For him the spirit and the body belong to different worlds: the spirit to the “unchanging realities…or universals or eternal ideas.” and the body to the sensible world. In turn, the soul being related to a world of higher calling and truths exists the body after death and leaves the sensible world behind, proving the existence of the immortality of the soul. Also, Plato argues for the immortality of the soul by claiming that only composite things can be destroyed. The soul is not composite because it is simple—a concept that cannot be further broken down and examined. Hick shows how Plato's logic is flawed... ... middle of paper ... ...the body affect the way we interpret the world, but this does not stand in conflict with the existence of the indivisible notion of the soul.
The soul, Socrates asserts, is immortal and the philosopher spends his life training it to detach itself from the needs of the body. In Phaedo by Plato, Socrates provides four arguments for this claim: the opposites, recollection, affinity between the forms and the soul, and the argument that essentially brings life with it can never die. Plato uses the from opposites to support his idea uses the first argument for the immortality of the soul. Socrates repondes with two general statements,list statements then applies these hypotheses to life, death, and the soul. Socrates’ first general statement is that change is between contraries.
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.
According to Plato the soul is immortal and way more valuable than the body. He believes that once the ties from the body and soul are cut the soul will move on. Plato creates an argument for how there is no real relationship between reality and the soul because the soul picks up things like senses and the body feelings like pleasure. Plato would agree with Melinda because they both share the same spiritual view on the world and ideas about souls. Aristotle believes the soul is that it is just another part of our body.
We must attempt to answer the questions: Are the arguments for immortality in the Phaedo used as a means for the soul to establish its own existence and independence from the corporal, and if this is the case, is the argument really a plea for living a life dedicated to philosophical inquiry rather than corporal pleasure ? Phaedo begins with a discussion between the visitors of Socrates on death and dying. Death, as defined by Socrates is the body and the soul coming to be separated apart from each other (Phaedo 64c). During this discussion Socrates makes claim that although philosophers should welcome death and that it is wrong to commit suicide without sign from the Gods. Cebes finds fault with this logic claiming that one would think the philosopher would resent being taken away from the ability to enact the will of the Gods.
In the final passage of the Phaedo, Plato provides his final proof, although it may be his last attempt to give his reasoning, it is not very convincing. Plato has some good points and reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, but his arguments often seem to make large assumptions without any concrete evidence. In this essay I will attempt to expose some flaws in Plato’s argument while showing how the conclusion can still be convincing for some. According to Plato talking through Socrates, whenever a soul occupies a body, it always brings life with it. This means that the soul is connected with life, and so cannot admit its opposite which is death.
Given what Socrates states in the Phaedo through his arguments about the afterlife and the definition of death, I argue, that he would he say, that we are alive when we are no longer in our body. This paper will argue that an individual is not only alive after death, but that we are most alive when we are not in the body, through an outline of premises picked from the book Phaedo, in The Last Days of Socrates by Plato. Socrates defines death as the separation of body and the soul through his dialogue with Simmias, “Is it simply the release of the soul from the body? Is death nothing more or less than this, the separate condition of the body by itself when it is released from the soul, and the separate condition by itself of the soul when released
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.
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.
So when faced with the question of the immortality of the soul he replied with “A soul is simply not the sort of thing could survive. How could my skills, my temper or my character survive me” (Barnes 67). Aristotle believed the soul made an individual unique, so if it was able to live on forever and be passed on from body to body then that would defy the individuality of people and what makes up our society. Therefore, until a theory that suggests that the soul does leave the body at the moment of death to live on, such as Plato’s, is proven we must rely on Aristotle’s theory of the unified soul in order to try to understand the relationship between soul and