I wrote an abstract in preparation for
a paper on life and death in Shepherd’s philosophical writings. Then I found
myself having to narrow down the topic for conferences which required only a
couple of thousand words or so. Thus, I ended up focusing on the afterlife and
the analogies Shepherd uses to explain it. I decided not to submit this abstract
and 2,000 word paper because the Call for Papers was not specifically for
history of philosophy and continued to work on it and develop it. Then I submitted
another version of the abstract to the British History of Philosophy annual
conference at Sheffield University and it was accepted. So the paper has now
expanded into two longer versions, one abridged version I presented and one
extended version1.
As a result, I have become fascinated
by this question of immortality and an afterlife. Is death just another life
phase? Why do we feel the need to think/believe there is a life after death? Is
there a life after death? Atheists think not but all religions try to address
this human concern. Shepherd (1827) was writing in the late 18th
century and possibly early nineteenth century and uses two analogies to help
explain her view2. She was a Christian but, nevertheless, felt
everyone should be able to follow her philosophical thoughts regardless of
faith. These two analogies fascinate me because they are linked to scientific
method behind discoveries today.
One such example I read about recently
is the Planet Nine theory which is akin to her bug on the leaf analogy. As can
be seen in this video (see below3), the science researchers discovered
why the sun tilts by reasoning about how Planet Nine impacts on things around
it in the solar system rather than through empirical observation of the sun and
Planet Nine. Indeed, scientists are yet to find the exact location of this
planet but hope to do so soon4. So similarly, Shepherd talks about
the afterlife not as something to be empirically proven initially but to be
logically and rationally explored first. She gives the example of a bug’s
empirical experiences being restricted to its leaf which makes it ignorant of
the possibilities beyond what its senses discover. This illustrates situations
in scientific discovery too. Had these scientists restricted their thinking to
only directly observable phenomenon rather than working through various logical
possibilities about the cosmos, they may never have hit upon the best
explanation. Now they are somewhat in the position of the captain in Shepherd’s
(1827) other analogy. The captain has a rough idea of where north, in reality,
is and uses the compass reading to navigate there. Similarly, the scientists
now have a conceptual idea of how Planet Nine is interacting with the sun and then
expect to further it with empirical observation later.
I think Shepherd’s (1827) approach to
metaphysics and scientific method (of rationalising through a topic as far as
our minds will go before expecting any empirical evidence to confirm it, as
well as the usefulness of rough ideas for initially guiding us to the truth) is
also seen in the way Batygin5 describes the discovery process. First
there was reasoning about possibilities, resulting in more than one theory.
This can be seen when Batygin states “I actually had theorized this in 2012 and
wrote about it and the theory was almost exactly the same, except for it wasn’t
Planet Nine doing the torqueing but a companion star.”6 Shepherd (1827)
also provides more than one possible explanation, leaving open which may be
closest to the truth about the afterlife. This open-mindedness is also useful
in science where hypothetical theories try to resolve tensions about a
phenomena. This can be seen when Batygin describes the puzzle of the tilting
sun and the latest theory: “It does help us understand planet formation because
planet formation theory dictates that all things must start out co-planar, in
the same plane. The fact that the Sun is tilted with respect to the rest of the
solar system is almost a violation of that very fundamental principle, so
understanding what’s going on there is important.”7
So, I think Shepherd (1827) outlines
an analytic philosophical approach which suits scientific methodology and
discovery. This is interesting because it would be easy to assume that an
empiricist would match up with science better than a rationalist. However, as
can be seen here, scientists often work from hypothesis to observation rather
than invariably working the other way round. Hence, I think Shepherd’s logical
and rational analysis of things that are not fully comprehended about the world
and human life is not only fascinating within the history of philosophy but is a
relevant approach for modern science today.
1 See my academia profile for the 2,000
word (2016) and abridged version (2017) of these papers, available at: https://independent.academia.edu/LibaKaucky
2 Shepherd, M. (1827). Essays on the Perception of an External Universe
and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (first edition
ed.). Piccadilly, London, London, United Kingdom: John Hatchard and Son. Available
at (last accessed 27/05/17):
3 The video I refer to in this blog, of
the science researchers, M. Brown, K. Batygin, E. Bailey who theorised Planet
Nine’s impact on the sun, is available at (last accessed 27/05/2017):
4 ibid
5 ibid
6 Batygin interviewed by Astronomy
Magazine, online article, ‘Planet Nine
may be responsible for tilting the Sun: How our possible rogue planet may be
messing with our solar system’, By S.
Stirone, Published: Wednesday, October 19, 2016, available at (last
accessed 27/05/2017):
7 ibid
