In the last days of Socrates’ life while he awaits his death sentence, he examines and evaluates the facets of life and the morals that come as a part of human nature. He analyzes the concept of being, and what it means to be either living or deceased and through this analysis, Socrates particularly goes in depth with his examination of the human soul. In Phaedo, Plato meets with a follower who had been with Socrates on his last day, on which he talked much about the innermost qualities of being; life and death and how the soul constitutes those two entities. According to Socrates, there are four arguments that prove the existence of the soul: the Argument from Opposites, the Theory of Recollection, the Affinity Argument, and the Theory of Forms. In the Argument of Opposites, Socrates argues that everything in life holds an opposite to another force. He uses sleep as an example, remarking, “waking comes from sleeping and sleeping comes from waking, and the processes between them are going to sleep and waking up” (Plato 135). Socrates deepens this example further, saying, “the living have come from the dead no less than the dead from the living...the souls …show more content…
Socrates explains, “Before we began to see and hear and otherwise perceive equals we must somewhere have acquired the knowledge of equality as it really is; otherwise we could never have realized, by using it as a standard for comparison, that all equal objects of sense are desirous of being like it, but are only imperfect copies” (141). Prior to physical living, humans have innate knowledge and understanding of equality, and what is seen, heard, or learned pertaining to the notion of equality is simply just recollections to what was comprehended prior to birth, proving their soul existed
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
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.
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.
What would happen if the Socrates of old came back to life to debate the issue of abortion in the modern world? Peter Kreeft tries to give us an idea in his book The Unaborted Socrates. In this book Socrates debates three different aspects of the abortion issue with three different people, an abortion doctor, a philosopher and a psychologist. With the Doctor, Socrates debates when human life begins. With the Philosopher it is debated whether we should legislate morality. With the psychologist he debates whether abortion is a woman's right. Unfortunately, they do not come up with reasonable answers to any of these questions. Without the answer to the question, "is the fetus a human being?" it is impossible to find the answer to the other two questions. In the end, all questions lead back to the first. In answer to whether or not the fetus is a human being, it is concluded as the doctor said, "We simply do not know when the fetus becomes a human person. Anyone who claims to know is a fool because he claims to know what he does not." Nevertheless, even if the debate provides no final answers, it does serve to show the logical reasons for why abortion is horrible. It does present thought provoking questions in the minds of both those who are for and those who are against abortion.
This observation raises the awareness about how vicious the cycle of life and death is. Furthermore, how their relationship is ever occurring and seems unlikely to stop. This clarification that Socrates gives presents an even more realistic reason for believing that the soul persists. Because if the soul did not persist, then where would it go if not to replace its opposite? This line is based off of the thought of also assuming that all things in existence will stay in existence. In conclusion, Socrates opposites argument uses familiar examples and logic to justify why the soul persists
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
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
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.
According to Aristotle, living things are made up of matter, form and a “complex of both” (414b 16-20). In general, matter represents potential and consists of the component parts of an object. Not until the parts take the form of a recognizable, functional object can they be considered as such. The matter or potential of a living thing is its component parts, i.e. the stem, leaves and roots of a plant; or the limbs and organs of a human being or animal. The parts must take form in order to achieve actuality, which is the role of the soul in living things. The soul, therefore, is what moves the potential of matter into the actuality of life. A living thing is the complex of both matter and form; and the soul represents the “…actuality of a certain kind of body…” (414a 18-19), i.e. a living body.
The pursuit of knowledge has led many a philosopher to wonder what the purpose of life truly is, and how the material and immaterial are connected. The simple fact is, we can never know for certain. Arguments can be made, words can be thrown around, and rationale can be supported, but we as mere humans are not capable of arriving at the perfect understanding of life. Nonetheless, in the war against our own ignorance, we seek possible explanations to explain that which science and math cannot. Philosopher 's such as Plato and Aristotle have made notable contributions to our idea of the soul and its role in the grand scheme of life, while some, such as Descartes, have taken a more metaphysical view by pondering the impact one 's mind has on
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.
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.
Socrates whose role is mostly wise into understanding a person of reality higher than anyone that can understand a person. He is one who implements the entire arsenal of Western logic and rhetoric to accomplish his end of rarifying and finally fixing the point of a given dialogue. For philosophy, we see ourselves mirrored in the arguments we advance and are made intellectually and spiritually better for having reflected so much and having been so reflected. He is portrayed in these works as a man of great insight, integrity, self-mastery, and argumentative skill. Socrates use a dialogue known as the Socratic Method based on between two or more people who are hold different in the views they pursue to seek the truth with one another. Using questioning skills in order to
Since the times of Plato and before, humans have pondered the existence of a soul and the afterlife. I am going to present my argument for the existence of a soul and the potential for surviving one's physical death. For the purpose of my argument I will define that the meaning of the mind and soul are one and the same. The two main accepted views of the human condition are that of the physicalist and that of the dualist. The physicalist views the human condition in a purely physical state. That is to say that the human mind and consciousness is confined to the human body, and thus when the body dies so does the mind. The dualist view holds that the human condition is made up of two parts. The first part being the physical body and the second the soul or the non-physical mind. I present my argument in this form; (1) Physical objects such as the human body have to obey physical laws; (2) Non-physical objects such as the human mind/soul do not have to obey physical laws; (3) Humans present both physical and non-physical properties; (4) Therefore the mind/soul does not die with the physical body.
Further, Aristotle defines the soul as “an actuality in the first sense” (Aristotle 350BC/1994) with “first” being understood as “prior in time and existence” (Aristotle 350BC/1994) and it can be argued that the exercising or engaging with these capacities cannot define the essence of the soul, because that would inhibit the dormant plant, the sleeping animal and the unthinking man from possessing a soul. (Wedin