So - what is it of the self that survives death?

Memory, in the broadest sense.

Ian Stevenson’s magnum opus, published in 1997, was a 2,268-page, two-volume work called Reincarnation and Biology. Many of his subjects had unusual birthmarks and birth defects, such as finger deformities, underdeveloped ears, or being born without a lower leg. There were scar-like, hypopigmented birthmarks and port-wine stains, and some awfully strange-looking moles in areas where you almost never find moles, like on the soles of the feet. Reincarnation and Biology contained 225 case reports of children who remembered previous lives and who also had physical anomalies that matched those previous lives, details that could in some cases be confirmed by the dead person’s autopsy record and photos.

A Turkish boy whose face was congenitally underdeveloped on the right side said he remembered the life of a man who died from a shotgun blast at point-blank range. A Burmese girl born without her lower right leg had talked about the life of a girl run over by a train. On the back of the head of a little boy in Thailand was a small, round puckered birthmark, and at the front was a larger, irregular birthmark, resembling the entry and exit wounds of a bullet; Stevenson had already confirmed the details of the boy’s statements about the life of a man who’d been shot in the head from behind with a rifle, so that seemed to fit. And a child in India who said he remembered the life of boy who’d lost the fingers of his right hand in a fodder-chopping machine mishap was born with boneless stubs for fingers on his right hand only. This type of “unilateral brachydactyly” is so rare, Stevenson pointed out, that he couldn’t find a single medical publication of another case.

More detail here.

Memory, in the broadest sense. — Wayfarer

...as we return from whence we came, the circle of discussion is complete.

@Banno

I just posted the last section of my commentary on the Phaedo. Socrates was unable to demonstrate through argument the existence of the soul separate from the body or its continued existence in death.

The counterpart to argument is myth. Throughout the dialogue Socrates has referred to myth as a means of self-persuasion. He did not end with an argument but with a myth he made up. After telling the myth he immediately says:

“No sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think it is fitting for a man to risk the belief—for the risk is a noble one—that this, or something like this, is true about our souls and their dwelling places …”

Here again, as he said near the beginning, one should “sing incantations to himself, over and over again” in order to persuade himself. (114d)

As to recollection, he says:

"Well now, you know what happens to lovers, whenever they see a lyre or cloak or anything else their loves are accustomed to use: they recognize the lyre, and they get in their mind, don't they, the form of the boy whose lyre it is? And that is recollection. Likewise, someone seeing Simmias is often reminded of Cebes, and there'd surely be countless other such cases.'" (73b-d)

One does not need to have previously died to be reminded of lyres or lovers or friends.

Socrates uses the terms recollection, remember, and remind without distinction. Amusingly enough, his friend cannot remember the argument for recollection and asks to be reminded.

Socrates sees the myths as beneficial, at least for some, even if they are not true. It may seem odd that he does not put the truth above all else, but in the absence of truth the philosopher must be guided by what seems best.

Your suggestion is that differing areas of discussion - you have listed chemistry, mathematics and religion - are incommensurable? — Banno

Of course. Religion and science are NOMAs.

And yet chemistry makes use of mathematics.

Sure, there are some generalities that many of the scientific disciplines have in common (there used to be just one science which was later broken down into disciplines). Still, the point is that each scientific discipline has areas or modes of interest that do not overlap with those of other scientific disciplines. That's why there are different scientific disciplines, ie. biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

It's really only religion you would segregate from critique. You are apparently indulging in special pleading. I don't buy it.

I wouldn't "segregate it from critique" -- implying that it's "too good to be criticized" or some such.
It's just not clear how one could meaningfully go about criticizing it, or for what purpose.

It's beyond me how religious concepts can be the subject of philosophical inquiry. Indeed, it's a philosophical tradition to do so, I just don't understand how or why. When religious people claim that their doctrines are special, that they require special initiation to be understood, and such, I see no reason not to take their words at face value. However, this doesn't mean I believe those doctrines. That would be strange.

The notion of incommensurate conceptual schema did survive Davidson's criticism. Non-overlapping magisteria overlap. Otherwise we could not understand them.

See how cites physical phenomena in support of reincarnation. If religious views have consequences for what one does in the world, then those views are subject to criticism on that basis.

The notion of incommensurate conceptual schema did survive Davidson's criticism. Non-overlapping magisteria overlap. Otherwise we could not understand them. — Banno

Really? You think you understand reincarnation or dependent co-arising? On whose terms of understanding? Yours or the Hindus'/Buddhists'?

