The soul is a mysterious entity; unlike its counterpart the body, it cannot be concretely study as a physical object. Parts of philosophy and religion delve into the topic of the soul, trying to denude its nature. As philosophy and religion sometimes resemble each other’s views, assumptions of similarity are made between the two. However, despite appearing similar, upon deep review of the subjects, philosophy and religion may differ in views. This is seen in Socrates’ view of the soul versus the Christian idea of it. Socrates idea of how a soul becomes purify through living a philosophic life rather than a materialistic life is different to the Christian idea of living in the world and not of it. Each idea has similar points, yet there are strong dividing points between the two. I will first discuss Socrates view on the soul, according to his ideas presented in the text Phaedo. Then I will highlight the Christian view on the same topic looking at the Biblical books of James and John before giving the opposing idea based on the similarities of the
Socrates discusses the soul before he dies with his students and friends as seen in Phaedo, a platonic dialogue. Plato writes Phaedo as a conversation he overhears between Echecrates and Phaedo, who recounts Socrates last conversation. In the conversation, Socrates converses mainly with Simmias and Cebes about the soul. One of Socrates arguments about the soul is how people are to live in order for the soul to be release from the body forever. Socrates views death as a separation of the soul from the body, and life is when the soul and the body are together. When we die, Socrates states either that upon separation from the body our souls becomes free, beginning to live without earthy ...
... middle of paper ...
... the laws all of his life, Jesus tells he to sell everything he has and give to the poor and he will have a heavenly prize. Then Jesus says to him to come follow him. The young man left discontented with his answer for he was too attached to his earthy wealth to let go of it for a heavenly wealth. Nevertheless, the points where Socrates and Christianity differ is regarding the how one is free from the bodily prison and what awaits individuals at the end of their journey through life. These two differences are t o important to each sides viewpoint on the soul that they cannot be ignore. Yes, there are some similarities but there are also some clear point of division regarding both idea. Socrates perspective on the soul relating to how the soul reaches the afterlife is different from the Christian viewpoint of living a spiritual life versus a materialistic life.
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.
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 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.
He views death as a separation of the soul from the body when the body and soul are together it is life. He believed this so powerfully, that he did not only fear death but welcomed it. Socrates believed that he had to live a life full and hope for death. He had to convince his disciples Cebes and Simmias to be okay with his death since they did not believe in his beliefs. Socrates believed that men were the property of the gods and stated, “it is gods who care for us, and for the gods, we human beings are among their belongings. Don't you think so?” (Phaedo, 62b). Cebes was in an agreement with Socrates on that argument. They both believed that if a man kills himself he will be punished. Cebes suggest that when the soul leaves a body, it may dissipate, no longer existing as one unit. However, Socrates argues that in favor of this myth, souls after death will eventually return to the world in other bodies. Everything that comes to come from its opposites that is explained in the first argument. Simmias then argues that destroying a body will destroy the soul in it. Cebes declares that there is no proof that the souls are immortal and suffer no negative effects after each death and rebirth. Socrates tries to convince his friends with the Argument of Opposites and the Theory of Forms. Socrates hopes that the theory of forms will help explain causation and proof of the
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.
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.
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. The argument that was most convincing for me was that of the Argument of Forms because Socrates makes his most compelling arguments here and it’s the most effective. On the other hand, the argument that I saw to be the least convincing was that of the Argument of Recollection and Reincarnation because both arguments fail to fully support the idea of the soul being immortal.
Socrates focuses his philosophy on life entirely on the discovery of knowledge and wisdom, ethics, and the soul. He was obsessed with seeking of knowledge and wisdom: he believed that they are the key to a good life. He went on to state that, “an unexamined life, is a life not worth living.” According to him, knowledge and wisdom correlate to ethical actions, ultimately resulting in a life of happiness, by
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
Socrates says that God determines what is right and wrong. “I owe a greater obedience to God then to you and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practicing philosophy and exhorting you and indicating truth to everyone I meet” (Apology, 29d). God’s rules and commandments are what you need to follow in order to assure a good life after death. God and his commandments come first over everything else. Socrates believes in the divine command theory and how you must listen to Gods commandments. God decides what is moral and obedience to God is how you live justly. Socrates also says he will never stop practicing philosophy because in his eyes philosophy is the way to live life. He has said that living without examining life is a life not worth living. Questioning and indicating truth to others by pointing out their ignorance is what he saw as an essential part of being moral. Morality ties in to the question of solution by asking questions and seeking wisdom you are doing what is just and fixing the condition of humanity. Morality also relates to condition because the soul must be more important than material objects in order to be moral. He says you must follow cities laws and obedience to Gods laws as well in order to be just. On top of that you should be self-examining yourself so that you can better the soul as much as
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.
Is the human soul mortal or immortal? With death does one fall into nothingness or does one survive death, passing into another way of existing? This is a question that has agitated thought for ages. There is something within all human beings that lives on forever. Even when death is upon us, the soul of a human being never dies. Thus, we arrive at the statement that the human soul is immortal. The purpose of this paper is to explain how the human soul is immortal through analyzing various philosophies.