The Ideal Of The Soul In The Phaedo By Plato

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 states that everything comes into existence from out of its opposite. For example, a tall man becomes tall only because he was short before. Similarly, death is the opposite of life, and so living things come to be out of dead things and vice versa. This implies that there is a perpetual cycle of life and death, so that when we die we do not stay dead, but come back to life after a period of time. Socrates mentions an ancient theory

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

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.

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.

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.

Liberation here in the visible realm comes from recognizing the hindering function of the body in the soul's search for knowledge. Socrates comments that a soul associated too closely with the

One of the most popular works of the Greek philosopher, Plato, dramatically describes the last conversation Socrates had with his friends and students before his execution in 399 B.C. In the middle of the dialogue, one of Socrates’s disciples, Simmias describes his concern with Socrates’s argument that the soul, separate from the body, can survive even after the body’s death. Simmias finds this concept hard to believe and makes an analogy between a lyre and its attunement and the body and its soul to explain his distress. He describes the lyre as “physical, bodily, composite, earthy and akin to what is mortal,” just as the body, while the harmony or attunement is “invisible, without body, beautiful and divine” (Phaedo, 86b), just as the soul. Through that comparison, he makes the argument that just as the harmony cannot exist after the destruction of the lyre, a soul cannot exist after the destruction of its body.

Socrates then goes on to further establish his point. The premise is not only rue for complete opposite forms but also things that are related to these opposites. He uses the idea of fire and snow in relation to cold and hot. Fire is related to the form of Hotness and snow is related to the form of Coldness. Fire will never be related to cold and snow will never be related to heat. If fire comes close to cold, it will be destroyed. Similarly if snow comes close to heat, it will diminish and no longer be considered

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

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.

The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince the reader of the immortality of the soul using four main arguments. These include the argument of affinity, recollection, Forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, (Grube, 2002:102a-107b), Plato provides his ‘Final Proof’, despite seeming like the most conclusive argument it is not necessarily the most convincing. Plato has some good points and fair reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, however his arguments often seem to make large assumptions without any concrete backing. In this essay I will attempt to expose the flaws in Plato’s argument

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

Socrates makes the assertion that the soul is an immortal entity that survives through many generations and bodies. He explains that there is the visible and the invisible realms in life. The visible realm is everything that we can see, in which things exist that take forms. In the visible realm, there may be a bundle of equal sized sticks, that take the form of equality. When you see the bundle, you see that it looks equal. But, someone else may not see those sticks as equal, and therefore the visible realm is imperfect. The visible realm is ever changing, and can be perceived differently by all who experience it. The invisible on the other hand, is where the forms exist. A form is the true identity of things, like equality for example. When

Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the