If religious views have consequences for what one does in the world, then those views are subject to criticism on that basis.

But in that case, you'd actually have to prove the causal link between religious view X and action A.
This is impossible because we can't see into people's minds. You also need to account for the possibility of people being cunning; ie. allow for the possibility that they aren't speaking truthfully to a questioner who is not a member of their religion (some religions have a specific clause that it's not wrong to lie to outsiders).

"The Holy Spirit told me to set my neighbor's house on fire (he is a Muslim)". Really? That's the sort of thing you want to investigate??

“No sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think it is fitting for a man to risk the belief ...” — Fooloso4

Nonsense. You're using a fake translation.

Socrates says:
“… when death attacks the human being, the mortal part of him dies, it seems, whereas the immortal part departs intact and undestroyed, and is gone, having retreated from death […] And so, more surely than anything, Cebes, soul is immortal and imperishable, and all our souls really will exist in Hades” 106e -107a

Cebes replies :
“For my part, Socrates, I’ve nothing else to say against this, nor can I doubt the arguments in any way”. 107a

Simmias agrees, but still has some doubts:
“… I’m compelled still to keep some doubt in my mind about what has been said” 107b

Socrates has the final word:
“As it is, however, since the soul is evidently immortal, it could have no means of safety or of escaping evils, other than becoming both as good and as wise as possible”

Concerning the myth he tells of Hades, Socrates says:
“… since the soul turns out to be immortal, I think that for someone who believes this to be so it is both fitting and worth the risk – for fair is the risk – to insist that either what I have said or something like it is true concerning our souls and their dwelling places” 114d

Conclusion: Socrates does not doubt the immortality of the soul or its journey to Hades.

The use of the concept reincarnation is a poor word conjured up by priests as a control mechanism. Ditto rebirth.
Now,life after death is a totally different thing.
The Soul is your etheric body with all its memory,skills and growth detaching from the outer material body at death.
No need for this what reincarnates and such like.

You posted the same thing elsewhere, but did not accuse me of using a "fake translation".

You have accused me before of making things up but when I cited sources you just moved on to something else. That demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity, both intellectual and emotional.

It is from the Grube translation:http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-09-15.2713280635/file

There you cited another translation. My comments:

You neglect to include the following from this translation:

and he ought to repeat such things to himself as if they were magic charms

Whether or not the soul has been shown to be immortal is a basic question of my essay. I show how and why each of the arguments fail. It is because the arguments fail that he used myths to persuade, charms and incantations.

Note how many of the translations you cite include the idea that it is worth the risk to believe. If something has been proven to be true there is no reason to risk believing it is true.

Cheers.

It is from the Grube translation:http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-09-15.2713280635/file — Fooloso4

So, why are you using the Grube translation that is obviously faulty?

The Greek original is VERY CLEAR:

μὲν οὖν ταῦτα διισχυρίσασθαι οὕτως ἔχειν ὡς ἐγὼ διελήλυθα, οὐ πρέπει νοῦν ἔχοντι ἀνδρί: ὅτι μέντοι ἢ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ τοιαῦτ᾽ ἄττα περὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις, ἐπείπερ ἀθάνατόν γε ἡ ψυχὴ φαίνεται οὖσα, τοῦτο καὶ πρέπειν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ἄξιον κινδυνεῦσαι οἰομένῳ οὕτως ἔχειν—καλὸς γὰρ ὁ κίνδυνος—καὶ χρὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπᾴδειν ἑαυτῷ, διὸ δὴ ἔγωγε καὶ πάλαι μηκύνω τὸν μῦθον. ἀλλὰ τούτων δὴ ἕνεκα θαρρεῖν χρὴ περὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῇ

The Sedley & Long translation which I am using and other translations have the correct version. Why are you choosing the incorrect one if you are so "objective" as you claim to be?

So, why are you using the Grube translation that is obviously faulty? — Apollodorus

You are confused. On the one hand you fault the translation and on the other my omitted part of the translation. Regarding the former, I linked the translation. See for yourself and tell me where it is obviously faulty. As to my choice of omission, see the other thread.

The Grube translation is highly regarded by scholars. Brann's translation says much the same thing.

There is no such thing as the "correct version". Each translator has to make choices. If there were a correct version there would be no need for new translations.

And speaking of transating, why don't you translate the Greek above in your own words? After all, it is, as you say "very clear". Why bother with Sedley and Long or any other translation?

Myth or silence.

Why should I give you my translation - which you will obviously reject - when Sedley & Long's and other translations serve the purpose?

