Human beings are comprised of two separate entities, a body and a soul. The soul is immortal and cycles in nature and lives an infinite number of bodies. This paper will explore the immortality of the soul as discussed by Socrates in The Apology, Crito and Phaedo and significance of being a philosopher. The Apology is regarding Socrates defense of himself at the time of his trial. Socrates, a wise philosopher is brought in the courtroom and the Athenian jury convicts him on corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in God. The Oracle of Delphi pronounced Socrates to be the wisest of the Greeks and around the world. Socrates unconvinced, went around systematically to find someone wiser than himself, from poets, politicians, and craftsman. …show more content…
It starts with Phaedo, Simmias and Cebes, all interlocutors who recount the story of Socrates execution. This dialogue is unique because it contains discussions of the philosopher, a soul’s immortality through the opposites, recollection, affinity and the last argument. A philosopher is capable to relate to death and understand what happens to the soul. Socrates mentioned that those who called themselves philosophers should be ready to face death and not commit suicide or violently lay hands upon themselves. One should not commit suicide because men are looked after the Gods and “doing nothing in association with it unless we simply can’t avoid it, not letting it infect us with the kind of thing it is but purifying ourselves from its influence – until such time that the gods themselves set us free” (67a). Therefore, it would be impolite for one to end their life on their own terms before God willed it. A philosopher is “always eager to set the soul free” and sets the least value on the body (67d). A philosopher is someone who denies his self-pleasures, interests, wealth, and tries to spend his life to detach his soul from the body and its limitations. According to Socrates, the philosopher is on a journey to seek virtue, wisdom and knowledge. Moreover, if intelligence is a philosopher’s only goal then the body acts as a hindrance because of its …show more content…
People are able to comprehend abstract qualities that aren’t observable in the real world. The knowledge we come and learn in this life must have come from a previous state of existence. Therefore, learning is not a new concept but a process that brings out the past back from us. Socrates stated that in a previous existence, we encounter a platonic form. A platonic form is the things itself, the reality of whatever happens to be. Ideas such as goodness, justice, beauty, truth and equality are acknowledged to be real. For example, two sticks lying on the ground are not equal in length but very close in resemblance. A person is able to recognize this state of equality based upon their knowledge of equality. “Whenever someone recollects something from things that are like it, mustn’t he always have this additional experience, of having in mind whether or not this thing he’s starting from is deficient at all in respect of its likeness to the thing he’s recollected?” (74a) One can never find true equality or perfect justice in anything that is material but encounters and perceives it through their senses and mind. Likewise, beauty is beyond being, where every beautiful thing participates and some participating more than the other, thus immaterial beauty becomes beautiful. Things are beautiful just because they connect in some way to the ideal form and because the idea of being
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.
In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for his so called, “corruption of the youth,” because of his philosophies. He is straightforward and confused about the chargers brought up against him. Socrates raises an argument in his defense and believes he has no reason to be sorry. Socrates believes if he is punished and killed, no one would around to enlighten the people. This view draws a connection to the question posed, “Are we
In Plato’s dialogue, Phaedo, Echecrades asks Phaedo the details of Socrates’ last day alive. Phaedo first describes his own countenance as well as the rest of Socrates’ companions as “an unaccustomed mixture of pleasure and pain” because they all know that Socrates’ death is imminent, however they see that Socrates appears happy and without fear (58, e). The conversation with Socrates turns to why a philosopher should not fear death. Socrates defines death as the separation of the soul from the body (64, c). He states that the body is a constant impediment to a philosopher in their search for the truth. Socrates says that the body “fills us with wants, desires, fears, all sorts of illusions and much nonsense, so that… no thought of any kind ever comes to us from the [it].” (66, c). He claims that philosophy itself is “training for dying” and philosophers purify their souls by detaching it from the body (67, e). Socrates concludes that it would be unreasonable for a philosopher to fear death because they will obtain the truth they sought in life upon the separation of their body and soul, or death (67, c). After successfully proves the soul’s immortality, Socrates goes on to tell his companions a myth. This myth tells o the judgment of the dead and their journey through the underworld (107, d). It explains the shape of the Earth and how it has different surfaces (108, c- 113, d). It also tells of the punishment for the maimed souls and the reward for the pure souls, those of philosophers (113, c – 114, d). After concluding this myth, Socrates seems to emphasize that the exact details of the story are not important and “no sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them” but it is important to “risk the bel...
