Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
element in life. One can take a path of wickedness or righteousness, and this will be weighted heavily on the soul after physical body dies. Socrates feels content with his decision to stay in prison and thus not to be unjust to the laws of Athens and Crito is left nothing more to say. In Phaedo, there is an immense form of development and the dialogue focuses primarily on death and the immortality of the soul. 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 arguments. The philosopher is capable to relate to death and understand
The soul maintains its existence because everything comes into being through its opposite state. For example, for something to come into existence in a form that is big, it must have been necessarily at one point been small. The eternal to temporal, the unchanging to change, real to appearance, being and becoming, are all opposites that coincide with one another. For something to be dead it must pass through the state of being alive, given that life and death are at opposite states. Socrates says that it must be a cyclical process for a thing to proceed in a straight line with no way back then the whole world would be dead. Socrates solidifies this argument by asking Cebes on what is opposite to the living. Cebes response is that death is opposite being alive and therefore, Socrates responds that everything that dies must come back to life for it is to thrive. If A comes to be from B, then there is a process of becoming from B to A. Things move from one state to another. For one to be awake it must have been asleep, hence one went from being asleep to being in the realm of awake. Things come into being due its composition of previously existing parts. Energy can’t be annihilated and the soul must have existed before it was born. The opposite of life is death, thus opposites rely upon one another. “If, everything that partakes in life were to die, and after things died they… inevitably
Socrates rejects the idea that attunement and recollection to coincide with each other. This is because attunement should be impossible if the soul and body are not in existence. The attunement is the result of parts that cannot be controlled. Socrates states that the parts that make the lyre, the wood and the strings are similar to the body with attunement being the lyre itself. The parts that make up the lyre determine the form, shape and quality of the instrument itself. And if this were similar to the composition of the body, then the soul would be incapable of opposing the body. Socrates further opposes attunement because it would make all souls to be equally virtuous and wise. If vice is the opposite of virtue, then vice should not exist in any
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. If it does not admit the form of evenness and is uneven, according to Socrates, then it follows that the soul, which does not admit of death, cannot die. It must either withdraw or disappear at the approach of death. If the soul is undying, it cannot disappear and perish. All it has to do is simply run away at the approach of death. Socrates concludes that the soul does not die with the body, but simply leaves it, living on, eternal and indestructible. Cebes admits in Phaedo that he is entirely convinced by Socrates' argument. Some important premises throughout Phaedo within Socrates’ argument ar...
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 these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
When Socrates was sentenced to death, his friend Crito offers to help him escape, but he refuse to escape. He explains to Crito that if he were to escape he would be running away his whole life. He would stay at Athens and comply with the sentence as set by Athens law and die for his cause. Another reason that he gave Crito for not escaping was that he was already death alive and that he was too old to be running away .
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.
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.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
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 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
For a man not to fear death, not even the slightest bit is a remarkable feat. However when examining the life of Socrates, his daily life involved the preparation for his own death. Through his daily philosophical debates, Socrates engaged in conversations which forced him to examine his life. After all as Socrates states himself in the Apology, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (38a).
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
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.
The soul can be defined as a perennial enigma that one may never understand. But many people rose to the challenge of effectively explaining just what the soul is about, along with outlining its desires. Three of these people are Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. Even though all three had distinctive views, the similarities between their views are strikingly vivid. The soul indeed is an enigma to mankind and the only rational explanation of its being is yet to come and may never arrive.