Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's ideas on the soul
Plato's ideas on the soul
Plato's ideas on the soul
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato's ideas on the soul
“I think, Socrates, he said, that on this line of argument any man, even the dullest, would agree that the soul is altogether more like that which always exists in the same state rather than like that which does not” (Plato, Phaedo 79e)
In this paper I will argue that the soul is not necessarily unchanging and eternal, as many of Plato’s arguments would suggest otherwise. The main reasons in support of this claim are that there are questionable conclusions that Plato had reached that challenge the validity of his theory on immortal souls. The Phaedo is one of Plato’s greatest dialogues addressing the essence of the afterlife through a discussion between Socrates and his students. Plato’s main argument within the Phaedo is that there is an afterlife in which the soul will reside suggesting that the soul is eternal. To begin, an examination of Plato’s arguments regarding the soul will be provided in order to thoroughly identify and discuss the philosophical issue found within the chosen passage. Succeeding the explanation will be a critical assessment of the eternal soul.
Plato’s Argument
In order to clearly grasped Plato’s argument of the soul one must first understand the definition of the body and soul. Plato saw the soul as an invisible pure force that directs and conducts the mind and visible impure body throughout ones existence and that the immortal soul dwells within the mortal body (Halvorson, Pg.3). Plato deeply believed that souls existed before they entered people’s bodies and that they are forever eternal and unchanging. Therefore, the opposite argument made by Plato is an important aspect to examine. In the Phaedo Socrates discusses that everything has an opposite and everything comes from their opposite and that so...
... middle of paper ...
...nd material through the body, one may suggest that when the body dies so does part of the soul. Thus, part of the soul may be eternal, however, the other part that has become more in likeness to the body be subject to change and possible death.
An objection could be raised against the concept of part of the soul dying. Some may say that the soul has a uniform and composite nature and therefore the soul cannot be view in parts as it is a whole. For Plato, the soul must be one entity, as his arguments would be weakened by the idea of a soul made of parts. However, as addressed earlier, if a soul is pure and can become partly tainted by impurity, would this not propose that the soul would be partly pure and partly impure? Therefore, it is possible for the soul part body and soul; partly impure and pure, and consequently part of the soul could be subject to death.
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.
For this reason, Plato believes that we must separate the soul based on how it
A human body is separated from soul, but it is under the control of soul. Plato’s idealism are incorporated into Christian to attract many christians “whose world views were shaped by Greek philosophy and religions” (Matthew, 295). Platonism makes Christians believe “whatever associate with soul and spirit” was better than whatever was associated with body and matte” because God is able to “directly act” on soul. Plato’s idea indicates that anything relate to soul is holy and hence better, and anything in relation to body is earthly and evil. Platonic dualism indirectly shows us that soul is on a higher status than body. Moreover, Descartes continued on platonic dualism and concluded that “only soul was the real person”, and “the body was a machine with the lower value and status”(Tallon, 117). Therefore, soul is considered as higher
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
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.
For Plato, the soul is considered to have three parts: the appetitive or the passions, the spirited part or the will, the reasonable part or the intellect. The appetitive deals with the bodily necessities and desires. The appetite is often considered base or even sinful, but is clearly not so for Aristotle: the passions merely demonstrate a person’s basic necessities, which one can not consider without considering the human person in the same way. The spirited part reacts to injustices or incorrectness in one’s surroundings, and it is often described as the “angry” part, as anger deal with perception of injustice as well. The reasonable part concerns itself with finding the truth and distinguishing it from falsities, and is often considered both the highest and hardest to perfect part of the soul. Each part has its own intricacies and specifics, allowing them to aid the human...
It seems that there is one thing that most ancient Greeks can agree on, and that is the existence of the human soul. The obviousness of the soul’s existence could be related to the Latin word for soul, anima, which also means spirit, breath, and life. We also get the word animate from anima, something that is animated has the ability to move of its own accord. It follows from this that humans, being living things with the ability to move of their own accord, have souls. Though there is no disagreement about the existence of souls, the views of human souls vary. Homer, Heraclitus, Democritus, and Socrates all have different views of what the human soul is, what it does, and its level of importance.
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
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
“The truth is that the body and the temperament are an accidental cause of the soul, for when the matter of a body suitable to become the instrument of the soul and its proper subject comes into existence, the separate causes bring into being the individual soul, and that is how the soul originates from them” (Avicenna
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.
The nature of the soul is presented to us in an illustration of a story of a charioteer who has two horses to control: one is white and is good and noble, the other is black and frequently goes of course while it succumbs to temptations. This is how Plato describes the soul in three parts: the charioteer represents reason (which guides), the good white horse represents spirit (which animates and drives on towards glory), and the untamed black horse correlates with desire (which motivates). These three are also in competition with each other; however, for happiness to be obtained, a soul needs all three of these compon...
He believes that the soul takes shelter within the body. The three parts are all located in three different areas: reason is in the mind, spirited is in the heart, and desire is in the stomach. Reason is what controls the whole soul (Plato p. 49). The mind tells the body what to do, how to feel, what to say. The mind controls our appetites and decides who to honor according to memories about those people or events. The spirit is in the heart, the heart is what shows us how we feel about others. The stomach is desire as we crave to have certain possessions such as food or other physical materials in life. If what Plato is saying is any truth, than the argument presented that our soul is our life and our body is nothing but what carries our soul, is therefore false and unsupported by this idea of the mind, heart and stomach. Then so, our thought that Plato’s idea that we can make ourselves alive, is fairly reasonable and true. This is because it is more understandable to say that the reason why our souls are what makes us alive is because our souls are physically made of three parts that control the way we live. Our body is now not only what carries life for us, but what allows us to keep it. Our soul is different from the body because it represents life, but it is our body that allows our lives to
Aristotle argued and disagreed with Plato’s views of the self and soul being a separate from the body. Aristotle’s view is that all humans have a soul, yet they cannot be separate from the body in which they reside. To him, there are four sections of the soul; the desiderative and vegetative parts on the irrational side are used to help one find what they are needing and the calculative and scientific parts on the rational side are