The soul’s immortality is one of the predominant themes in Phaedo. In the dialogue between Socrates and his friends/philosophers, they discuss four arguments for the immortality of the soul to illustrate and attempt to prove the concept of the afterlife. The afterlife is the place where the soul supposedly goes after we die. The four arguments are: The Opposites Argument, The Theory of
The Homeric view of immortality is based off of the Greek religion where there are gods (i.e. Zeus, Hades, etc.) who are immortal and the people who are not. Their belief is that some part of the body will survive in Hades, without having real life be present, since only the gods are immortal in their eyes. The Platonic view involves teachings of Plato and Socrates in which they believe the soul lives on after the human body dies.
INTRODUCTION The term ‘Natural Law Theories’ can be defined as the rules, concepts, and principles which are said to be originated from some supreme source other than any political or worldly authority. This theory is based on moral ideals which has universal applicability, and often used to bring certain changes in the society or to maintain stability. Natural Law is supreme and unalterable, it is not made by man; Natural Law is not a codified law and hence no penalty is been sanctioned for disobeying it; still it is considered as a higher form of law. Natural Law is also known as the Law of Reason, as being established on the ground of reasonability by which the world is governed, and also as being addressed to and perceived by the rational
Cartesian Skepticism is the idea that we may only know something if we are certain of its truth, meaning that we know little to nothing about anything at all as many of us can not with confidence say we are 100% sure of anything. Just like in The Matrix where no character can ever have real knowledge by analyzing the stimulated version of the world around them they must always be skeptical of what they are experiencing and learning. This also relates to Descartes
The FH states. “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (G 4:429). The idea behind the FH is that actions that are morally good contain in them an expression of respect for humanity as an end in itself, while morally bad actions do not contain this respect for humanity, and as such does not treat it as an end. It becomes important to recognize what it was that Kant meant when he was referring to ‘humanity’. Kant’s claims regarding humanity are not speciesist in favour of humans as one might interpret them, but rather is making a claim regarding a capacity for reason.
Bertrand Russell offers views on motion and change which directly contradict the experience of humans. This discrepancy alone is not enough to discredit his ideas, but makes the argument somewhat of an uphill battle. I aim to somewhat illuminate his stance, however the very obvious issues with it must be addressed. In agreement with Zeno, Russell believes our universe is unchanging, accepting the Paradox of the Arrow as a refutation of a dynamic world. Because we can only experience one instant at a time, we may only make claims about the present moment, and in an infinitesimally small moment there cannot be any movement or change.
Throughout this dialogue, Plato delivers the theory of eternal forms which he touched up on, in his previous dialogue, immortality and purification. He introduces the argument of the opposites, and the argument of affinity to back up his explanation. Plato begins the dialogue by suggesting that the world in which we live in, is surely not where we are presented with the finest forms, but rather a “prison” (62b) leading up to the afterlife. Phaedo suggests that Socrates stated “We men are in a kind of prision, and that one must not free ourselves or run away”(62b) trying to state that the world we are in is not the world which our souls continue the rest of their lives immortally. He clarifies that one should not kill themselves to get there and in order to receive a good after life one should not take their own life away, as it is surely wrong and we would want our soul to be pure.
While Socrates never answered the former of these questions definitively, by focusing on the latter, Socrates hypothesized that virtue cannot be taught but is learned through divine inspiration and cannot be handed down. And although Plato’s final hypothesis on the definition of virtue, that virtue is the power of attaining goodness with justice, is true, it is not complete. In addition, his conclusion about the teachability of virtue is mistaken. In accordance with Plato’s definition, virtue is excellence, but in contrast to Plato’s view, virtue can be taught through the Scriptures. Although Socrates never stated his personal hypothesis on the definition of virtue, instead focusing more on whether virtue can be taught, he considered multiple definitions of virtue presented by Meno, all of which he derided as problematic.
Human rights are basic rights and freedoms which are guaranteed to a human by virtue of him being a human which can neither be created nor can be abrogated by any government. It includes the right to life, liberty, equality, dignity and freedom of thought and expression. The court said that transgendered people are "sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society 's unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change. And now in this modern era where a country 's progress is dependent upon human rights of its people, we need to grow up and accept the existence of third gender (as well as other members in LGBTQ community). We, as a society, needs to understand souls have no gender.
The type of unification cannot involve the bringing together of separate things. This remains to be seen and explicated later on. The distinctions within it cannot be purely potential since then they'd be nothing. It stands to reason, then that the distinctions within the ultimate unifier must be purely-actual distinctions. The purely-actual distinctions must have an ordering to each other insofar as they stand in a unity, but there cannot be a division of their ordering to each other and their individuality and distinctiveness, lest act and potentiality be introduced in each.