Matthew's Death: A Brief Philosophical Analysis

One day, a man named Matthew, misjudged the road and ran into a tree. He suffered from se-vere head trauma, and the doctors found his living will that was in his jacket. Matthew’s inju-ries were so extensive that at best he would be considered brain dead. In his living will he had his two sisters, Melissa and Melinda, in charge of what the course of action should be. But, the thing was that both sisters had to agree on what to do with Matthew. The doctors explained Matthew’s condition to the two sisters. They explained that the part of the brain that was de-stroyed made him who he was, and he is nonresponsive. They ultimately have two choices: pull the plug or let him live in his comatose state. Melissa looked at the issue through a scientific lens. She believed that Matthew was made up of certain processes but since the brain can’t pro-cess anything he will no longer be Matthew. There is no point in keeping him alive. However, Melinda looks at his body as a temporary home that Matthew’s soul is residing in. The soul is not dead, therefore Matthew is not dead. He should be kept alive (“An Invitation to Philosophy”, 2-5). This is a trivial question that we can apply to philosophy and look at the problem through different philosophers’ eyes. The two philosophers that we

His views, based on Plato’s “Phaedo”, is that the soul is immortal, meaning that whether or not the body dies the soul is still alive (66a). This being said, Plato had a theory, the theory of recollection. Knowledge is purely recollection, which means that we have previously learned that behavior and we are re-membering it. However, this would not be possible “unless our soul was in some place before existing in the human form” adding to the immortality claim (Plato, 72a-73a). If the soul is immortal then the body doesn't have to be fully functioning for Matthew to be alive. His brain doesn't dictate his death, his soul will live on