will not recall what occurred when another personality controlled that person. They experience sudden shifts in consciousness, identity and memory. (Spiegel, 2008). In such a case a person who suffers from this mental illness cannot be blamed for any acts of crime committed by the other personalities, since the person is not even conscious of what the other personalities do. In this scenario Locke is not wrong by saying that a person is his or her state of consciousness. Multiple personality disorder strengthens the position that what makes a persons identity goes beyond the physical appearance of a particular individual. For Hume, there is no underlying self, a persons identity lies in being composed of many differently related and yet constantly changing elements. For Hume the question of personal identity then becomes a matter of characterizing the loose cohesion of ones personal experience. I do agree with Hume that a persons identity lies in being composed of many differently related parts. This related parts I will call the body and consciousness which can either be associated to the soul or mind. Some philosophers do assert that there is a relation between the brain and consciousness. Since we can categorize the brain as part of the body, then we can say that a persons identity is made up of a relation between his or her body and his or her consciousness. It is at this juncture that I depart from Humes line of argument, since I believe that there is an underlying self. There is a relation between the body and consciousness, but consciousness is a necessary condition for personal identity whilst the body is a sufficient

condition for personal identity. How then do we explain the cases of ghosts? For their body is buried but somehow they are able to communicate things which only the dead person could have known. There have been cases that ghosts have inhabited other bodies in order to deliver certain messages. Who then would the inhabited person be? The ghost or that person? Most times the people inhabited arent conscious of what is happening around during the time they have been inhabited. People like to dismiss the issue of ghosts as the hallucinations of people, but I totally disagree with this, for specialists in the paranormal have found ways of detecting the presence of ghosts with certain instruments. These people normally have no relation with the deceased. Personal identity goes beyond the physical appearance of the person. Physical appearance is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition. The habit, character, and skills of a person make the identity of that individual. For instance, in the case of virtual identity, where people change their names, occupation and so on over the internet, for whatever reasons; the people dont lose their identity simply because they say they are who they are not. For the character, skills, habits of that individual still remain the same. Whether the character, skills, habits of an individual resides in the soul or mind or consciousness, I do not know, what I do hold is that, it is a persons character, skills and habits that form his or her identity. I am of the opinion that, though two people may have traces of similar character in different people, no two people have the same character. What they share are just traces.

CHAPTER TWO The Soul: Universal or Distinct? This chapter will focus on what we mean by the word soul. The chapter will also focus on whether there is a distinct soul, that is each individual to a soul, or whether there is a universal soul that we somehow, all connect to. The issue of what the soul is varies from cultures to cultures, and also varies among philosophers. What really makes up the soul? What is the place of a soul in human life? Where is the soul located? Can the soul be equated to the mind? Or is the soul the mind? The soul is held by some to be the eternal part of a living being, commonly held to be separate from the body. The soul has been deemed by some to be essential to consciousness and as that which carries the personality of an individual. For Socrates the soul is not any particular faculty, nor is it any special substance, it is rather the capacity of intelligence and character; it is for him a persons conscious personality. (Stumph, 1999). Socrates identified the soul with intelligence and character. Plato on the other hand sees the soul as a substance that exists before the creation of the body. For in his explanation of how one could attain knowledge of the forms, he cites recollection as one way, and in this he says that the soul was acquainted with the Forms before it was united with the body. Plato in further explanation to how the soul loses its perfection states that, when the soul leaves the world of Forms, it moves from the realm of one to the realm of many. Literally the soul moves away from a place where things are one to a place where the one manifests itself in different ways. For in the world of Forms there is but one beautiful which is permanent, and it is from this idea of the beautiful that the
10

many beautifuls emerge. From this, one can argue that, just as there is just the one idea of beautiful so there is just one soul which finds its relation to humans and perhaps to all things on earth. Plato states something worth noting in the republic; Plato says in the republic that as bodies die the soul is continually reborn in subsequent bodies. This could be understood as, the souls wherever they are, are not made for specific individuals. Their universality may not be seen in this regards but it is obvious that souls are not tailor-made for specific individuals. Socrates explanation of what the soul is, that is, that which has the capacity for intelligence and character and that which is a persons conscious identity may suggest that the soul is distinct, that is pertaining to each individual. In my opinion no two individuals can have the same character, with absolutely no difference, but each is endowed with the capacity to shape his or her character and each is endowed with the capacity to increase his or her knowledge, and for me this capacity is universal. Aristotle on the other hand does not see the soul as independent of the body, and denies that the soul might continue to exist after death. For him the soul is the essence of every living being. For Aristotle a living things soul is its activity, and the activity of every living thing is life. For example if a knife had a soul, its soul would be the act of cutting because cutting is the essence of the knife. Once the knife was destroyed, it would not be used for cutting, and that would be the end of the knife. So it is for every human being, the death of a person, signifies the end of his or her life, with no possibility of existing anywhere. There is a universal connotation to Aristotles idea of the soul, for life associates itself to every living thing.

