Shepherd vol 1 ebook chapter 12 Shepherd’s Philosophy

Chapter 12: Shepherd’s Philosophy

Given all of my analysis of Shepherd’s arguments, I would like to suggest the possible interpretation that a motivating factor for Shepherd to reject empirical, sensory perception based philosophical arguments is largely due to her strong, rationally based understanding of God. Furthermore, I read Shepherd as, somewhat deliberately and somewhat automatically, basing her philosophy on her concept of God and rejecting theories that do not logically cohere with this. Nevertheless, Shepherd was always willing to go beyond her comfort zone in terms of religion by enjoying her visits to other denominations at worship, such as an Anglican church while in London[i]. So, she was not narrow-minded about religion, having had social and academic contact with people of various beliefs and denominations. As McRobert writes about Shepherd’s family, the Primroses, in a footnote:

“The Primrose family was on intimate terms with at least one Presbyterian dissenter, James Pillans, who became a ‘tutor or ‘Dominie’ to the Primrose girls. In view of the history of religious conflict in Scotland, the Primrose family’s diverse religious affiliations are probably significant. They would have suggested sympathy and sensitivity toward problems arising from religious divisions, and a willingness to treat religion as separable — to some extent at least — from educational and political matters.”[ii]

This approach of being religious yet being able to keep religion and educational or political matters distinct from one another maybe influenced her approach to philosophy. This can be seen in her writings when she shows she can keep inferences from scripture and philosophical inferences distinct from one another, despite advocating both: 

“I think that, independant of the inference from scripture, the reunion of memory to future consciousness presents no philosophical difficulty”[iii]

So, much as Shepherd[iv] wishes to argue from a theist stance in her philosophical treatise and sees nothing wrong in deepening a demonstrable understanding of God’s existence, I maintain that her arguments are constructed such that they do not purely stand or fall according to whether her reader accepts her theist stance or not. As can be seen from the quote above from her Essay X[v], Shepherd seems to be conscious of presenting claims in a way which assesses the philosophical problems and suggests resolutions separately from religious textual reasons to support her conclusions. This also bears out in her general approach when she states she is writing a treatise on her philosophical system of thought and not expounding any type of theological system, including not even a hybrid of philosophy and theology[vi].   

Hence, Shepherd categorises herself as very much a philosopher who happens to take a theist stance as opposed to a materialist position. I would argue that this may be one of the reasons why she details her criticisms of materialism in Essay X[vii]. In her second treatise[viii] she rejects, at one end of the spectrum, the Idealist emphasis on knowledge or belief acquired through the senses as well as, at the other end of the spectrum, a strand of empirically-based direct realist arguments. This is because, although they acknowledge an external world independent of one’s sensory perception, they nevertheless are often empirical in their approach. For Shepherd, any philosophical argument which is thoroughly grounded in an empirical approach fails to take account of many ideas held by “devout minds”[ix] because these ideas are often gained through reasoned thought about ideas held in one’s mind. I think Shepherd is saying that concepts of God, the soul and the afterlife are beyond one’s sensory and perceptual experience but are within one’s rational capacity to reason through. Moreover, as one can see[x], she shows that, just as in her example of the compass guiding the ship north, the devout mind can grasp the idea of God and an afterlife and believe these ideas to be true, despite the fact that details about God and the afterlife are beyond our human intellect and certainly beyond our sensory and perceptual experience. 

I further suggest that Shepherd’s keen interest in science and discussions with expert scientists of her day possibly influenced her approach to metaphysical possibilities concerning death and the afterlife. Although many science-friendly approaches take the empirical route, Shepherd[xi], I think, remains in line with scientific approaches by harnessing her rationalism for supporting the expansion of the limits of knowledge through thinking open-endedly and logically about what is possible in order to inspire future discoveries in the sciences. Indeed, not only does she wish to expand the horizons of knowledge herself with her philosophy, as can be seen when she writes that she hopes that her thoughts “will help to throw light upon this subject, hitherto supposed to lie beyond the reach of human discovery” she also clearly values improving our understanding of the world through science when she claims “if a scientific knowledge of its principle be obtained, we may perhaps be enabled to understand and imitate nature, better than we have hitherto done.”[xii].

I think Shepherd is successful in developing a system of thought which is compatible with and helpful to expanding both philosophical and scientific knowledge of the world. If one compares her approach with current, contemporary scientific attitudes and practices, I think there’s a similarity. Much of modern science leaves open the possibility that one day science may understand the phenomenon of death more precisely, as well as discover how surviving death could be possible. One such area of study is cryonics. Studies are approved by ethical boards and carried out with the aim of improving our knowledge of death and possible revival after death. One example is when an American biotech company was “granted ethical permission to recruit 20 patients who have been declared clinically dead from a traumatic brain injury, to test whether parts of their central nervous system can be brought back to life.”[xiii]

There are different competing theories and certain ambiguities still remain, even down to the distinctions and pronouncements between being considered alive or dead. This is still somewhat contestable in science today and in practice, the point of death can come down to the judgement of and subsequent speech act of the doctor pronouncing a person dead, rather than the person irrefutably being in a particular medical state. Bernat, a neurologist at Dartmouth College's Geisel School of Medicine in New Hampshire once said "You're dead when a doctor says you're dead"[xiv]. This is because, much as there are quite clear medical definitions of when a person is dead, there are instances where people and animals have been known to revive and regain life and mobility more minutes after dying than was previously considered possible, so a doctor’s judgement often takes these cases into account in addition to medical definitions. For instance, a seemingly dead dog was brought back to life by mouth to mouth resuscitation[xv]^,[xvi].

