Comparing Plato's Views On Mind And Body

Plato was a philosopher during the Classical Greek Era. He studied under Socrates and agreed with many of his teacher’s views. These views were based on the absolutes which were the pursuit of the ideal. They pursed order, rationality, truth, harmony, balance, beauty, and many other ideas. Another ideal they pursued was the concept of a good soul and life after death. Plato’s world view of death revolves around having a good soul and if a person has a good soul they will have a good life after death; he shows this through rebuking materialism, his views of death, and the fact that he believes he has a good soul and in return he will have a good life in death .

What is the mind-body problem? The mind-body problem asks the question, are the mind and body separate substances of elements of the same substance? In this paper I wish to propose, and try to provide support for Descartes notion of the immaterial mind, by critically discussing the view of substance dualism, pertaining to the relationship between the mind and body. The two arguments of which I will provide in this paper to support this view are divisibility and disembodied existence. There are two fundamentally different substances in this universe, physical and mental properties, this paper will explore both of these substances (8).

Today, one of the leading problems discussed in politics is healthcare. America constantly struggles with their healthcare system to make it affordable and accessible to communities. In the twentieth century this same problem also existed, creating one of the most well-known African American activist groups in America. In the book Body and Soul by Alondra Nelson, it discusses the social inequalities of the healthcare system in America and how the Black Panther Party fought against medical discrimination for African Americans. Nelson talks about how the Black Panther Party went from the role of protecting black citizens to a larger political role in African American health care. The significance of this book applies to medical sociology in many ways and is essential to the understanding of providing better healthcare to future generations. In the following book review, it includes a summary of each chapter to highlight the main points, some of the very many medical sociology concepts that could be applied, and lastly an evaluation of the book as a whole and its significance to our course.

Thesis: The mind-body problem arises because of the lack of evidence when looking for a specific explanation of the interaction of mental and physical states, and the origin and even existence of them.

“If the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal” (The Philosophical Journey 89). This states that since the soul has all knowledge integrated, one recollects this knowledge through situations in an individual’s life and use one’s reasoning. With the dialogues of the Meno and Phaedo, Plato discusses the ideas of recollection and immortality of the soul in general. As well, the Republic, through the three different situations shown, Plato shows the ideas of the forms and what is real and what is not.

The mind-body problem, which is still debated even today, raises the question about the relationship between the mind and the body. Theorists, such as René Descartes and Thomas Nagel, have written extensively on the problem but they have many dissenting beliefs. Descartes, a dualist, contends that the mind and body are two different substances that can exist separately. Conversely, Nagel, a dual aspect theorist, contends that the mind and body are not substances but different properties. However, although Nagel illustrates the problems with Descartes= theory, Nagel=s theory runs into the problem of panpsychism. In this paper, both arguments will be discussed to determine which, if either, side is stronger.

Plato’s ideas can seem somewhat abstract. Sometimes very hard to read and distinguish meaning from the text. However, I was able to understand parts of what Plato was saying based on the chart we completed in class and having time to sit back and reflect on it. Plato uses a metaphor of a city to explain his ideas on what a soul not only is, but what each part of the soul is responsible for. The first part of the metaphor explains that the smallest part of the soul is like the rulers of a city. This particular part of the soul corresponds with rational or reason and is in control of thinking and learning. Second in the metaphor is the guardians of the city. The corresponding part of the guardian to the soul is emotional. The task then of this part of the soul is logically in control over emotions. Finally, the last part of the metaphor includes the moneymakers or producers within the city. They make up the largest part of the city. The corresponding part of the soul that this part of the city refers to is appetitive meaning, that this part of the soul is responsible for desires.

In the following text, I will argue why Plato believes the desires of the body are so problematic. Plato’s teacher, Socrates, believed in this notion as well, by trying his best to keep his feelings and emotions from interfering with his pursuit of wisdom. I will also explain in what ways the desires of the body stem from ignorance and how Socrates’ solution to this created tension between philosophy and his city. Although Socrates never wrote anything down, his student, Plato, wrote about several situations Socrates was faced with and how he dealt with them. In The Republic, written by Plato during the induction of his teacher the reader can clearly decipher the the personality, wit, and wisdom that Socrates possessed. Socrates was very concerned with social and ethical issues, he believed that people were too filled with pride, conceit, and the beliefs they clinged on to in order to retain an order of sense, identity, and security. These characteristics, to Socrates, were all the desires of the body that led people towards gaining faulty logic. Socrates challenged all of the preconceived opinions of the day in Greece, which created tension between him and his city.

The concept of mind and body interactions has been debated among many modern philosophers. Some believe that our minds and bodies are different things, thus existing separately, while others believe that they exist as a whole. In this paper, I will be introducing two rationalist philosophical views regarding this topic, one which is by Rene Descartes and the other by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Rationalists, in philosophical terms, are the ones who obtain their knowledge through reasoning rather than the human senses. Descartes and Leibniz both have similar perspectives, but Leibniz takes a slightly different approach to improve Descartes’ argument. This paper will first show Descartes’ original argument, an example that proves the argument to be invalid, and then lastly, a revised version of the argument with Leibniz’s help.

explains his belief that the “soul exists before, and survives the body”. Plato 's beliefs of

After seeing this, he then attempts to see if the body truly does exist. He explains the beliefs he has about the outside world. He understands his body and such experiences it goes though, and through that he realizes that they must be present, and if they were not it would be impossible for him to feel them. He distinguishes the body from other things because the body must always be present, while other things could be merely different feelings. He here uses premises that he developed in Meditations three and four to help state that mind and body both exist, but separately. He says that his mind is different from his body, so therefore it must be separate from it. He then comes back to his Truth Rule from Meditation Four. “Every judgment that I make concerning matters that are “clear and distinct” to me is most assuredly true.” He says that god has made him think that his mind and body at distinctly separate, so they must be. He argues that his body and mind are

       The theory of the Ideas is the base of Plato’s philosophy: the Ideas are not only the real objects ontologically speaking, but they are the authentically objects of knowledge epistemologically speaking. From  the point of view  of ethics and  politics,  they are the foundation of  the right behaviour,  and anthropologically speaking they are  the base  of Plato’s dualism and they even allow him demonstrate  the immortality of  the soul.

Thus, Plato argued that the soul must have existed outside of the natural world. In order for this to be so, it must be immortal, living before it came into this world. It only stands to reason, Plato contended, that it must continue to exist after it leaves this world. How else would it have been in existence before it came into this world? Plato believed that it was a rational assumption that our soul must continue to exist even after our death.

Some would choose to declare that every human being is both a body and a mind. Both being gelled together until death, than having the mind go on to exist and the body being lifeless. A person lives throughout two collateral histories, one having to do with what happens to the body and in it, and the other being what happens in and to the mind. What happens to the body is public and what happens to the mind is private. The events which reply to the body consist of the physical world, and the events of the mind consist of the mental world.

Plato’s ideas regarding the body and the soul relates to his Theory of Forms/Ideas because he explains that the body is just a mere obstacle for the soul. IT makes it sound like when your soul is living its life within the body, its just an illusion, and when your