The idea of having different and multiple perspectives is not a new idea. Often times, people would take different stances on certain matters because of the type of culture they have, and the type of environment they are part of. Due to the external factors present in their surroundings, people react to issues differently depending on what their environment says about it.
The article written by Paul Bloom in 2004 is an example of how people would have different perspectives and stances in anything under the sun. As what its title says, The Duel Between Body and Soul, it can be easily inferred that there are three possible points that will be raised by the author: first could possibly be the domination of body over the soul further making the soul a less important concept that body, second is the vice versa of the first one, and the third, some people would thing that both (the body and the soul) coexist with each other.
For this paper, the claim is siding on the first point—there is an undeniable sense of dualism because the most important to consider is the body of a person, and not the soul since the whole world has no single stance when it comes to religion. Therefore, considering the multiple perspectives that may come considered, I would prefer to stand on having considered the essentialism of body than soul, and so there should not have any issues regarding dualism of body and soul.
“People see bodies and souls as separate; we are common-sense dualists,” said Paul Bloom in his article. This, for me, is one of the most striking line he used to convey his readers on his stand. I totally agree that people think that the body and soul are different entities and I, myself, is one of those common-sense dualists. It can be seen on my thesis statement—I chose body over soul which insinuates that the two are different and separate entities. It is true though that having considered the body and soul as different entities is a product of both the corporeal and no corporeal aspects existing in the intellectual sphere of Homo sapiens sapiens.
I cannot agree more when Paul Bloom started to cite movies showing the concept of dualism. In the most basic and most known script, I am going to use the fairytales that we are all familiar about. Of course, who does not know Beauty and the Beast? A beautiful lady fell in love with a beast and because of true love, they kissed, and the beast turned into one of the most handsome man in the world of fairytales? The beast may have turned into man but all his feelings, values and attitude are still kept. Feelings, values and attitude have lingered because it is encrypted in the soul of the beast. Having known that the body changed and the soul remained the same shows a very simple conclusion—body and soul are different entities and so there should have no issue on dualism between the two. It is understood that dualism is a normal perspective—two entities exist differently with each other, but undeniably coexists with each other.
The ideology of dualism cannot be seen only in fairytales where the soul and body are identified as separate things. The ideology of dualism can be seen everywhere and it can be easily identified when there are people (coming from different environment and culture) started to talk about a matter. It can be observed that it takes a bit longer for one of the two parties to concede, and it is also hard for them to compromise into single point of view.
However, though the existence of the ideology of dualism is clear, there are still people who claim that the body and soul are not different entities, rather a single matter. In the case of the Beauty and the Beast, some think that the Beast have turned into man and also acted like a man, leaving his beast life behind. Though the point is somehow digestible, there is still an obvious loophole—the love of the beast for Bell did not change, and love, as an emotion, is encrypted in the soul. Therefore, it is not true that soul and body is just one single thing.
The concept of dualism will always be there and there is no any way to counter its existence. Why? It is simply because people live from different places with different origins, different culture, and different way of thinking. At this point, different way of thinking is reflective on the definition of what perspective is. Therefore, people coming from different places will have different perspectives and no any single umbrella concept other than dualism and multiple perspectivism can collate, combine and explain such situation.
If everyone would welcome the goodness of holistic approach, then the ideology of dualism will never encounter any counter arguments no more. Dualism will never be a topic of a debate and it will then be a widely accepted ideology in any areas around the world. Besides, through reading Paul Bloom’s article in the New York Times, it is comprehensible that dualism welcomes fairness as it does not tolerate discrimination that may happen when two ideologies clash.
With all that explained, the claim can be found realistic. Indeed, there is an undeniable sense of dualism because of the existing internal and external factors in the environment. Therefore, body and soul are different and separate entities which require the ideology of dualism to understand.
Work Cited
Bloom, Paul. “The Duel Between Body and Soul.” The New York Times. 10 September 2004. Web. 29 Mar 2016
