What Is Plato's Argument For The Immortality Of The Soul

The philosophy discussed in the Phaedo revolves around Socrates discussion of the existence and nature of the afterlife. One of the overarching themes in Phaedo is the soul’s immorality. The dialogue explores a number of arguments for the immortality of the soul to illustrate the concept of the afterlife where the soul is supposed to dwell following our deaths. Four essential arguments are put forth for the soul’s immortality. The four arguments are: The Opposites Argument, The Theory of Recollection, The Affinity Argument and The Argument from Form of Life.

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

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).

In this question we see the opposites theory presented in a more spiritual light. He explains that death comes from the prior existence of life, and life comes from the presence of soul. So, there for soul is on a continuous cycle of life and death. Since his argument states that everything in life comes from opposites why should the cycle of life and death be presented any differently? While the two opposites are clear one of the intermediates is much more abstract. “One of the two process or generations is visible. For surly the act of dying is visible.” The presence of death can be seen while the creation of life is less obvious. Socrates then outlines his belief of soul leaving the body after death. During which time the soul returns to a place of an existence before man. Socrates introduces this concept of a world beyond human exist where souls reside intermediately between the death of the vessel and the eventual “birth of the dead into the world of the living.” This theory aims to demonstrate how life works but constantly shifting between two opposites. If these rules are meant to apply to sleeping, waking and all the other accidents; why should they not apply to living and

Speakers Note: Plato believed that the body was only a temporary vehicle for the soul. Death was the separation of the incorporeal part of living person, the soul, from the physical part, the body. After death the soul is guided to the next realm by guardian spirits.

Throughout the course of the Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul is immortal. Because he believes that his soul will live on forever, Socrates claims that he is not afraid to die. Socrates was sentenced to death and due to the fact that he took the poison earlier than when was necessary, many believe that he committed suicide. Contrary to what may be presumed about Socrates’ death, I will argue that he is a martyr and did not commit suicide.

Plato's views on life after death were manifold, and developed over time as an examination of a bevy of his literature readily indicates. However, during all phases of his writing he does demonstrate that there is in fact life after physical death, which is widely attributed to his notion of the soul. Plat always viewed the soul as an entity that was distinct from the physical body. Moreover, while the physical body was destined to die, the soul was enduring, interminable, and destined to go on somewhere in some state of being. In just what sort of way the soul would endure was a matter of question, in which at various points in his career as a writer Plato offered different accounts. Yet the most consistent part of this conception of the author's was the fact that the soul was everlasting.

When Melinda and Melissa are presented with a problematic decision about what is best for Matthew their antagonistic beliefs about the existence of souls creates a conflict between the two sisters. Each sister has a different view of what is ‘best’ for Matthew. Melissa believes the concrete facts she has seen Matthews brain scans and hears what the doctors have told her. Matthew is brain dead, therefore Matthew is already gone and he should be taken off life support to generate room for someone living. Melinda given the same facts from the doctors, thinks Melissa is not seeing the whole picture she is blinded to the fact that Matthew is still there his soul and body are present. If Melinda took in the words of Plato’s Phaedo she could convince Melissa that Matthews’s soul is there and that Matthew is there. In the next paragraphs I will be presenting the argument I would use if I were in Melinda’s shoes. Each of Plato’s arguments has downfalls which Melissa could point out as Melinda is trying to convince her of these points. I will also be highlighting those.

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.

The final argument from Lucretius is the “proof from the structural connection of mind and body.” This

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

One of the most ancient mystery yet unsolved is the question pertaining to death and the afterlife. This mystery is one of the fundamental studies in both field of philosophy and religion. Comparing those who believe in a god-existing religion against those who don’t, we often see many differences in the answers relating to death. In the contrary, the similar answers to theist and atheist are evident strongly in two great thinkers and their works. The focus will be on Socrates’ speech in the Apology by Plato setting in 399 BCE and De Rerum Natura by Titus Lucretius 300 years later.

Throughout the Apology, Crito and Phaedo, Socrates expresses his conceptions of death and the afterlife, which are reflected

Plato believes that “the soul still exists after a man has died” (Phaedo 77b). This means that the soul is not destroyed after it has been separated from the body. Plato uses the example of opposite things to support his argument saying that “those that have an opposite must necessarily come to be from their opposite and from nowhere else” (Phaedo 70 e). This suggests that the opposite of being alive is being dead and vice versa, and