In this technologically-advanced century that we are currently in, science have proved so much that

almost all claims must be proven by it. The soul, where until now has yet to have a definitive
answer, is an element far from the reach of science. Whether it exists or not, or whether it was just
an idea made by previous philosophers and theologians, are questions that are not within the
boundary where experimental analysis could resolve. It needs higher thinking, not necessarily
based on reason and our intellect alone, but with accordance to our experiences.
Empiricist David Hume introduced a new way into the approach of determining the existence or
immortality of soul. Now in seeking further knowledge of the soul, we must imply everything that we
have learned, from being a critical reader to a logical thinker. In one of Hume's claim where he
stated that the soul is mortal due to the fact that we have no memories of what the soul have
encountered during its existence before our life could be contradicted with the theory of Plato.
Plato' Dualism states that due to the imperfection of our body, the soul which contains all perfect
ideas lose most of it. In addition, science has already proved that dreams occur everyday, it is just
that our mind could not recall these mental activities. So does this suggest that since we have an
ongoing mental activity, even when asleep, that the soul must exist eternally? And in relation with
this, must Hume's view on the temporary extinguishment of our consciousness leading to the
possibility of the disappearance of the soul be considered false?
Concerning Descartes, a rationalist, if mental activities are controllable then how about those that
are in a condition that prevents them from their ordinary cognitive activity, for example those that
have experienced brain damage. In addition to this, St. Thomas Aquinas said in his metaphysics
that the soul could not have perception without its dependence on the body's sensation. Since
perception involves a thinking process, thus concerning mental activity, then its inability to do so
due to the lack of elements such as the sensation of the material body would mean that the soul
could not do all levels and kinds of thinking that it is capable of, thus the capability is restricted. A
circus actor could do all of his tricks but when a single prop is missing, he could not do the act that
involves the prop thus the capability or the overall acts that the circus actor can do is limited, when
this lack of that single act is compared to a performance where the actor did all of his acts, we
could say that the performance lacking a single act is imperfect as compared to the one that is
complete. Using this analogy with the soul, if it is unable to do a single kind of thinking then it is
imperfect when compared to a substance that can perform all thinking independently. This could
suggest the soul is imperfect. But according to Descartes, the composition of the soul is this
spiritual substance that he claims to be eternal and immortal. Since the soul is imperfect, the
substance that composes it must also be imperfect. Thus the eternality and immortality of this
imperfect substance could be subject to questioning. But in a sense that if we still regard that the
substance is immortal and eternal while being imperfect, then there is this substance more perfect
than that of the substance of the soul giving it the ability to do so. This imperfectness of the
substance could also lead to the doubt of whether there is a law superior to that of the natural law
that governs the soul.