Analysis Of ' Last Days '

In Phaedo, by Plato, Phaedo recounts an incident with Socrates. The story starts with Socrates opening up saying that Philosophers should not only accept death, but welcome it. After all, although the body will pass, the soul is able to live on because it is immortal. He uses a lot of his intuition to back up his claim, but the main rationale is the Argument of Affinity. He claims that the world is very binary. Things are either incorporeal and invisible, or not. The body is physical, visible and corporeal. Things like the body that are visible are part of the sensible world and do not last. The soul however is not. It is invisible and incorporeal. That is why Socrates believes the soul is immortal. Simmias counters Socrates claim bringing

His alternative explanation was that someone who really is proficient on a subject should be able to explain it to others. If they cannot explain the subjects, but can be lead to recall them to a point that they will be able to explain them; they must have acquired the knowledge in their earlier life that they failed to remember at the time of birth. Simmias and Cebes both agreed that socrates has successfully demonstrated that souls existed before birth but they continue to be skeptical that the soul still remains after death.

The philosophy discussed in the Phaedo revolves around Socrates discussion of the existence and nature of the afterlife. One of the overarching themes in Phaedo is the soul’s immorality. The dialogue explores a number of arguments for the immortality of the soul to illustrate the concept of the afterlife where the soul is supposed to dwell following our deaths. Four essential arguments are put forth for the soul’s immortality. The four arguments are: The Opposites Argument, The Theory of Recollection, The Affinity Argument and The Argument from Form of Life.

“it is time for me to die, and for you to live- though which of us has the better destiny is unclear to everyone, save only to God.” So with this statement, Socrates seems to contradict himself and admits that nobody really knows whether it is better to be alive than dead. This statement also clearly identifies the fact that he believes in a supreme being so there is no way he could believe that there is no life after death. He in fact several times speaks about how his obedience to his God is of the utmost importance. Essentially this whole argument about death with no after life being a favorable outcome is completely preposterous. He would be abandoning his family, friends and his principles further contradicting

“the hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and

In the Phaedo, Plato presents a conversation between Socrates and two of his interlocutors, Simmias and Cebes, as they discuss the immortality of the soul during Socrates’ last hours before his death in the jail at Athens. At 70a, Cebes offers his worry that upon death the soul “…is destroyed and dissolved…and is dispersed like breath or smoke.” The rest of the dialogue consists of a debate between the three men as they consider the form and indissolubility of the soul. In this paper I will show that though Socrates’s position does not definitively explain his claims about the soul’s immortality, which he lays out in the Resemblance Argument, he does successfully respond to Simmias’ Lyre Objection, which itself offers a reasonable but still not infallible objection to Socrates’ original argument.

Why does Plato think that the soul is immortal? Is he right? Discuss with close reference to Phaedo 102a-107b.

In Phaedo Socrates claims that the soul exists somewhere after the body dies. He uses the argument of opposites to make his claim. Socrates believes that for something to “be” it must have been something else before or come from something. He gives Cebes examples of thing that are generated as a result from its opposite. “when anything becomes greater it must inevitably have been smaller and then have become greater.” He uses this example to say that being “greater” is derived from having been “smaller” at some point; and that in between being “greater” and “smaller” there are a lot of variables. After giving several examples to Cebes and Cebes agreeing to most outcomes, Socrates asks Cebes if there is an opposite to living, Cebes responds

To what extent Plato was imbued with the belief in the immortality of the human soul and the degree to which it was confirmed that belief with the singular death of Socrates? The booklet WHAT HAPPENS TO US WHEN WE DIE?, printed in 2006 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, on page 5, that " A scholar and teacher of 70 years of age is accused of impiety and of attempting to corrupt the young minds with his teaching. Although it is a great defense before the jury, this conviction and death sentence, because it is biased against him. Just a few hours before his execution, the old master presented to the students gathered around a series of arguments to corroborate that the soul is immortal and that there is no need to be afraid of death.

Socrates makes the assertion that the soul is an immortal entity that survives through many generations and bodies. He explains that there is the visible and the invisible realms in life. The visible realm is everything that we can see, in which things exist that take forms. In the visible realm, there may be a bundle of equal sized sticks, that take the form of equality. When you see the bundle, you see that it looks equal. But, someone else may not see those sticks as equal, and therefore the visible realm is imperfect. The visible realm is ever changing, and can be perceived differently by all who experience it. The invisible on the other hand, is where the forms exist. A form is the true identity of things, like equality for example. When

In a bid to explain the concept of immortality, Socrates employs the concept of opposites. He gives substantial examples which clearly depict the fact that for any object or property that claims to have been generated, it is attained through the law of opposites. To substantiate his statement, he indicates that if something was big at a given point, it must have been smaller at another given instance. In an explicit explanation, it suffices to indicate that Socrates meant that the current state of a given thing is an opposite of the state that it was at a given particular time. He uses this concept to show that life is a result of death. In this case, the living things are as a result of death which took place and once people undergo death,

In this article by Tal Kopan he writes about how Ben Carson believes we are coming upon the end of days. Although, Carson believes we are coming upon the end of days he believes that we can change our course of direction to avoid this. According to cnn.com, “I think we have a chance to certainly do everything we can to ameliorate the situation. I would always be shooting for peace. I wouldn't just take a fatalist view of things.” Carson stated. This comment was made when he was asked if the end of days could be stopped or if it was prophesied. This article also made references to his controversial comments that were made this week. In which he said he would rather be honest than just saying what people wanted to hear so that he could

In this conversation, they are separating and attempting to define and order the body and the soul based on importance. Socrates and Cebes agree that the body is mortal and sinful, and the soul is immortal and divine; separating upon the death of the body. Socrates says “Look at it also this way: when the soul and the body are together, nature orders the one to be subject and to be ruled, and the other to rule and be master.” Aristotle may argue that the combination of body and soul is what makes an entire human, a distinct third being, with no one mastering the other. Socrates and Cebes are separating two parts of the human and failing to acknowledging the one whole as an individual and complete entity.

He believes he would be going against his beliefs and character if he chose to escape. The last dialogue is Phaedo, a beloved disciple of the great teacher. Socrates shows his belief of the immortality of the soul. This dialogue was the fourth and last detailing the final days of Socrates. Socrates presents four arguments for the immortality of the soul. First, there is the claim that the soul is made up of basic forms. Second, the fact that we are born with certain innate knowledge proves that the knowledge is eternal. Third, people generally agree the soul is different from the body. Fourth, the soul is by definition living and thus can’t die in any meaningful way. At the end of the dialogue, Socrates is executed by poison hemlock. Phaedo was right by his side until his death. Phaedo said that ,” although I was witnessing the death of someone who was my friend, I had no feeling of pity, for the man appeared happy both in manner and words, as he died nobly and without fear ” (p. 212).

In one of Plato’s famous dialogues Phaedo, Plato touches on some of the theories of Socrates that focus on the immortality of the soul. Plato explains four main arguments that attempt to prove that the soul is indeed immortal. After reviewing and analyzing the arguments given, I have come to the conclusion that Plato’s premises are not true. I believe that the arguments he offers are in some way invalid. In order to prove the validity of each discourse, I will evaluate each of the four arguments Plato presents.