In Plato’s Apology it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind. The three acts of the mind are: Understanding, Judgment, and Reasoning. These acts are stragically used to rebut the charges made against him during trial. The two charges that are formed against Socrates are corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. The first act of the mind that we will be looking at is, understanding. The question that needs to be asked is what does corruption mean? The accuser believe that Socrates in corrupting the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask question. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are. The next question that needs to be address is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God but that is one god that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule. They are mad that he has “created” his own god.
(9) Plato, The Apology, in: The Works of Plato, The Nottingham Society, New York, vol. III, p. 91. (the year of publication unknown).
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.
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.
Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He questioned the laws that he thought were wrong and, to his death, never backed down in what he believed in. People may see that as stupidity or as heroism, the beauty of it is that either way people saw it, Socrates wouldn't care.
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.
Plato. "The Apology of Socrates." West, Thomas G. and West, Grace Starry, eds. Plato and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997
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.
He argues that non-physical forms or ideas represent the most accurate reality. There exists a fundamental opposition between in the world like the object as a concrete, sensible object and the idea or concept of the objects. Forms are typically universal concepts. The world of appearance corresponds to the body. The world of truth corresponds with the soul. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that or property is a tree, house, mountain, man, woman, Table and Chair, would all be examples of existing abstract perfect Ideas. Plato says that true and reliable knowledge rests only with those who can comprehend the true reality behind the world of everyday experience. In order to perceive the world of the Forms, individuals must undergo a difficult
My paper takes as the starting point for its argument the traditional interpretation (and classic criticism) of Platonic metaphysics as a two worlds view of reality: one world, that which includes this room of people, i.e., the here and now which is characterized by change, disorder, conflict, coming to be and passing out of being, corruption, etc.; and another world, located who knows where, but certainly not identical to what we see around us at present, the realm of changelessness and order, ontological perdurance, harmony, unity: Plato's "plain of Truth", the residence of the forms. In light of these two worlds, the Platonic philosopher's wisdom, whatever it may be, must be a wisdom not of this world. Indeed, did not Plato's Socrates himself say that his life— the philosophical life— was the art of practising death? Should that Socrates— or anyone who professes to be a Platonic philosopher— show up at, let us say, the World Congress of
In Plato’s dialogue, the Phaedo, Socrates gives an account of the immortality of the soul. Socrates does this through a series of arguments. He 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 his 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 who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper focuses on Socrates 's first argument for immortality of the human soul, his counter arguments to Cebes and Simmias ' arguments, and an explanation as to why Socrates first argument for the immorality of the soul does not succeed in establishing that the soul is immortal.
In the Phaedo, Plato introduced the theory of Ideas which centered on the problem of immortality of the soul, which suggested that true cannot be finding in the sensible world, but in the world of ideas. He talked about the knowledge of equality in the sense world in which it is impossible to have things that are equal. Things in the sense world might seem to be equal, but in reality it is not. Equality can only come from the mind and this equality is Ideas, which has always been in the mind and is unchangeable, universal, and eternal. He lays down that ideas such as beauty itself, goodness itself, and justice itself are itself when they partake in themselves. For example, beautiful object is beautiful because they partake in itself or all beautiful things are beauty by itself. This makes beauty exist forever and not like objects in the sense world which is temporary. He used these Ideas to use as his proof for the immorality of the soul. The body is like objects in the sense world, which is temporary and insignificant. These objects can change from hour to hour and from day to day. They are unreliable and useless. The soul, on the other hand, is in the Ideas world which is unchangeable, perfect and is forever. Just like beautiful thing partake of beauty by itself, the soul partake in the ideas of life which means that the soul li...