The Simple Soul In The Phaedo And The Republic

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.

Plato’s Republic proposes numerous, intriguing theories ranging from political idealism to his contemporary view of ethics. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard, universally. Plato’s most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, and I will discuss how this could possibly due to key flaws in his assumptions, as well as failure to be specific in his definitions. In spite of this, Plato’s exposition on ethics is still relevant for scholars and academics to study, due to his interpretive view of morality and justice.

In the Phaedo, Socrates proposes that the soul is immortal. Despite being a seemingly counterintuitive understanding, Socrates offers arguments for the soul’s immortality and expresses his view between the soul, or mind, and the body. Socrates practices reasoning to establish his philosophy on the concept of the soul and all that it necessitates. He rationalizes four theories of the immortality of the soul. The four arguments he establishes are; the opposites argument, also referred to as the cyclical argument, this theory indicates that there is a continuous cycle of life and death, and tries to explain that all forms obtained are eternal and fixed. The second argument is the theory of recollection; this concept suggests that all learning entails remembering knowledge that was already known. The third theory is the argument from affinity; this argument demonstrates that the soul most resembles all of that which is indistinguishable and everlasting and the body echoes that which is perceptible and finite. And though the body may be understood to exist after demise in the form of a corpse by reason of the body’s impermanence, the soul being divine in sequence will outlast the body. The concluding argument is the argument from form of life, this final argument describes that all things participate in the forms. The argument entails that the soul participates in the form of life, so

In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the

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.

One of the final discussions that Socrates goes of is the journey people take after death. When Socrates takes on this philosophical topic it leads into the description of the soul. In the book, Plato Five Dialogues, translated by G. M. A Grube, Phaedo gives an account of this discussion. Now the question that we want to discuss is, “what is the soul according to the Phaedo”? What makes this a hard question is that Socrates never directly answers this question. Although, according to the account that the Phaedo provides, this paper will argue that the soul is the source/essence of true knowledge. To show this, we will go over three different ideas. First we will go over how the soul and the body are separate. Second we will go over

In an attempt to illustrate that the soul, much like the city Socrates describes earlier in the book, is partitioned into three parts, Socrates presents his arguments in three logical steps. He firstly establishes the assumption that the same thing cannot undergo opposite things. Then, he demonstrates that the soul must contain at least two parts, namely the appetitive and the rationally calculating. Lastly, he demonstrates that the spirited part must be different from both of those, thereby proving the tri-constituent structure of the soul.

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

Plato, through his mouthpiece Socrates, remarks on the “ridiculous” nature of self-control (430e-431a) and is only subdued in his application of the term in the context of the soul and its ability to create amity. The various components of the soul, according to Plato’s Socrates in Book IV, consists of ‘Reason’, ‘Spirit’, and ‘Appetite’ (436a). These divisions of the soul are used to correspond to three distinctive classes in Kallipolis —‘rulers’, ‘guardians’, and ‘craftsmen’ —all which Plato’s text argues equates to specific fractions of the soul. By associating parts of the soul with classes Plato consciously sets up the discussion for which part of the soul is naturally suited to rule.

One of the core arguments of Book IV of The Republic lays out a psychological theory, according to which, the soul has three parts, or faculties, or types of motivation. Plato’s argument begins with the observation that souls contain conflict;

One of the most intriguing ideas that revolves around Plato’s republic is the division of the soul. In the Republic, Book IV, the argument is portrayed that the soul has three parts. The three parts that Socrates claims in Plato’s Republic are; the rational part of the soul lusting after wisdom and truth, the spirited part of the soul that lusts after honor and the appetite part of the soul that lusts after all the remaining things like money, sex etc. (Republic Book IV 436b). These parts of the soul that are listed by Socrates mirror the classes of society within Plato’s “just city.” A little more on these different souls or psyches. The rational part of the soul is the part that analyzes our thoughts. It is used in our daily activities deciding

The text emphasis on getting the reader involved in its debates and arguments and that is the real power of this book. We are also given an evocative account of human psychology, about the motivations and outside forces that result in the deterioration of cities and souls, and the effects of that deterioration. This segment serves as one of the culminating arguments for why one should be just rather than unjust. Since Plato's views encompass universal human concerns, which span the centuries between his time and ours, that is, ethics and politics, we should not hesitate to investigate his ideas critically and assess them against our own experience, feelings and common sense. However, certainly it would disregard the true spirit

In Phaedo’s account, Socrates explains to his comrades that a real philosopher should not be sad if death finds them. The motive of their life is to free the soul from the body. Since the time of death is the final separation of spirit and body, a philosopher will be deemed as he attained his life goal. Compared to the body, the soul is immortal. He states his first point known as the Theory of Opposites, on what we see that everything appears from out of its opposite. One of the example is : ' The object that is originally big, must have been smaller in the first place, and has become bigger out of this smallness.' Other examples include separating versus combining and cooling versus heating. For living, being dead is opposite to living. '

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