11

The Sekyeres hold the view that the soul is the breath of God in every living creature. This for me suggests a more universal concept of the soul, for it is just one breath of God which finds a relation to all living things. From the analysis in the preceding paragraph and the analysis in the previous paragraphs; I take the position that, it is a universal soul, which finds a relation to all living things, specifically human beings, because of the focus of this paper.

12

CHAPTER THREE An Analysis of the Doctrine of Reincarnation among the Sekyere This chapter will focus on the definition of reincarnation by the people of Sekyere. I will then make an analysis of their view of reincarnation. Reincarnation among the Sekyeres is the belief that an ancestor has been reborn from the ancestral world. For the Sekyeres, the idea of reincarnation means that the whole person is reborn. (Sarkodie, 1994). It is very puzzling to me what they mean by the whole person. For the Sekyeres conception of a person states that a person is made up of the honam (body), the sunsum (spirit) the okra (soul). (Sarkodie, 1994).It therefore seems very strange to me that the Sekyeres would say that the whole person is reborn. For will the ancestor be reincarnated with his body? How does he merge his body with that of the infant that it comes to inhabit? The Sekyeres also believe that individuality and personality resides in the sunsum. One of the Sekyeres claims of reincarnation is that, there are certain infants who possess similar character traits as that of an ancestor they know. It therefore seems to me to be strange that the Sekyeres reject Asare Opokus view that it is the sunsum and the dominant characteristics of the ancestor that is reborn. For the Sekyere, the okra is the breath of God in man. It is the aspect of God in us; it is that which carries the destiny of an individual. It is the principle of life in a person. Yaw Sarkodie in his thesis on the influence of some aspects of Akan religious thought on the lives of the Akan states that the Sekyeres believe that the okra and the sunsum both reincarnate. I find this assertion too, to be very puzzling. For the Sekyeres believe that the okra returns to God upon its departure from the body and goes to receive judgment. How
13

then does the okra reincarnate from the ancestral world. Yaw Sarkodie tries to provide a solution to this by saying that, after the okra receives judgment from God, it joins the sunsum in the ancestral world and it is from there that the ancestor reincarnates. One of the views held by the Sekyere is the view that though the ancestor was reborn, part of him still lived in the ancestral world. According to Sarkodie, the Sekyeres saw this to be a paradox, since the person that was supposed to be reborn was still in the ancestral world. This paradox I believe is solvable on this basis. The Sekyeres claim reincarnation, on the basis that they recognize characteristics of an ancestor in the life of particular individuals. Therefore it is plausible to accept that it is the sunsum that reincarnates, whilst the okra is that which stays with the ancestor in the ancestral world. This is because, the Sekyeres believe that the okra is the principal of life in the individual and therefore, for the ancestor to continue to exist even in the ancestral world, the ancestor would need to have the okra in order to continue to exist and still have a part of him reincarnated, and that part will be the sunsum. This way of viewing reincarnation among the Sekyeres solves the paradoxical problem which their line of argument encounters. One of the Sekyeres belief is that, an ancestor is reincarnated so that he or she can come back to complete an unfinished business. This also seems very contradictory to me, since one of the requirements of being an ancestor is to be able to have completed your task here on earth very well. How then can they say that, an ancestor is reborn to come and finish an uncompleted business? For one thing the person being reborn will definitely not be an ancestor, and therefore will not be coming from the asamando which is the ancestral world. One of the statements which the Sekyeres hold as confirming reincarnation is nsamankwan mu, ebi reko na ebi reba. This literally means that on the ancestral road
14

some are going and some are coming. If a person cannot make it to the ancestral world if he or she doesnt complete their task here on earth, how do they come back? There are inconsistencies in the Sekyeres idea of reincarnation. For one, they claim a person has reincarnated on the basis that, they recognize certain character traits of an ancestor in a particular infant or individual. They claim the sunsum is where the personality and individuality of an individual resides, yet they reject the claim that, it is only the sunsum that reincarnates and insists that the okra along with the sunsum reincarnate. The okra is known to them, to be the principle of life in an individual, and it is also considered the aspect of God in man. One of the Sekyeres belief is that the ancestor, who reincarnates, still stays in the ancestral world. The ancestor can still be able to exist in the ancestral world only if he still has with him, the principle of life, which is the okra, so it is impossible in my opinion for the okra to reincarnate. The okra can only reincarnate, if upon death, it goes back to God, who can decide to send it back to earth.

