Comparing Plato's Arguments Of Affinity And The Forms

1240 Words5 Pages
Plato expresses his personal convictions and beliefs through the dialogues of his teacher, Socrates. Through the dialogue Phaedo, Plato presents four different arguments that he felt supported his idea of the soul being immortal, and that we will live on after the body no longer exists in the physical world. The four arguments that Plato lays out in the Phaedo are the argument of Opposites, Recollection, Affinity, and the final argument of The Forms. These arguments have been analyzed throughout the ages, receiving not only praise, but at times, criticism for seeming insufficient and weak. The strongest arguments for the immortality of the soul presented by Plato are the arguments of Affinity and The Forms. They both aim to show that the soul,…show more content…
The argument of Affinity shows how the soul is immortal because it is an invisible being. While the argument of Forms are explained as a dialectic, pure, and transcendent thing that brings life into the body. The soul is an invisible, pure entity that can be found through the mind, while the physical body can be seen as controlled by the senses in the material world. Plato explains how the world we see through the use of our senses can be deceiving to us. For example, a colorblind person sees the world in a much different way than the normal person. This means, that our perception of what we see is just our perception of the object we see. The color blind person would see the same image in a different way, so it is just something we experience, and not actual reality. Plato explains that the more objective something is, the more real it is. The Forms are far more objective than material objects because they are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Material objects are not objective because we perceive them in our own personal way. Though they are both different, they must exist simultaneously, because the body and soul are necessary to understand human
Open Document