July 2008 Archives

According to CNN.com, Walter Scott, 24, of New Zealand, sold his soul to Hell's Pizza for $3800.  See story here.  He tried to list it on TradeMe, but the item was taken town because it was deemed in bad taste.  What's interesting is that a 21 year old US student tried to sell his soul on Ebay but the auction was taken town because the company ruled that something tangible needed to be exchanged for a viable sale.  But are there problems with selling one's soul?  I don't recall any religion saying one has to own one's soul in order to enter the pearly gates, only that one's soul be pure, good, etc.  Does it really matter who owns it?  I mean, if it's my soul, it's still me. 
     But let's look at the logic of it for a second and let's assume that I am identical to my soul (a la Descartes).  The following principle seems plausible: If x = y then x can't own y.  I can own lots of things, but if I own something then it follows that the thing I own is separate from the thing doing the owning.  Right?  If so then I don't own my soul.  But if I don't own it then I can't sell it?  Therefore if Scott sold his soul then he is not identical to his soul and if Scott is identical to his soul then the sale of his soul was illegitimate (where by an 'illegitimate sale' I understand at least a sale of something one does not own).  Therefore Descartes is wrong to identify me with my soul if souls can be sold.  Souls can be sold (W. Scott did it).  Therefore Descartes is wrong.  Thoughts?

[Too simplistic a view of Descartes?  Maybe.  But let's have some fun with it.]

1st annual Interdisciplinary Approach to Philosophical Issues Conference (2008)

Hosted by the University of South Alabama

This year's theme will be "At the Crossroads of Philosophy and Psychology"

Sponsored by University of South Alabama Philosophy Department

September 19-20 2008

Keynote speaker: Joshua Knobe, University of North Carolina

Submissions are due no later than August 1. Early submissions are encouraged.