15

CHAPTER FOUR An Analysis of the Plausibility of Reincarnation This chapter will focus on the plausibility of the doctrine of reincarnation. This analysis of the plausibility of reincarnation will use all the ideas of the issues discussed in the previous chapters. The issues discussed in the previous chapters have been aimed at helping to understand the points that will be raised in this chapter. Reincarnation is the belief that the soul of a person lives in a body on earth not once but several times. Rebirth is one of the names commonly associated with this belief. There are some who deny the plausibility of reincarnation and their reasons will be stated and analyzed in the context of this paper. One of the objections raised against reincarnation is the denial of any form of life after death. Based on the fact that there could be no life after death, there could be no reincarnation. In the chapter two of this paper, I tried to find out what constitute the soul and whether the soul is distinct or universal. For Socrates the soul is not any particular thing that can be separated from the body, but as that which contains the capacity of intelligence and character. Each human being is born with the capacity of intelligence and character; this for Socrates is what forms the essence of a human being. Each time a person comes into existence, the capacity for character and intelligence can be said to be reborn in a person and thus the soul which is said to contain this capacity for character and intelligence can be said to have reincarnated. In chapter two, of this paper, I stated that Aristotle considered the soul as the essence of every human being. And this essence is simply life or the act of living. Aristotle also
16

did not consider the soul as a separate entity from the body. But in my opinion each time, a human being is born, life as the soul starts its cycle, till the person dies, and life finds itself present when another human exists. The act of living then becomes an endless cycle, resurfacing wherever the human being is. If life or the act of living is the soul, as Aristotle says then the endless cycle of living, signifies the continuous rebirth of the soul. This for me can be termed as a form of reincarnation. Another objection raised against the doctrine of reincarnation is that, supposed reincarnated people do not even remember having lived any past lives. They have no memory at all; these critics use the memory criterion of personal identity as the basis of dismissal of reincarnation. I will deal with this objection by making reference to chapter one of this paper. In chapter one, I make mention of a distinction made by Wayne Stewart between, implicit long term memories and explicit long term memories. Implicit long term memories include the skill and habits of the individual, whilst the explicit long term memories include our memories of events. So in this case a persons implicit long term memory could be reborn without the person having any memory of having lived a past life. For there are times in a persons life when they can hardly remember events that have occurred but we dont deny that it is still that person. One of the definitions of what the soul might be in chapter two is that the soul is the breath of life, or it is the breath of God in a person. If the soul is the breath of life in an individual, then anytime that an individual has the breath of life, then a soul has been reborn. In the case of the Sekyere who believe that the okra is the breath of God in man and also that the okra is the aspect of God in man; If the okra which Sarkodie says is agreed to be soul among the Sekyere, is the aspect of God in man, then it is plausible to assume that
17

God ,who is the embodiment of all things, that is, the creator of all things, can give different aspects of himself to different individuals and can at the same time give the same aspect of himself to two different individuals. In the case of the Sekyere who believe that the okra goes back to God for judgment, it is logical to assume that upon Judgment God can decide to send the same aspect of himself to another individual if he feels the other individual did not utilize the okra well. In this way, the soul can be said to be reincarnated. When people who are close to us die, their memory continues to live on in our hearts and minds. We share the memories we have of them with people who may not have known them. In families the memories of the dead people in the family are passed on from one generation to the other. In this way, the memory of the dead is reborn in the lives of each generation. This for me is another way of looking at reincarnation. Looking at the analysis which I have outlined in the above paragraphs, I have shown that the doctrine of reincarnation is conceivable and plausible without attaching mysticism to it. Whether there is life after death or not, we might not be able to know, but from the above analysis, I believe I have shown that, reincarnation is plausible without necessarily looking at it from the angle of life after death.

18

CONCLUSION There is an eternal side to everyone. Eternal not in the sense of any mysticism that cannot be seen or understood. An eternal side, such as the memories we leave behind in the lives of the generations after us. The effect that our habits, character and certain decisions that we make have on the people we leave behind; that is, eternal. As stated earlier by Socrates, the soul which has the capacity for intelligence and character, is the essence of every human being and for me this is eternal. Reincarnation says that the soul of a dead person, enters into a living body at or after death, that is whether adult or infant. It enters into an adult, only by way of the memories the dead leaves behind. In infants, the cycle of Aristotles life begins and the capacity for intelligence and character is reborn. The memory of the dead person could also be carried on to an infant, who though has never seen the dead individual, holds a certain part of the life of the dead in them by way of the memories. The aim of this paper has been to analyze the plausibility of reincarnation. Reincarnation has normally been associated with the belief in life after death, but I have shown in this paper a different way of looking at reincarnation, without necessarily having to see it as a life after death issue. It is on this basis that I support its plausibility.

19

Bibliography Agyemang Y.S. (1994). The influence of Some Aspects of Akan Religion Thought on The Live of The Akan: A case study of the Sekyere. Department of Religion, University of Ghana. Hugh Tredemick (1939). Plato and Aristotle: Ancient Landmarks. Theosophy Volume 27, (Number 55 of a 59-part series). Retrieved 10th May, 2010 from www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy Olson E.T. (1997). The Human Animal: Personal Identity Without Psychological. Oxford University Press. Spiegel David (2009). Dissociative Identity Disorder: Microsoft student 2009. Redmond W.A: Microsoft Corporation, 2008. Stewart Wayne (1999). Metaphysics by Default: Essential passage. Retrieved May 10th, 2010 from www.mbdefault.org Stewart Wayne (1999). Metaphysics by Default: Personal Identity. Retrieved May 10th 2010 from www.mbdefault.org Stumph E. S (1999). Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill College, Boston.

20