I would also argue personally that death is not something to be feared because, like Epicurus, I see no sufficient evidence showing we even exist after death. Socrates argues that one shouldn't fear death because it is actually a blessing. His premises for this conclusion are as follows. First of all, either death is nothingness or a relocation of the soul. If death is nothingness, then it is a blessing.
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
“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.
So as long as we are in the body and the soul is mixed with this evil, our desire for truth will never be satisfied. The philosopher longs for the purification of the soul from the body which can be hoped for in death. “If we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, and the soul in herself of herself must behold all things in themselves.” That is why Socrates is not complaining at his impending death. He has spent his life preparing for it, in the hope that in the next world he will attain the wisdom and absolute truth he has sought in this life. Processes of thought are at its best when the mind is no longer troubled by distr... ... middle of paper ... ...one born into this world can see or hear and I think he should not take these senses for granted.
In this paper I will discuss the Final Argument in Plato’s Phaedo. In this argument Socrates concludes, “Then, Cebes, beyond question, the soul is immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly exist in another world (Plato, 1689).” This argument may be the most convincing of his arguments about the afterlife, but the way in which he comes to his conclusion that the soul is immortal and indestructible is flawed, and because of this, I find that Plato’s final argument is not sound and lacking validity. I feel this argument is an unsound deductive argument. In order to show evidence of this, I will examine how Plato reached his conclusion. The best way to examine this would be to pick at the individual premises that Plato makes.
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.
Furthermore, for a soul to exist, it has the ontological necessity of being undying immortal just as the number 3 to be considered odd has the ontological necessity of being uneven. Therefore, while the soul is contained inside the body and the body is subject to death, the soul eschews death in order to exist from one life to the next. In conclusion, In Phaedo, Plato is using Socrates to put his own philosophical views. Socrates relies on four arguments to convince his friends of the soul's immortality. Also, Plato demonstrates that how Socrates uses human reason.
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. First and foremost, Socrates believed that when a person dies the body is what seems to die while the soul continues to live and exist. Although many suggested that when the body dies the soul dies with it, Socrates provides numerous arguments to prove his point otherwise. The arguments that were presented consisted of The argument of Reincarnation, The argument of Opposites, The argument of Recollection, and The argument of Forms.
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... ... middle of paper ... ...nd commit crimes.
When we are dead we are not afraid, for it is a state of unconsciousness and the end to any and all sensation, therefore there is neither pleasure nor pain. He explains that we fear death because we incorrectly assume that there is awareness during death. Epicurus logically explains, “Since when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist” (29). When addressing a sen... ... middle of paper ... ...dressed when mentioning the nature of death. If sacrificing one’s own morals and inherent nature is Epicurus’ and Epictetus’ route to achieving ataraxia it is not worth it, nor is it possible.