Plato argues for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo. He provides 3 arguments for his theory, the arguments from opposites, recollection, and affinity. Each argument proposes an intriguing account for his claim that the soul must exist past death. His evidence and proposal for each account leave no room for counterarguments. Fellow philosophers like Simmias and Cebes provide two different counters for Plato’s claim, however he accurately disproves them by using his 3 arguments as rebuttal. Plato’s three arguments for the proving of the immortality and longevity of a soul provide clear and concise reasons to agree with his approach.
Phaedo was set in a prison. While in prison, Socrates contemplated whether or not there is an afterlife and whether or not the soul can survive death. He explains that we discuss the soul because it applies to all humans; it’s more personal, closer to us than the nature of being. Socrates adds that he doesn’t fear death because it means fearing your soul. You shouldn’t fear the unknown, but embrace it. Furthermore, he comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal based on the following 3 arguments.
Socrates’ first argument is the argument from opposites. He says the soul is eternal. It never ceases to be or becomes to be. It’s completely eternal. Everything comes to be from out of its opposite, so that for instance a tall man becomes tall only because he was short before. Similarly, death being the opposite of life, and so living things come to be out of dead things and vice versa. This implies that there is a continuous cycle of life and death, so that when we die we do not stay dead, but come back to life after a period of time. Our soul never dies, however. It is the one thing that conti...
... middle of paper ...
... believes the soul is long-lived, and can outlive many bodies, but argues that this does not show that the soul is immortal. How do we know the soul suffers nothing when the body deteriorates and perishes over centuries? Socrates claims it is inconceivable to think of the soul as ever being anything but alive. The argument from Affinity states that anything invisible, immaterial will go on to be immortal. While there are good souls and bad souls, the soul itself, is one thing that remains imperishable.
All three arguments propose an intriguing account for Socrates’ claim that the soul exists past death. Plato’s three arguments for the proving of the immortality and longevity of a soul provide clear and concise reasons to agree with his approach. It seems that any counterargument can be debated using at least one of the three arguments, simply begging the question.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
The 'doctrine of recollection' states that all true knowledge exists implicitly within us, and can be brought to consciousness - made explicit - by recollection. Using the Platonic concepts of 'Forms', 'particulars', 'knowledge' and 'true opinion', this essay explains what can or cannot be recollected, why all knowledge is based on recollection, and why the doctrine does not prove the soul to be immortal.
The main theme behind the "Phaedo" is Socrates' readiness and willingness to die, because of his belief of immortality. Socrates believed that when his body ceased to exist anymore, that his soul would leave and join that of the forms, where he would be eternally. Socrates believed so strongly in this, that not only did he not fear his death, he welcomed it. He believed that only when the soul separated from the body, is a person able to be truly enlightened and gain all knowledge. This "enlightenment" has been Socrates' life long goal of discovering the truth. Even at his hour of death, Socrates showed no hesitation. However, Socrates' friends did not believe so strongly, and took some great convincing by Socrates, to allow his friends to be okay with his death. The two proofs that Socrates used to convince his friends are the "Doctrine of Opposites" and the "simple and composite theory.
In the book “Phaedo,” Plato discusses the theory of forms with ideas that concern the morality of the form. There are four philosophers that are expressed which are Phaedo, Cebes, and Simmias regarding the execution of Socrates. Socrates is presented in “Phaedo” on the morning of his execution where he is being killed. He tells his disciples Simmias and Cebes that he is not afraid of dying because a true philosopher should welcome and look forward to death but not suicide. A man should never commit suicide. He says that we are possessions of the Gods and should not harm themselves. He provides the four arguments for his claim that the soul is immortal and that a philosopher spends his whole life preparing for death.
A person’s body can change in appearance numerous times throughout his or her life, but who they are essentially does not change along with the outward appearance. He claims ownership of his body, and he uses his body, but his body is not the self, the soul is the self—the soul is in possession of the body. Socrates seems to agree to an extent with Democritus on the morality of the soul, to the extent that a soul can be good or vicious. Living well or living badly are all matters of the soul. If one wants to have a good soul then he or she should not place too much emphasis on external goods, and should focus on having areté of the soul instead. Areté consists of what we typically associate with good people; it is virtue, excellence, and being the best one can be. Socrates asserts that when one dies there are two possibilities; either you become nothing and unaware, or your soul goes on to an afterlife somewhere else. In death, when the soul separates from the temporary body, it goes into the afterlife exactly as it was in life. Meaning, if the soul has been taken care of during life then it will continue to be a healthy, happy soul in death. However, if it were neglected because the person placed too much importance on external goods during life, which causes damage, it will enter the afterlife as the same damaged soul it was in life. He seems to be saying that the people who typically only seek out the external goods are the ones with vicious souls, and that they think that they can compensate for the state of their soul by acquiring all of these external things. However, Socrates says that there is no hope for vicious souls; if a person has a vicious soul he or she has a damaged self, and there are no external goods or benefits that can compensate for
Socrates was a philosopher who was true to his word and his death was ultimately felt by his closest friends and followers. In Phaedo, Socrates is met with his closest friends during his final hours as they await his death. At this point Socrates is prepared for death and seems to welcome it. Although death may seem like a scary inevitable fate that we all must face at one point; Socrates saw death as a privilege mainly because he believed that the soul was immortal. As a result, Socrates provides arguments as to why he believed the soul was immortal and even though all his arguments lacked unconvincing evidence, he does bring up good points. In this paper I will talk about Socrates’ most and least convincing arguments on immortality, and explain what Socrates’ problem was with Anaxagoras.
