On Ghosts

I have no objection to ghosts. The statement has been quoted so often, and so selectively, that I shall elaborate. There exists abundant evidence for apparitions exhibiting coherent behaviour, recognisable memory, and in some cases knowledge unavailable to living observers. To continue denying their existence merely because one dislikes the metaphysical implications is not scepticism but cowardice wearing spectacles.

What remains entirely unproven is that a ghost is the surviving soul of a dead person, and the distinction is not trivial. Many apparitions repeat actions endlessly. Others display only fragments of personality. Some know things their alleged deceased counterpart knew, yet fail to recognise close relatives. A few have continued appearing after the supposedly departed individual was discovered alive elsewhere, which presents a difficulty for the traditional interpretation unless one wishes to accuse the man of being insufficiently aware of his own death.

My present view is that at least some hauntings represent persistent impressions upon magical environments: memories without minds, personalities without persons, echoes substantial enough to answer when spoken to. This proposal has caused considerable distress among spiritualists, who prefer their ghosts sentimental. The dead, I suspect, are under no obligation to be convenient.