Simmias Argument Analysis

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.

Socrates objects Simmias’ claims and refutes Harmony Theory many ways, but the one I find most notable is that Socrates believes that the soul is the master of the human body and directs and controls the body. Since the soul is eternal and the body is not, the soul controls the body throughout the entirety of its life. Socrates comments, “further, of all parts of a man, can you mention any other part that rules him than his soul, especially if it is a wise soul?” (Plato 132). Because it has this power, it tells the body what to do, where to move, and how to act. This is different than the harmony and the lyre. For example, “on the other hand, we previously agreed that if the soul were a harmony, it would never be out of tune with the

In The Phaedo, one of Socrates’ aims is to convince us that our souls existed prior to our birth. In making this argument, he claims that we had some knowledge of imperceptible things prior to our birth, and that through “recollection” of our pre-birth knowledge of imperceptible things, we are able to perceive certain qualities of things like equality beginning after our birth. Socrates’ argument begins by defining recollection as when someone ‘perceives one thing, knows that thing, and also thinks of another thing of which the knowledge is not the same but different’ (73c). Socrates asks that we consider our perception of equal things, such as sticks and sticks or stones and stones. He claims there is “Equal itself” or the Form of Equality, which is unmistakably equal at all times (74a). Once the Form of Equality, is agreed upon, Socrates claims that “as long as the sight of one thing makes you think of another, whether it be similar or dissimilar,” you are recollecting (74d). Socrates then concludes that because we are able to make judgments about equal things through perception, we must have knowledge of the Form of Equality prior to making these judgments about equal and unequal things, and we are able to recognize these things as equal or unequal by recalling the form of equality. Socrates’ argument begins with the idea that our souls were acquainted with all forms prior to our births, and he outlines an argument that illustrates his Theory of Recollection, concluding

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 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.

In the dialogue of Meno, Socrates explains the idea of recollection with the question and answer period between himself and the boy. Meno asks Socrates, “What do you mean by saying that we do not learn, and

In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates makes the argument that the soul is immortal. He provides several premises to back up this argument. The first premise is one that his students Cebes and Simmias seem to disagree with and object. This premise is that the soul exists after death. “So we cannot trust this argument and be confident that our soul continues to exist somewhere after out death” (88a). This is the first step upon which Socrates builds his argument.

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.

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

On page 1024, “song of myself” line 3 it says, “for every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you”. The quote above shows the unity of people. “my tongue, every atom of my blood, form’d from this soil, this air, born there of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same, I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin, hoping to cease not till death.” This quote shows the connection between people as well as the stepping into the subject of death beautification. What I got from this quote is that he is connecting with thing, like the soil and air and that he is

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

This line is an example of his use of contradiction because he also says that his soul cannot exceed the other parts of himself.

Plato has roused many readers with the work of a great philosopher by the name of Socrates. Through Plato, Socrates lived on generations after his time. A topic of Socrates that many will continue to discuss is the idea of “an immortal soul”. Although there are various works and dialogues about this topic it is found to be best explained in The Phaedo. It is fair to say that the mind may wonder when one dies what exactly happens to the beloved soul, the giver of life often thought of as the very essence of life does it live on beyond the body, or does it die with it? Does the soul have knowledge of the past if it really does live on?

Since philosophers don’t fear death and believe that the soul is the most important, Plato says that the soul is immortal and has has existed before our birth. “For if the soul existed before birth, and in coming life and being born can be born only from death and dying, must she not after death exist, since she has to be born again? Surely the proof which you desire has been already furnished” (Plato 55). This quote explains how our soul has lived for many years and what happens to our soul from the result of our death. Plato says that our soul could have lived inside other bodies during its many lives, such as animals or other people. If your soul has lived a previous life before being inside your body like Plato explains, it makes you wonder what other lives our soul has gone through before our own. This is pretty interesting to think that once you die, your soul will live on, your body is just another life or stop, for your soul to gain even more experiences and wisdom. Plato explains that the soul is the most important, and that the body is just another obstacle for your soul to go through.