One of my students came in with an interesting assignment this afternoon. The assignment was to deconstruct the factors that go into defining an individual's identity. We had a fascinating conversation, discussing factors including physiology, heritage, personal experiences, and preferences in food and recreational activities. However, there is one factor that we didn't touch on in that discussion: souls.
Souls themselves are difficult to define. I consider them something like the innermost part of oneself. The souls houses one's personality and preferences, in my opinion. However, even that simple definition gets a little murky. One's preferences may be influenced by physiology, as seeing or hearing or doing something may cause the creations of certain chemicals in one's brain, triggering a sensation that the body will want to experience again later. For example, when I eat chocolate, there is a chemical reaction in my brain registering the sensation, which may be the cause of the good feeling I get when I eat it. So, if I like chocolate, does that preference reside in the body or in the soul?
The distinction may be unimportant. My body and spirit are connected now, and they are both part of me. Any preference I have may be personal or physiological, and it will still be part of me. I will die at one point, at which time, my spirit will be separated from my body, so I'll be able to experience what my souls is like without the influence of my body, which will be really trippy, but then, when I'm resurrected, I'll get my body back, and I'll be myself again: spirit and body combined, both playing their part in making me me.
So, I think one's body should be taken into account when considering the aspect of one's identity. The body is material, and is subject to change, but it's not as temporary as I sometimes think. My body wasn't always part of me, and my current body won't be part of me forever, but I should probably consider my body as being part of me, as being embodied is an aspect of my eternal identity.
People are complicated, partly because there are so many factors that go into making them who they are. I think that some of those factors, like heritage, many only matter in mortality. In the afterlife, we will all recognize our true heritage as children of God. But we will still have bodies, we will still remember our experiences, and we may even hold onto some of the preferences we had in mortality. It's hard to say, exactly, which parts of us are part of our eternal identities, but I would say that our bodies probably count.
1 comment:
Interesting discussion! Something to ponder.
When describing a person we often talk about their physical attributes and their hobbies which are, of course, part of who they are. However I keep thinking about Christopher Reeve (Superman), a highly athletic man who was paralyzed from the neck down in a horseback riding accident. I heard he told his wife that she could be free of him, but she said she had not married a body, she had married HIM. Or the song "Believe Me, If All Those Endearing Young Charms" written by Thomas Moore when his wife, thinking herself unlovable because she had been scarred by smallpox, locked herself in her room. Or the aged spouse who still cares for their husband/wife stricken with Alzheimer's who no longer even knows them. "I still know who (S)HE is." These loving spouses loved much more than the physical attributes, they loved the essence of the spirit.
Post a Comment