The Immortality of the Soul in Plato's Phaedo

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

Plato’s theory of the simplicity of the soul is seen in the Phaedo. Through the mouthpiece of Socrates, Plato argues for a simple soul which only has one true aim. He states that the soul only seeks truth and that all other senses and experiences are merely distractions through the soul being embodied ‘the soul reasons best when none of these senses troubles it, neither hearing nor sight, nor pain nor pleasure, but when it is most by itself, taking leave of the body and as far as possible having no contact or association with it in its search for reality.’ (Plato, 1997, §65c). The simple soul can only aim to grasp the truth of reality which it gets closer to as man becomes closer to death. This is why, in Plato’s opinion, a philosopher in particular can

Phaedo is a recount of Socrates’ final hour before his death, written by Plato in the form of a dialogue between Phaedo (Socrates’ prison guard) and Echecrates (1). In Socrates’ final hours we find him surrounded by like minds, pondering what happens to the soul after death, and if death is truly the end or just a new beginning. Those present at the prison include Socrates, Apollodorus, Simmias, Cebes, and Phaedo (2).

The portrayal of Socrates, through the book “the trial and death of Socrates” is one that has created a fairly controversial character in Western history. In many ways, Socrates changed the idea of common philosophy in ancient Greece; he transformed their view on philosophy from a study of why the way things are, into a consideration man. Specifically, he analyzed the virtue and health of the human soul. Along side commending Socrates for his strong beliefs, and having the courage to stand by those convictions, Socrates can be commended for many other desirable characteristics. Some of those can include being the first martyr to die for his philosophical beliefs and having the courage to challenge indoctrinated cultural norms is part of

To introduce the argument, Socrates explains the theory of Forms. Forms are the intangible and visible components of anything that exists. They are the larger ideas that compose the reasons for why something exists. This being said, these are merely concepts that cannot be changed but rather they stand concrete in their meanings and ideals. An example of a Form is beauty. We can only recognize things that are beautiful because “all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful” and they belong to the Form of beauty (Plato, pg. 138). Beauty only exists because it is an idea in which things fall into a category. Something can be recognized as beautiful, and it is therefore placed under the Form of beauty, and therefore, all things beautiful share the same meaning. The meaning of beauty will never be changed because it is a permanent idea that holds to be true. This issue stems into the idea that forms can change between each other, while still possessing individual meanings. Take the forms of tallness and smallness for example:

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

Plato fails to set out his theory clearly and allow the reader to realise it is a theory. Nowhere in his dialogues does he state that he is describing a theory of forms, and so people may have misunderstood his writing s and he may not have meant it to be a theory at all. He has elements of his theory in many different dialogues and is inconsistent. In Book I of the Metaphysics Aristotle claims that Plato had a "system" to the effect that "the many sensibles which have the same name exist by participating in the corresponding Forms." This quote from Aristotle's work suggests that Plato did have a theory of forms but this is not believed by all people.

It is interesting to notice that this Platonic form can be seen in various ways in both the human on a micro scale and in Jesus or God on a higher level. The human body, for instance, (as Plato noted) serves as garb for the soul. We can assume certain gestures, paint our faced, mask our mannerisms and looks; we can play around with our externals, but there is a soul that emanates from within, and this soul emerges through appearances such as looks, tears, or speech.

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 main concept that Plato bases his argument on is the theory of forms. According to the theory of forms, the physical world is created by the abstract ideas and concepts known as the metaphysical world. Plato believed that the physical world was not real and was simply an illusion for the metaphysical world. in The Symposium, there are six different levels to the theory of forms as defined by Diotima. Diotima defines the levels using the example of love, the topic of discussion at the symposium. The first two levels fall into the physical world and are the love of one body and the love of all bodies. The third, fourth, and fifth levels fall under the realm of the metaphysical world and are the love of minds, the love of customs and traditions, and love of forms of knowledge respectively. The highest level in the theory of forms is pure form which extends beyond the metaphysical world and cannot be defined. Only beings that have achieved wisdom, beings that reside in the realm of pure form, can understand this idea. Plato

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

Plato, arguably one of the most famous philosophers in history is known for his dialogues and theory of Forms. The theory of Forms argues that ideas (non-physical forms) are more real than tangible objects or what our senses perceive. According to Plato, there is the visible realm and intelligible realm. Reality could be divided into three different levels; the level of appearances, the real level, and the ideal level which he explains through the analogy of the ‘Divided Line’ in The Republic.

“Everything which exist in this world and all things that we see around us are not as they appear to us” this is the core idea behind plato’s theory of forms.From this idea only he moves towards explaining his world of forms or ideas.

Plato recognizes that knowledge and understanding of the Forms is of momentous value, because they are pre-eminent and transcendent goods. Possession of the Forms, in a sense that does not imply ownership, is the product of reason — visualised as the most worthwhile attribute of the human soul — and it is this possession which leads to human happiness. A happiness shared by all of those who arrive at a true realisation of the Forms, through the supremacy and superiority of human reason [12]. For Plato, an action is approved of not simply because it is preferred by reason, but because reason will prefer it when reason has succeeded in apprehending the Good, and applying that apprehension to the task of choosing actions [13].

Plato's theory of The Forms argued that everything in the natural world is representative of the ideal of that form. For example, a table is representative of the ideal form Table. The form is the perfect ideal on which the physical table is modeled. These forms do not exist in the natural world, as they are perfect, and there is nothing perfect in the natural world. Rather the forms exist in the invisible realm,