I provided the Greek original with the missing words:

ἐπείπερ ἀθάνατόν γε ἡ ψυχὴ, "since the soul is immortal".

You are providing nothing apart from an incomplete translation. And, again, why did you choose this particular translation when in other translations the passage is more complete, more faithful to the Greek original and more balanced?

Why should I give you my translation — Apollodorus

Why should you copy and paste the Greek?

Once again, there are no missing words. I left the words out and I explained why. Instead of addressing that you keep returning to the same uninformed claim.

Once again, there are no missing words. I left the words out — Fooloso4

If there are no missing words, how did you leave them out?

The words are in the Greek original and in proper translations like Sedley & Long.

How can you possibly ignore both the Greek original and other translations if you're serious about an objective analysis?

Myth or silence. — Banno

My first reaction is different audience. With Christianity there was by the time the Tractatus was written more than enough myth.

In the Introduction, Sedley & Long say:

“… in this concluding moment Socrates and his companions are in no doubt as to what it amounts to: soul must leave the body and go to Hades. Thus, at the very close of the defence of immortality, at the point where argument reaches its limit, and is about to give way to eschatological myth, Socrates is seen yet again reaffirming the Hades mythology” p. xxxiii

It looks like you have deliberately chosen another, incomplete translation because it suits your agenda. Sedley & Long’s translation and commentary would have demolished your theory.

It looks like you have deliberately chosen another, incomplete translation because it suits your agenda. Sedley & Long’s translation and commentary would have demolished your theory. — Apollodorus

I used the translation I have and online translations I found. If I had used Sedley and Long I would have skipped the introduction.

I used the translation I have and online translations I found. If I had used Sedley and Long I would have skipped the introduction. — Fooloso4

Sedley and Long aren't nobodies, they are highly regarded scholars.

David Neil Sedley is a British philosopher and historian of philosophy. He was the seventh Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy at Cambridge University.

David Sedley – Wikipedia

Alex Long, of St Andrews is the editor of Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, which brings together original research on immortality from early Greek philosophy, such as the Pythagoreans and Empedocles, to Augustine. The contributors consider not only arguments concerning the soul’s immortality, but also the diverse and often subtle accounts of what immortality is, both in Plato and in less familiar philosophers, such as the early Stoics and Philo of Alexandria.

So, Sedley & Long would have been highly relevant to your “essay” IMHO.

@Banno

Myth or silence.
— Banno

My first reaction is different audience. With Christianity there was by the time the Tractatus was written more than enough myth. — Fooloso4

A few more thoughts:

Wittgenstein's concept of language is far more restrictive than Plato's.

Plato addresses the psychology or character of the individual.

Plato and Wittgenstein have different temperments

This is from another thread but belongs here:

It's pretty clear that there is no account of reincarnation in which what is typically called the self comes, after death, to be found in a different body, because the things that go together to make the self do not survive death. Even were we to take on board the evidence cited by Wayfarer, the conclusion could only be that reincarnation was a very, very rare event. — Banno

Okay, let's try this again, here with a Hindu style version of reincarnation that you should be familiar with (you ate their curry, but forgot the theology that came with it?):

What is reincarnated is the soul. You true self, the who you really are is a soul, and as such you're an eternal servant of the Lord. But because you rebelled against this servitude and wanted to be independent, you fell into maya (illusion), and now you have the wrong understanding of who you are. This wrong understanding of self is called false ego. People who think they are their bodies, or their thoughts, their emotions, their experiences, or their possessions, are said to identify with the false ego; ie. they have the wrong understanding of who they really are.

Indeed, the things that go together to make the false self do not survive death. This is why someone who doesn't understand who they really are doesn't see the process of reincarnation.

- - -

It's been a while since I last discussed ISKCON theology, so I'm a bit rusty, but I think I mostly remembered it correctly. The core point in Dharmic religions for Westerners to understand, I think, is that "that which is typically called the self" is not considered the self at all in those religions. Any attempt to understand reincarnation (or rebirth) needs to take this into account.

Even were we to take on board the evidence cited by Wayfarer, the conclusion could only be that reincarnation was a very, very rare event.

I think those accounts are at best merely weak evidence of karma.

No, stay and fight! Make your point, stand your ground!

What is reincarnated is the soul. You true self, the who you really are is a soul, and as such you're an eternal servant of the Lord. — baker

There is nothing new here. The self as described by psychology and the soul described here are distinct. Who I am - critic, carer, teacher, father - are all to do with this life, not any previous one.

The weasel word "true" in "true self" serves only to disguise the fact that the soul is not the self.