Plato's 'The Last Days of Socrates': Phaedo, Wisdom, and the Soul

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 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.

Within this essay, I am going to argue that the simple soul is a more plausible conception than the idea of multiplicity within the soul within Plato’s work. This is due to the multiplicity of the soul resting on a circular argument of Plato’s ideal city which in turn rests back upon his idea of the tripartite soul. However, it can also be argued that neither conceptions of the soul are plausible due to them both relying on Plato’s theory of the Forms. Throughout Plato’s works of the Phaedo and the Republic, his account for the soul is conflicting as Plato’s two accounts cannot be reconciled. I will also refer to Plato’s work in the Phaedrus to aid my explanation of the multiplicity within the soul.

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

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.

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.

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.

As Socrates awaits his upcoming execution; he is visited before dawn by a close old friend Crito. Crito has made arrangements to help Socrates escape from prison. Socrates is grateful to his old friend for his willing to help aide him in the escape. However, Socrates is quite willing to await his execution. Crito tries to change Socrates mind about escaping by presenting him with several arguments. The first is that if Socrates choices to stay, his death will reflect poorly on Crito. The people will think that Crito did nothing to save his friend. If Socrates is worried about the risk or the financial cost to Crito; it’s an expense that he is willing to pay, and that he made arrangements for Socrates to live a life of exile in a pleasant

In Plato’s Phaedo he presents an argument which aims to establish how the soul persists after death. The opposites argument begins with premise one that states simply all things are derived from their opposites. Plato states this claim explicitly as, “Everything that has birth, let us see if everything comes into being like that, always opposite and from nowhere else.” This first premise leads into a thought that takes the observation of life and death have an opposite nature. Furthermore, premise two states that life and death are indeed opposites, which means the soul must persist to allow life to come again after death. Socrates presents this statement of, “If there is coming to life again, this coming to life would be a being born from the dead into the living”, in order to lead into his conclusion. Therefore, according to Socrates line of thought his conclusion is that life must come from 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

In Plato’s Phaedo, Plato works to prove the immortality of the soul by creating a dialogue that takes place after Socrates is sentenced to execution, moments before he is put to death. Through Socrates, Plato states that philosophers should not fear death and that the purpose of a philosopher is to attain wisdom, which can only be achieved after death when the soul is liberated from the distractions of the body. Using the Theory of the Forms and the Theory of Recollection, Socrates argues that the soul is undying and exists before birth and after death. While there is no concrete evidence to support his claims, Plato provides objections as well as explanations for these arguments, however, he does not consider other possible

In Phaedo by Plato, Socrates gives an account of what Beauty is. Socrates states “if there is anything beautiful besides the Beautiful itself, it is beautiful for no other reason than that it shares in that Beautiful” (Phaedo 100c). From this statement, one can assume that Socrates believes in one true Beautiful, just as he believes in one true Good that are included in the one true Knowledge. To find true Knowledge the body and soul must be separated which can be inferred that true Knowledge and it’s full understanding will only happen after death. Socrates believed that you could only accept true Knowledge of the Beautiful by reason alone, since the soul is reason. The reason behind the soul is critical, reflective and it is what we have

Plato also believed that the soul is made up of three basic parts including reason, spirit/passion, and appetite/desire. To engage in moral behavior, individuals need to balance all three of these parts. Reason can help us achieve the virtue of wisdom, controlling our desires will lead

Plato’s nature of reality revolves around the concept that the beautiful and the good only relate to the