Plato’s 1st Argument for the Immortality of the Soul from Opposites and Theory of Reincarnation

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

Plato uses Socrates’ Argument from Opposites to show that a living being cycles from being dead to being alive, but this falls flat because we must rely on the idea that there is another realm for were the dead souls must reside. “Let’s consider it, perhaps, in this way: do the souls of human beings exist in Hades when they have died, or do they not?” (Plato 17) This shows that their belief in an immortal soul requires that one believe that there is the existence of a place called Hades, without any other interpretation from either Socrates or Cebes. Piper would disagree with this idea because it relies on a religious belief, which can be related to the idea of the modern Christian Philosopher. “The following reflections will nonetheless consider-third-only those situations in which the philosopher is also explicitly a believer who openly accepts the truth of a sacred tradition and consciously accepts the truth of a sacred tradition and consciously tries to be aware of it in his reasoning.” (Pieper 112) Here Pieper talks about how a philosopher must be careful of his faith and make sure it does not affect his reasoning, which is what is happening to Socrates and Cebes as they reason their way through the existence of the soul. They attribute a piece of their reasoning to a potentially mythical place that the current Greek religion believes in, without considering if there are alternatives to such

One of the positive effects of such a belief regarding the soul and its existence after the body's physical death is that it can serve as motivation to lead a virtuous life. This fact is readily demonstrated within the speech and actions of Socrates, who attempted to lead a high life of virtue, reasoning, and thinking in order to protect his soul from any sort of debauchery which might affect it in the afterlife. Socrates' conception of the afterlife was somewhat as muddled as Plato's, during The Apology he claimed he knew nothing about it, yet he also asserts that it will either be a restful, lasting slumber or a state in which one has an enjoyable degree of communication with the

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.

Socrates believes that the entire philosophical endeavor is a preparation for death and that the true philosopher looks forward to dying. His students, however, cannot understand why the philosopher should want to die, and Socrates hopes to dispel their fears of death while bringing them to an awareness of a figurative death where desires cease to control the soul . In addition to noticing the figurative nature of death, he also wants them to give further consideration to the literal death as well.

Importantly, one needs to recall that Plato holds the human is a union of two distinct entities—body and soul—he considers death to be their separation. In Phaedo, he expressly uses our notion of equality to illustrate the way in which humans recollect knowledge (as Socrates’ recollection theory of knowledge holds). His his argument from recollection posits that the soul immortal.

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.

The man associated with the name of Socrates supposedly lived and died about two millennia ago, but his name perseveres – a name which, over the years, has grown to legendary proportions, and which is occasionally used synonymously with the concepts of wisdom and knowledge. In Plato’s plays, which also serve as the most influential historical proofs for the existence of Socrates, which has been constantly doubted, he is depicted as a man of old age, soft-spoken and gentle-mannered, who possesses some of the most simple yet extreme habits. Stubbornness is another quality abundantly present in Socrates, and it manifests itself especially around the time of his death, when despite the countless pleas of his close friends and wife, he decides to proceed with the consumption of the hemlock, ending his life and marking one of the most tragic events of ancient Athens. But his stubbornness appears to be justified at first, as four arguments, two of which displayed below, are presented through the words of Phaedo, which appear to logically explain Socrates’ lack of fear toward death.

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.

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

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.

Joe Arce 19 Sept 2011 Socrates Vs. Gilgamesh Socrates’ view of death in the Phaedo, Crito, and Apology is complex. His argument tries to prove that philosophers, of all people, are in the best state to die or will be in the best state after life because of the life they lead. Socrates’ views are sharply contrasted in The Epic of Gilgamesh. In fact, he would probably say that Gilgamesh had not lived the proper kind of life and his views of life, and death would lead to an unsettled existence in the afterlife. Socrates’ view of death, from his opinions on the act of dying, the state of the soul after death, and the fear of death, differs from that of The Epic of Gilgamesh to the extent that Socrates would refute every belief about death

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

Throughout the Apology, Crito and Phaedo, Socrates expresses his conceptions of death and the afterlife, which are reflected