In this paper I will discuss the Final Argument in Plato’s Phaedo. In this argument Socrates

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.

Plato’s idea that there was a perfect world of ideas affected this pieces subject and the

Plato's final argument in Phaedo for the immortality of the soul is one of the most interesting topics of all time. It goes hand to hand with the application of the theory of forms to the question of the soul's immortality, as Plato constantly reminds us, the theory of forms is the most certain of all his theories. The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince us of the immortality of the soul by using several main arguments. These include the argument of forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, Plato provides his final proof, although it may be his last attempt to give his reasoning, it is not very convincing. Plato has some good points and reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, but his arguments often

In the Myth of the Soul, Darrow argues against different conceptions of immortality. One of the arguments that he presents to us is that we have a soul that can survive our death. Darrow argues that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul and questions where the soul stays within our body and when it enters our body. His arguments are to be further evaluated for its strengths and weaknesses as he tries to counter a belief with a long history particularly, in religion.

Plato begins his argument for the tripartite soul by setting up a criterion for individuation. The same thing cannot be affected in two opposite ways at the same time (436c). As pairs of opposites, he includes “assent and dissent, wanting to have something and rejecting it, taking something and pushing it away” (437b). Plato argues for the truth of this claim by bringing analogies from the behavior of bodies—a method which may seem illegitimate, given that he wants to use the principle to apply to aspects of the soul (in particular, opposing desires), not to physical objects. Plato first tries to establish the existence of a purely appetitive part of the soul using this method. Thirst is a desire. There is a subject of this desire. Thirst is a desire for unqualified drink—that is, no particular kind of drink, just drink (437e). Now comes a logical digression, the aim of which is to preclude the combination of appetitive and rational forces in the same subject. The outcome of the logical digression is that if the truth

Throughout Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates invokes different arguments to portray specific ideas about the immortality of the soul. One of the arguments in which Socrates brings about is the cyclical argument. The cyclical argument, also referred to as the principle of opposites, connects the core ideas of the body and the mind to later prove that the soul is an immortal entity. Forms are ever changing in and of themselves to create the cycle in which Socrates explains the basis of all things. It is through knowledge of the Forms, and the existence of the body and the soul that Socrates enhances the cyclical argument to demonstrate the concepts leading to the immortality of the soul.

The next argument from Lucretius is the “proof from sympaethia of mind and body.” The argument from medicine is an example of this type of argument. The argument from medicine states that the mind can be cured by medicine just like the body, which is mortal. Since that which is immortal cannot be altered in any way, it could not be cured. Since the mind can be cured, the mind (soul) is not immortal. The “affinity argument” from Plato could be seen as a counterargument. The affinity argument states that the soul resembles that which is invisible and divine, while the body resembles the visible and corporeal. Since the invisible and divine outlasts the visible and corporeal, the soul must outlast the death of the body. This argument fails in a number of ways, but in relation to Lucretius, no reason is given for why the soul cannot resemble the visible and corporeal, as Lucretius demonstrates in the sympaethia arguments.

It is interesting to notice that this Platonic form can be seen in various ways in both the human on a micro scale and in Jesus or God on a higher level. The human body, for instance, (as Plato noted) serves as garb for the soul. We can assume certain gestures, paint our faced, mask our mannerisms and looks; we can play around with our externals, but there is a soul that emanates from within, and this soul emerges through appearances such as looks, tears, or speech.

Opposites imply that nothing can exist as a one off. Thus is follows that the same is with life and death and the two are reversible stages. In the final proof, Plato extends this law of opposites to say that Forms cannot admit their opposite (102a-103). The largeness in Simmias cannot itself be small and although Simmias admits smallness and tallness, the smallness and tallness will never admit each other, this is because Socrates distinguishes the character of largeness from the subject in which the character exists. Simmias is not by nature larger then Socrates, rather he is so in the virtue of the largeness he happens to possess. Conversely in the numerical example, 3 is by nature odd and therefore of necessity is odd, never even. Similarly, the soul is by nature alive, and therefore of necessity alive, never dead. The following considerations give a clear distinction between accidental (Simmias and largeness) and essential (three and odd) properties. However Plato makes an assumption that the soul’s possession of life is essential. This is one of the major questions surrounding Plato, as he continually makes the assumption that soul brings life to the body; however I will come to my explanation to why I think this is a major assumption of Plato’s behalf later in this essay.

One of the most ancient mystery yet unsolved is the question pertaining to death and the afterlife. This mystery is one of the fundamental studies in both field of philosophy and religion. Comparing those who believe in a god-existing religion against those who don’t, we often see many differences in the answers relating to death. In the contrary, the similar answers to theist and atheist are evident strongly in two great thinkers and their works. The focus will be on Socrates’ speech in the Apology by Plato setting in 399 BCE and De Rerum Natura by Titus Lucretius 300 years later.

He writes, “when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then [the soul] has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and seems to have no intelligence” (Book VI, p. 25). By establishing opinion as the opposite to the ultimate good, and by definition, the ultimate evil, he criticizes the use of rhetoric and persuasion while praising to his long-winded, circuitous form of writing. By continually asking questions and telling parables, Plato avoids direct advocation of his beliefs and allows his readers to discover the truth for themselves, rather than to be coerced through eloquent language.

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

explains his belief that the “soul exists before, and survives the body”. Plato 's beliefs of

The crux of this argument will focus on three of Plato’s works: Gorgias, Apology, and The Republic.

Plato’s ideas regarding the body and the soul relates to his Theory of Forms/Ideas because he explains that the body is just a mere obstacle for the soul. IT makes it sound like when your soul is living its life within the body, its just an illusion, and when your