Phaedo Research Paper

In Phaedo, Socrates uses the soul and body to express the distinction between the forms and appearances. Socrates describes the soul as “divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself, whereas the body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble, and never consistently the same” (Phaedo 80b). Furthermore, Socrates believes there is a “future awaits men after death” (Phaedo 63c) because it might be “a relocating for the soul from here to another place” (Apology 40d). Socrates believes “the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death” (Phaedo 64a) because philosophers are stuck “in a kind of prison” (Phaedo 62b) struggling to acquire knowledge.

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.

According to Socrates one of the most important things that identify with human being is their desire. Socrates argues that desire that can change people minds quickly and very abnormally. The three-part division of the soul is crucial to Plato’s overall project of offering the same sort of explication of justice whether applied to societies or individuals.

Plato’s theory of the simplicity of the soul is seen in the Phaedo. Through the mouthpiece of Socrates, Plato argues for a simple soul which only has one true aim. He states that the soul only seeks truth and that all other senses and experiences are merely distractions through the soul being embodied ‘the soul reasons best when none of these senses troubles it, neither hearing nor sight, nor pain nor pleasure, but when it is most by itself, taking leave of the body and as far as possible having no contact or association with it in its search for reality.’ (Plato, 1997, §65c). The simple soul can only aim to grasp the truth of reality which it gets closer to as man becomes closer to death. This is why, in Plato’s opinion, a philosopher in particular can

Phaedo is a recount of Socrates’ final hour before his death, written by Plato in the form of a dialogue between Phaedo (Socrates’ prison guard) and Echecrates (1). In Socrates’ final hours we find him surrounded by like minds, pondering what happens to the soul after death, and if death is truly the end or just a new beginning. Those present at the prison include Socrates, Apollodorus, Simmias, Cebes, and Phaedo (2).

Socrates’ argument for why the soul is analogous to the city begins with an observation--that the city is comprised of individuals. The city is therefore a reflection of the characteristics of the individual. This observation allows Socrates to derive the characteristics of an individual from the characteristics of the city that had previously been discussed and established. However, this task is more difficult than it seems at first because of the differences between the soul and the city.

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.

Suppose Socrates managed to adequately prove the immortality and all knowing nature of the soul, his use of the slave boy interrogation as proof of recollection still remains problematic. What is being called into question is the method of interrogation that Socrates uses to help the salve boy recollect. Is the slave-boy actually recollecting forgotten knowledge? Or is Socrates asking strategic questions that direct the slave boy to the correct answer? It is assumed that because Socrates is asking questions and not explicitly teaching the slave boy anything that he has to be recollecting (106, Weiss). However, upon closer inspection this assumption can be easily questioned. Socrates’ use of diagrams begs the question, “can a process of discovery which leans so heavily on seeing- not in the sublimated sense, but in the literal one-be anything but an empirical process?”(Vlastos, 144). Would the slave boy have been able to arrive at the correct answer if Socrates had not drawn out the geometric figures? If he

Read the following in Plato's The Last Days of Socrates: Phaedo Wisdom and the Soul

In this paper I will be discussing the tripartite (three parts) of the soul that Socrates discussed in chapter 6 of Plato’s Republic, and I will compare and contrast them to that of Aristotle and Anthony Kenny. In Plato’s Republic the three parts of the soul consist of the rational, spirited and, desire. In this dialogue the three parts of the soul go hand and hand with three parts of a just society.

The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince the reader of the immortality of the soul using four main arguments. These include the argument of affinity, recollection, Forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, (Grube, 2002:102a-107b), Plato provides his ‘Final Proof’, despite seeming like the most conclusive argument it is not necessarily the most convincing. Plato has some good points and fair reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, however his arguments often seem to make large assumptions without any concrete backing. In this essay I will attempt to expose the flaws in Plato’s argument

But what you say about the soul is the subject of much disbelief: people fear that when they are separated from the body, it may no longer exist anywhere.” (Plato, 16) Cebes in those lines says that people often believe that the soul is mortal and that it perishes after death. In order for Socrates to persuade Cebes and the others present with him, he needs to use compelling arguments in order to persuade them that the soul is immortal. Socrates exposes as he goes through the arguments that the soul is immortal and conveys Plato’s arguments.

Melinda may also argue that knowledge can justify the existence of the soul. According to Plato,

Throughout Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates makes several points regarding the state of the soul - three of which concern the distinction of the soul from the body, the pre-existence of the soul, and learning as the recollection of the Forms. Regarding the differences between the soul and the body, Socrates shows clear partiality to the soul, as he believes that the soul is the singular source of wisdom, and the body distracts the soul from achieving wisdom. According to Socrates, not only should a philosopher abstain from participating in activities that bring pleasure to one’s body, but they should distance themselves from the senses entirely, because senses serve as an obstacle to obtaining true knowledge. Through the method of dialectic, Socrates

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