So, given the quotes above from her treatise on discovery and scientific knowledge, I think Shepherd’s treatise is in the spirit of such scientific optimism about discoveries which push the limits of our understanding and knowledge of the world[xvii]. Furthermore, scientific research on the subject of death and life after death ranges from studying what Shepherd  may be referring to as a “dormant capacity in all matter”[xviii], to enlighten us about what natural capacities we have which could be appealed to in order to revive people after apparent or actual death. Such latent capacities are even more plausible given that, these days, we now distinguish between various types of death, including brain death, biological death, medical death and so on. These finer descriptions also help narrow down the different states our brains and bodies may enter and how this affects a possibility of coming back to life. Therefore, I find Shepherd’s[xix] optimistic, open-minded approach to exploring all metaphysical and logical possibilities about life after death plausible and important for fostering advancements in this area, both philosophically and scientifically. Her constant questioning and searching for a clearly understandable account and emphasis on consistency between her many claims is, I think, pertinent to remember when reading Shepherd[xx]. Shepherd takes the time to make this clear to her readers when she writes:

“as I have attempted to question so much, I must in order to be consistent, push my inquiries still further. I must lead on to where this subject points, and endeavour to make that theory, which to my own mind is consistent and luminous, appear so to others.”[xxi]

Hence, given that knowledge in this complex area of dying was more limited in her day, contemporary readers do not have to accept all her descriptions of what a life after death may outline. Rather, I think the greatest value one can take away from Shepherd on the afterlife is her inspiringly open and fresh approach to truly, objectively exploring all philosophical possibilities in an enlightening, rational, logical, consistent way, and going as far as our minds can take us.       

---

[i] Jennifer McRobert, ‘Mary Shepherd and the Causal Relation’ February 2002, p23, https://philpapers.org/archive/MCRMSA.pdf.

[ii] McRobert, footnote 10, p23.

[iii] Mary Shepherd, ‘Essay X. On the Eternity of Mind’, in Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (Piccadilly, London, United Kingdom: John hatchard and Son., 1827), p384, https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/#page/372/mode/1up/search/essay+x.

[iv] Shepherd, p384-5.

[v] Shepherd, ‘Essay X. On the Eternity of Mind’.

[vi] Mary Shepherd, ‘Essay XI. On the Immateriality of Mind’, in Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (Piccadilly, London, United Kingdom: John hatchard and Son., 1827), https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/#page/386/mode/1up/search/386.

[vii] Shepherd, ‘Essay X. On the Eternity of Mind’.

[viii] Mary Shepherd, Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (Piccadilly, London, United Kingdom: John hatchard and Son., 1827), https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/#page/n7/mode/2up.

[ix] Mary Shepherd, ‘Chapter VII. Application Of the Doctrine Contained In the Preceding Essay To the Evidence Of Our Belief In Several Opinions.’, in Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (Piccadilly, London, United Kingdom: John hatchard and Son., 1827), p152, https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/#page/154/mode/2up.

[x] Shepherd, Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation.

[xi] Shepherd.

[xii] Mary Shepherd, ‘Essay VI, That Sensible Qualities Cannot Be Causes-against Mr. Hume.’, in Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (Piccadilly, London, United Kingdom: John hatchard and Son., 1827), p308, https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/#page/296/mode/1up/search/essay+VI.

[xiii] S. Knapton (science editor), ‘Dead Could Be Brought back to Life in Groundbreaking Project’, Telegraph Newspaper Online, 5 March 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/03/dead-could-be-brought-back-to-life-in-groundbreaking-project/.

[xiv] T. Ghose, Staff Writer for livescience.com, ‘Clinically Dead? The Blurred Line Between Life and Death’, educational, Live Science, 19 June 2014, https://www.livescience.com/46418-clinical-death-definitions.html.

[xv] S. Morrison, ‘Firefighter Revives “Lifeless” Dog with “Mouth to Snout” Resuscitation’, Evening Standard, 25 March 2017, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/firefighter-revives-lifeless-dog-with-mouth-to-snout-resuscitation-a3499056.html.

[xvi] Ghose, Staff Writer for livescience.com, ‘Clinically Dead? The Blurred Line Between Life and Death’.

[xvii] Shepherd, Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation.

[xviii] Shepherd, ‘Essay X. On the Eternity of Mind’, p375.

[xix] Shepherd, Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation.

[xx] Shepherd.

[xxi] Shepherd, p222.