Who hasn’t
wondered about what, if anything, happens after personal death, what the dead
do, how they are, and where they are, if not in graveyards? In my experience,
the subject generates more problems than philosophy’s other ‘big questions’.
The study moves us beyond the natural order of things to a place where the
principle of sufficient reason is on shaky grounds. The fact that Stephen
Braude tackles the issue through a study of parapsychology strikes me as risky
business. He might get there, but why ‘base jump’ when established paths
(metaphysics and epistemology) are risky enough?

Still, his research is thorough. He brings credibility to
parapsychology. Given the importance of the issue, we best read along and
listen to what mediums say about the dead. It could be the case that some of us
will survive death (at least for a time) and that our pre mortem and post
mortem states are connected in some fashion. If so, then, some individuals
ought to be able to explain that connection to us. These individuals, the
mediums, must possess some qualifications to do this work. What standard do we
use to determine the legitimacy of a reported connection with the dead? Clearly
some mediums are crackpots. When (if ever) is communication from the dead
genuine? Should we appeal to simplicity or complexity? It seems counter
intuitive to suppose that a competent medium would seek to obfuscate things unnecessarily,
though in some instances the dead are unclear, as Braude reports.

My main problem with this whole business is that the attempt to
communicate with the dead puts us on a slippery slope towards the absurd. Death
is not something we can experience. So what the dead have to report about
themselves (if the dead survive their personal death) moves beyond our point of
view. Thus the communication cannot address the nature of death as such. The
mistake (the absurdity) is to confound both states. For instance, we say that
death is the loss of consciousness (brain death). The dead do nothing. Are
mediums reporting on what the dead do when they do nothing or on how it feels
not to feel anything?

The solution to this problem might be to suppose that we can establish
an intuited connection with the dead. This views seems to make sense since it
puts the dead outside of space and time (and defuses the absurdity of asking
where someone is when someone is nowhere). Why then do the dead generally
report trivial matters, as Braude says? Communication with the dead should be
an awesome opportunity for insight into the mysteries of existence, why there
is something rather than nothing, what lies outside space and time, and why
innocent victims suffer, if a loving God exists? Perhaps communication with the
dead can be used to explain some of the problems raised in Chapter 9: the
mind-body problem, and the issue of personal identity (how the dead remain
personal as disembodied spirit). Braude claims that his work in parapsychology
prepares the way for a metaphysico-epistemological study of death, but I see it
the other way around. We can use metaphysics as a firewall against some of
these absurdities.

The exciting thing about the field of parapsychology is that it is fraught
with difficulties, paradoxes, contradictions, imprecisions, puzzles, unexamined
assumptions, and non sequiturs. It is a wonderful teaching tool because
the student soon learns to define terms, make distinctions, examine
assumptions, maintain internal consistency, and take out the trash. I know of
no branch of philosophy that offers more opportunity for a radical
interrogation of reality. In that regard,
Braude’s work is a gem. Once we get over contents, we can focus on the
real goal of the book, to investigate the possibility of survival. His work
suggests that death is not always the end of personal existence. In some
instances, the data of parapsychology suggests the possibility of survival.
This aspect is more promising than the contents side (albeit difficult to
separate one from the other).

Philosophers will appreciate the fact that Braude opens his disciplined,
analytical examination of the evidence
by defining terms, making distinctions, reducing the complex to the simple, and
otherwise setting the stage for a meticulous analysis of assumptions(Chapter
1). We are introduced to the usual variety of issues, and some not so expected
(see the book’s Index for a sampling of topics), but all designed to scrutinize
the medium’s message from the dead. Braude succeeds in raising doubts that the
evidence can be explained by psychology alone. The case of Patience Worth
(Chapter 5) is striking in that regard. He gradually accumulates a stockpile of
data, not all of it favourable to survival, but on the whole it provides him
with a reasonable basis to conclude that some individuals seem to survive their
personal death, even if only for a limited time. His book is fair, balanced,
honest, and well written.

I teach courses in death and dying and we cover a wide range of topics,
including many that are raised in this book. I recommend this book. It’s the
best I’ve seen in parapsychology.

© 2003 Ken Bryson

Ken Bryson Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, University College of Cape
Breton

Categories: Philosophical