Plato's Arguments for Proving the Inmortality and Longevity of the Soul

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

The Nicene Creed appointed the roles of trinity by using the familiar triad set forth by Plato. God maintains His position as the Father and most important; Jesus becomes a divine human - born of the Father and the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit brings knowledge and truths which are set forth by both the Father and Son. “The true foundation upon which the doctrine rests is God himself… it is God as he acted in history, entering our world as a Jewish carpenter named Jesus, dying and rising again to save. It is God as he acted in history at Pentecost, descending as the Spirit to share life with the Christian church.” Thus the Trinity Doctrine was born out of Plato’s triad. The Goodness is God; the ideas are Jesus; and the World-Spirit is

In this critical summary, I will demonstrate that Socrates’s argument about how the soul has three parts, is indeed a valid and true argument.

In Phaedo, Phaedo presents the conversation between Socrates and his companions through his final hours, regarding one of the most fundamental arguments, Socrates’ argument for the immortality of the soul based on its likeness to the Forms. In what follows the essay will be focusing on the three arguments that Socrates provides for the immortality of the soul, the argument from the opposites, the Recollection Theory and the affinity argument, the analyses of Semmias counter arguments as well as Socrates response to them.

In Plato’s “Five Dialogues”, Socrates argues what he believes death is and what it will bring, and then urges humans to not fear death and perhaps even embrace it. Though the arguments both aim to dispel the fear of death, only one, the Phaedo, truly provides insight into the meaning of death, the preparation for it, and goes on to expound the human condition. The Phaedo does this in a detailed way by offering a strong argument that provides answers to the questions that these points may raise, such as what death is, how we prepare for it, and how this argument addresses the human condition. The human condition is the sum of the human experience. It includes growth, aspirations, the reality of mortality, emotions, among others. Aspirations for knowledge are found in the human condition, as is facing one’s own mortality. The main focus in this term for the purpose of this argument is “experience”, which is gained through the search for knowledge and is, thus, ultimately the collection of the knowledge that is acquired. I will analyze Socrates’ arguments both from the Apology and the Phaedo through the lens of the human condition to explain why the Phaedo provides more insight into this condition than does the Apology.

In an attempt to illustrate that the soul, much like the city Socrates describes earlier in the book, is partitioned into three parts, Socrates presents his arguments in three logical steps. He firstly establishes the assumption that the same thing cannot undergo opposite things. Then, he demonstrates that the soul must contain at least two parts, namely the appetitive and the rationally calculating. Lastly, he demonstrates that the spirited part must be different from both of those, thereby proving the tri-constituent structure of the soul.

.Sacrates proof of the immortality of the human soul is ethics. Socrates says how if the Gods do something does not mean it always going to have a positive outcome. Good and positive outcomes go further then the Gods itself. Good behavior is beyond the Gods that mean it is immortal. Ethics are what makes the human sole so if ethics are immortal so is the human soul. This is all based off of whether you have proper ethics and having that and being a good person your soul can be immortal.

During Socrates’ last days, he speaks with Cebes about the fate of the soul. Cebes is unconvinced that the soul doesn’t die concurrently with the body, which leads him to create an alternative analogy. Cebes’ imperfect analogy compares the body and soul to a cloak and a weaver, respectively. A cloak can be worn over and over again, which represents multiple human lives in a body. The weaver, however, outlasts each cloak until the last cloak dies. Cebes argues that because the weaver no long has a cloak to wear, he will die. This means that although the soul may preexist and outlive a body, it too will eventually die. Therefore, if Cebes’ analogy turns out to be more accurate and correct, then the soul is not immortal. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that the soul is immortal and looks to Forms to prove the soul’s immortality. He provides a “safe answer” that helps the reader understand not only his argument, but Plato’s argument and view of philosophy as well.

In this paper I will argue that the soul is not necessarily unchanging and eternal, as many of Plato’s arguments would suggest otherwise. The main reasons in support of this claim are that there are questionable conclusions that Plato had reached that challenge the validity of his theory on immortal souls. The Phaedo is one of Plato’s greatest dialogues addressing the essence of the afterlife through a discussion between Socrates and his students. Plato’s main argument within the Phaedo is that there is an

In Phaedo’s account, Socrates explains to his comrades that a real philosopher should not be sad if death finds them. The motive of their life is to free the soul from the body. Since the time of death is the final separation of spirit and body, a philosopher will be deemed as he attained his life goal. Compared to the body, the soul is immortal. He states his first point known as the Theory of Opposites, on what we see that everything appears from out of its opposite. One of the example is : ' The object that is originally big, must have been smaller in the first place, and has become bigger out of this smallness.' Other examples include separating versus combining and cooling versus heating. For living, being dead is opposite to living. '

In this essay, I will translate sections 436b-436c, 436e-437a, and 439a-439d of book four of Plato’s Republic. These translations consist of the principle of opposition and the separation of the soul into three parts. In addition, I will highlight issues that contemporary translators may have with translating the words ἅμα, κατὰ, and πρὸς. To achieve this, I must explain my translations and Plato’s meaning in book four.

The Phaedo is the last of a series of dialogues Plato wrote concerning the trial and execution of Socrates. It is also one of the earliest of the writings of his “middle” period, moving away from the ethical concerns of the earlier dialogues to presenting “Plato’s own metaphysical, psychological, and epistemological views” (Connolly 1). The dialogue discusses the relation of the philosopher to death, the relation of the soul and the body, and presents three arguments for the immortality of the soul. For a modern person reading this dialogue, it is difficult to take most of what is argued seriously, except as a historical curiosity, for two interconnected reasons: first, that most of what is discussed would be considered to be a question of religious belief, not of philosophical argument, and second, that the arguments begin from assumptions (mostly

This soul is the most basic soul, the nutritive soul. The nutritive soul can grow, decay, nurture themselves, and strives for reproduction in it’s final stages. Then, if you add two triangles together you have a square. This can be seen as the animal soul. The animal is a nutritive soul, as well as a perceptive soul.

In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates is preparing for his death following his trial in Plato’s Apology. He engages in an discussion with Simmias and Cebes about why death should be important to all philosophers and how one goes about acquiring knowledge. Socrates explains that the pursuit of knowledge, or wisdom, should be the life goal of a philosopher. This explanation hinges on the fact that death makes possible the acquisition of knowledge. However, the issue that I will focus on in this paper is the way Socrates the acquisition of knowledge. He believes that the body is impure, and the soul only acquires knowledge after death in an “In-Between” state when by itself. Simmias and Cebes don’t raise an issue with this explanation; however, I do. Socrates does not definitively prove that the soul is acquiring knowledge during this “In-Between” state, nor does he consider the alternative theory that the soul can acquire knowledge in the body, but consolidates and identifies the truth of this knowledge after death. In this paper, I will investigate this alternative theory and show how it is possible according to Socrates’ standards.

Among Plato’s dialogues, which serve to honor the realm of philosophy in general and Socrates’s life in particular, the Phaedo dramatically and poignantly portrays the death scene of Socrates. The Phaedo evokes such tragic sentiments of pity and fear while at the same time glorifies Socrates as the martyr for the truth. He dies because of human’s injustice yet faces his own death with extraordinary serenity and fearlessness; he devotes his whole life for philosophy and in fact practices it until the last minutes. In this dialogue, the philosophical discussion is about the soul. However, as a dualist, for the most part Socrates takes for