Through the course of these last few weeks, we as a class have discussed the Soul, both in concept, and as it applies in terms of our readings of The Phaedo and as a philosophical construct. But the questions involved in that: In the ideas of good, of living a ‘good’ life and getting ‘rid of the body and of their wickedness’, as ‘there is no escape from evil’, (Phaedo, 107c), in whether or not the soul is immortal, or if our bodies themselves get in the way of some higher form of knowledge, or even of the importance of philosophy itself are rather complex, simultaneously broad and specific, and more than a little messy. While I discuss these aspects, the singular question that I feel applies to this is, in a sort of nihilistic fashion, does
hilosophers have contemplated over the subject of immortality. They question if the soul, particularly, is immortal. Although Plato writes the Meno, it is supposed to be a copy of what Socrates personally encountered and “taught” in his lifetime. Even though the Meno is originally about the search for the meaning of virtue, one perspective on the immortality of the soul is introduced to us by Socrates in that play. Therefore, what Socrates thought about the immortality of the soul in the Meno is the following: “If the truth about reality is always in our soul, the soul would be immortal so that you should always confidently try to seek out and recollect what you do not know at present” (Plato, 86b) In the beginning, Meno challenges Socrates
Socrates discusses that people should not fear death because we do not know the qualities of death. Even though we do not know what death is, he makes some suggestions for the possibilities after death. He suggests that maybe death is just an endless sleep without dreaming, it is where we can finally come to peace with ourselves. He also suggest that maybe in the afterlife he will be able to meet heroic people in the past, where he can share his experience and question people to see whether they are wise. Even in death Socrates is still going to practice philosophy even if the place is bad. Even if he did not live a just life that he thought he did, he can examine what he did wrong and fix the problems in the after life. I agree with Socrates
In the Phaedo Socrates claims that the soul is indeed immortal, that it lives forever and cannot die even after the body has died, thus philosophers spend their lives devaluing themselves from their body. Socrates presents the Theory of Recollection to persuade his fellow philosophers that have convened inside his cell that the soul is immortal. In essence, the recollection argument refers to the act of learning, because the soul is immortal, according to Socrates, then this suggests that when a person is learning something they are actually relearning it, because their soul has existed before they were born. This idea of recollecting knowledge is prominent and is the most convincing argument in proving the existence of immortality through the soul, however, this argument does not suggest that the soul continues to exist after death and lacks clarity regarding what truly happens after a person dies.
In the book Plato 's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of Socrates execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias beliefs who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper is going to focus on Socrates four arguments for the soul 's immortality. The four arguments are the Opposite argument, the theory of recollection, the affinity argument, and the argument from form of life. As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul
In Chapter 13 of Concerning the Soul, Avicenna argues that, because the soul is incorruptible, it does not die with the death of the body. He then presents two arguments to support the conclusion that, upon death, the soul does not die. It is my intent to explain the general structure of the “absolutely incorruptible” argument that Avicenna gives for the immortality of the soul, and to give a critical assessment of that argument.
Socrates was an insightful philosopher who had an opinion on all the basic fundamental questions. He had very strong beliefs that he willed others into believing through questioning and proving ignorance in others beliefs. He has particular views on every fundamental question and particular views on how people should live their lives. He says God has spoken to him about philosophy and says that it is his destiny and it is his calling in life. Through philosophy he searches for answers to the fundamental questions and gains wisdom and knowledge. The fundamental question of condition is the question of what, if anything, has gone wrong with the world? The question of solution is what can fix the problem? Then there is Death which asks what happens
Plato believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
To Plato, the soul is a self mover that is not restricted to mortality. He also states that without the soul, the body would not be able to move; the soul is the provider of energy for movement in the body. Since the soul is a self mover, it is inherently a source of energy and life that depends on nothing else to exist; therefore, the soul is immortal.