Plato's Dialogue Phaedo

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.

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

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.

The Apology and Phaedo by Plato are two different books describing what is like to be a philosopher per Socrates believes. These two books take place in two different scenarios in Socrates’ life, The Apology takes place in a court room where Socrates is to defend himself from false charges brought to him by Meletus who is acting as the prosecutor. Phaedo, on the other hand, takes place in a prison cell post judgment on the day of Socrates execution. Hence, The Apology and Phaedo appeared to display different philosophies: The Apology, Plato presented Socrates as wise for he knows that he knows nothing, hence he is seeking wisdom by questioning those who think they know more or something, just to find that they don’t know anything, therefore Socrates makes it his duty to make them look ignorant/stupid. Phaedo, Socrates focuses primarily on death and the immortality of the soul, hence he is seeking knowledge by devoting his final hours picking the minds of his friends to explain the role of a philosopher, which is preparing for death. Consequently, these two views are really the same, yet presented differently by Socrates, for in one he is defending his freedom and life using philosophy, hence he has only done what the Gods expected of him. From the other view, he resigned to his fate, for as a philosopher, he knows his soul will finally become liberated from the evils and limitations of the body to come to its divine state.

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 book, Phaedo by Plato, he discusses the immortality and divinity of the soul, and uses the philosophical theoria to prove that such a thing exists. Plato spends a lot of time trying to prove the idea to his fellow philosophers the divinity of the soul. Yet, in the book In Defense of Philosophy by Josef Pieper, he talks about how philosophy is not about finding an exact truth, but merely seeking to get close enough to it. This shows a clear contradiction between Plato’s belief that a soul is divine and continues to live on and Pieper’s thoughts on what true philosophy is, because he creates dialogue that clearly shows influence of his religious background that takes away from the philosophical discourse. It is due to this, Pieper would not agree with Plato in his interpretation on the divinity of the human soul.

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.

In Plato’s Five Dialogue Apology section, Plato records the actual speech that Socrates delivered in his own defense at the trial. Basically, Socrates is accused to the action of corrupting youth, which he taught norms and value to many people and charge a fee for it (19d6). He is also accused to the action of teaching spiritual things, for not believing in Athens god, and last but not least, Hubris, the question of human wisdom. Socrates, in fact, provides brilliant responses towards all accusations that are charged against him, saying that not one of them is true (19d5). Among these accusations, I will try to prove that Socrates is not guilty against the accusation that is charged to him in terms of the human wisdom, in which Socrates is accused of claiming to be the wisest man of all, a student of all things in the sky and below the earth (18b6).

As we discussed previously Theory of Forms, states that everything in the world fits into two categories, the abstract universals, things such as beauty itself, equality itself, and piety itself and the second category is concrete particulars, things that exist in space and time, such as sunsets, music, and people. However Socrates derives his confidence from a combination of the argument of opposites and the theory of forms. This Argument from the Theory of Forms for the immortality of the soul: If we assume the theory of forms is true, and there is a form of Life itself, then souls are the sources of life because they participate in the form of life, then souls cannot participate in the opposing form of life, death, at the same time, if the principle of non-contradiction is true. Now since death is the opposite of life, souls can’t participate in it, therefore souls are immortal. Socrates makes these claims to comfort his friends and followers who are concerned

Socrates explains that philosophy is the preparation for death. In other words, Socrates has spent the majority of his life preparing for the separation of his body and soul. “…the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death” (101). He says that because our souls are immortal, we should embrace death and look forward to what it has to offer for our souls. To confirm this belief, Socrates again states, “…the freedom and separation of the soul from the body is called death…those who practice philosophy in the right way, we say, who always want to free the soul; and this release and separation of the soul from the body is the preoccupation of the philosophers” (104). A philosopher’s ambition, when looking toward death, is to free the soul from its body; therefore, when one dies, the soul lives on and the body does not.

Socrates third argument for the immortality of the soul is The Affinity Argument. This argument does not prove the immortality of the soul, it only shows that it is somewhat likely. Socrates makes a distinction between things that are immaterial, invisible, and immortal, and things that are material, visible, and decomposable. The soul falls in the former category while the body falls in the latter category. This distinction suggests that the soul should be able to survive death. The idea is that the soul has a likeness to a higher level of reality.

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.

avenues for the philosophical life. Socrates defines death as the release of the soul from the body . This definition implies both a view of death as placing distance between the soul and the body during this life and a complete separation at the moment of death. The responsibility of the philosopher is to seek liberation here in this life and, in so doing, to prepare for the afterlife, as preparation for both the literal and figurative deaths coalesce into a single activity.

In the “Do Minds Survive after Death” reading, Socrates claims that all true philosophers desire death. Socrates believed that the life of a philosopher is aimed at attaining true knowledge and he reasoned that the way to accomplish it is through thinking only or in other words by the separation of the soul from the body because the senses can be inaccurate and the body itself can be troublesome. The example he gives to support the claim of inaccuracy of the senses is that humans have never seen true beauty, however, they have imagined it. Socrates went so far as to say that the true nature of anything is never seen or perceived by the senses but it is something that humans came to know through thinking. Although, it is true that thinking is

In this dialogue Socrates and the philosophers explore several arguments for this idea of an immortal soul. These arguments were to illustrate and verify that death is not the dying of body and soul collectively, but when the body dies the soul continues to live on. Socrates offers readers four main arguments: The Cyclical Argument, which is the idea that forms are fixed and external. The soul is the sole purpose of life in this argument, and therefore cannot die and it is also to be seen as virtually never-ending. Next is The Theory of Recollection, which insists that at birth everyone has knowledge that the soul experienced in another life. Meaning that the soul would have had to be existent before birth to bear this said knowledge.