Comparing Cave And Hicks's Theory Analysis

Both Cave and Hicks, offer their respective opinions or hypothesis on the subject of immortality and attempt to resolve the question, what is the force that made all living creatures to desire to perpetuate themselves into the future. While their theories describe the same phenomena, the will to live forever, these philosophers take entirely different approaches, which, perhaps, seem contradictory at first, but in fact, might complement each other, offering various perspective and opinion on such a debatable subject. Cave concludes that the will to immortality is a driven force behind human progress, the evolvement of religion, and the impetus, which is driving art and philosophy forward. He elaborates this theory by offering four theses, which
illustrate how humankind attempts to achieve the everlasting life, desires to stay young and healthy while avoiding aging and death. Evidently, Cave is inspired by the culture of ancient Egypt. He asserts that the success of survival of Egyptian civilization is rooted in its interwoven and complex immortality narratives. Furthermore, Cave supports his hypothesis by examples from Egyptian history, describing a sophisticated system of corpse preservation, hope in the resurrection and everlasting life, belief in a soul or “ka,” and treasuring legacy, name, and reputation as a means of continuation or extension of oneself into the future.
While Cave’s theory certainly appears plausible when being applied to the philosophy of ancient Egypt, perhaps one of the most advanced civilizations of times, it is difficult to prove that the rest of the prehistoric world fit well into these narratives.
The latter thought is further developed and analyzed by Hicks in his observations of aborigines of Australia, Polynesia, Africa and South America. He speculates that primitive people did not view afterlife as a desirable state, and even more, did not recognize death as a distinct and separate phenomenon. For them, death was perceived as a loss of life associated with a tragic accident, disease, or a spike of violence. Hicks points out that pre-historic human life expectancy was around eighteen years; thus, typically, it was not wearing out of a human body but rather an unfortunate event that culminated in the loss of life. While Hicks acknowledges that the civilization of ancient Egypt and India developed an idea of an afterlife as appealing phenomena, he suggests it was an exception rather than a traditional notion in the primitive man’s world. Besides, Hicks supports the contention that some form of after-life belief was universal and presented in many ways in various time frames and civilizations. Furthermore, Hicks expands this idea by illustrating the perception of a soul as an extraterrestrial being by referring to Greek mythology and narratives from the Old Testament. Cave is coining an assertion that the pursuit of desirable afterlife gave offspring to the development of religion and philosophy. Contrary to this idea Hicks offers a different thought, claiming that in fact, it is the religious convictions that made man seek unity with God in the afterlife, and ultimately made immortality more appealing than ever before. Also, Hicks theses contradict Cave’s ideas that the will for immortality served as an impetus for the development of self-consciousness and individualization within the society. In Hicks’
explanation, it is the evolvement of autonomous personal responsibility as a product of religious and social development led to the emergence of the idea of a desirable immorality.
While Cave and Hicks’ views of the birthplace of the human determination to live forever resemble a dilemma of chicken and egg; both philosophers theories certainly compliment each other. Neither one can be completely ascertained or negated, but rather should be taken into consideration, since they offer unique perspectives on seemingly paradoxical topics of life, death, and an eternal quest for immortality.