In this essay I will consider the three arguments for life after death that are raised in Plato’s Phadeo. All three arguments that Plato presents aim to verify the existence for the immortality of the soul. Such arguments include: The Argument from Opposites, The Argument from Recollection and The Affinity Argument. In Phaedo, Plato portrays the persona of Socrates, whilst depicting the philosopher’s final moments before death. Due to Phaedo arguably being Plato’s most famous dialogue (Dorter, 1920: 3) there is much discussion to whether or not his arguments for life after death are at all convincing. Consequently, I will analyse each argument individually by discussing different scholarly critiques and views on Plato’s work, however I will …show more content…
Here, Socrates suggest that every entity must come from its opposite. He uses the example of large and small by illustrating that when something grows larger, it must have previously been small, for otherwise it would not be large, stating “when a thing becomes bigger, it must, I suppose, have been smaller before it became bigger?”(69E – 71A) (Tredennick, 1959: 117). Phaedo describes being alive and being dead as opposites and that the process of life and death must work in a circular movement, thus we can only be alive if we have already been dead. For Socrates, each pair of opposites must have processes between them, for instance the processes of increase and decrease come between the pair smaller and larger, and therefore as being alive and being dead are opposites, coming-to-life and dying must be the their two processes. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/phaedo/#SH3c). The choice to compare the opposites of dying and being alive to opposites that we are exposed to everyday, such as large and small and sleeping and being awake (Trednnick, 1959: 177-118) essentially helps us to understand what Plato is trying to prove, nevertheless, as there no empirical evidence to suggest that human beings actually change between states of life and death, like there is for someone waking up and going back to sleep we cannot truly make a link between the two pairs of opposites and thus we may doubt this first
Plato claims that the soul is immortal because of his argument of Opposites, to which I agree. Socrates says, “For all things that come to be… [come] from their opposites if they have such...” and “…those that have an opposite must…come to be from their opposite and from nowhere else.” (70e) Socrates argues the opposites of Bigness and Smallness. For something to be considered big, it must have first been smaller, and for something to be considered small, it must have come from being big.
THEMBEKILE TSAOANE BL2015-0178 SSIT311 TAKE HOME TEST INTRODUCTION “Between us and heaven or hell, there is only life, which is the frailest thing in the world" 1.1 Existentialism and death. The problems we face of death seem somewhat natural with the connection it has to existentialism.
In conclusion, it is shown that the ethics of Socrates and Plato can be understood by examining the works of the Crito, Meno and Phaedo. Plato 's philosophical concept in these three dialogues is mostly about denying what the self wants, either normal things like food and earthly desires or trying to gain knowledge, and instead, choosing what is just and right. This is Plato’s concept of a good life. From this quest for knowledge, virtue is obtained, and this is the main goal of philosophy in Socrates ' mind. Laws must be made in accordance with wisdom by those who practice philosophy, and must seek to benefit the city as a whole.
Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.
Many of us have thought about life after death. What happens to us after we die? Where do we go? What happens to our body? Do we go to heaven?
Arguing to the jury that death may not be as bad as people believe, he suggests that death can be a couple of things: Firstly, death can be nothing, and therefore it cannot be harmful. Secondly, death can be a change and a movement of the soul. He imagines himself together with other injustice acquiesced men, with who he can talk and who he can examine. Thirdly, death can be an eternal sleep, what he doesn’t think is bad at all. Hence, Plato doesn’t see death as something harmful or bad.
In Plato’s The Apology, he arises a standpoint about death. He thinks that death is not what people usually think as a horrible, unacceptable thing. Instead, death can be a blessing. In order to support his viewpoint, he also has two concrete reasons that explain the advantages of death explicitly. The first one states that death is like a dreamless sleep for it is complete lack of perception, and then death would be a great advantage.
Socrates’ original argument was not valid or sound. The premises were corrected but the argument needed another premise to make the conclusion true. Adding premise two takes away any confusion there was to what immortality meant. Since Socrates’ spent almost the entire book creating a just person and a just city the information about what is good and bad for a soul makes sense. It also makes sense that those things cannot destroy the soul because injustice and other vices could only lead the body to make poor choices and possibly get sick or die from those poor choices.
By death what he means is not an event, but a death in life. Because there’s no rebirth, there’s no changes, there’s not transformation without death” (West, 1). What does Plato mean by death in life? How can you die but continue living? To die in life relates to killing the past, close-minded, non-accepting version of yourself: Without this death, you will not achieve your true potential.
In Plato’s, Phaedo, one of the arguments that Socrates makes for justifying his theory about the soul being immortal is the argument of opposites. The argument of opposites is found from 70c to 72c in the Phaedo. The argument is not logically valid as there are a few fallacies that occur with the definition of opposites with which Socrates defines his argument. This argument ultimately fails at being logically valid as contrary to premise 1, all things that have an opposite do not come from only their opposites. Socrates also does not specify in this argument whether he is referring to the soul dying or the body dying in the final premises.
No matter which path death is, death is a gain. One will either be a peaceful sleep, or a journey to another world filled with intelligent people and knowledge. He had support to his theory, but only talked about conversing with people from the past. The apology is repetitive in the last two paragraphs because Socrates desired to talk to all these different people. He did not clarify as to why living on Earth was cruel and that death was the only answer.
“…if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of the unknown: since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good” (Apology, 29a-29b). This potent statement not only highlights Socrates’ wisdom, it effectively makes use of his belief that he is wise because he knows nothing. By saying that he knows nothing of the afterlife, it gives him the reason to illustrate to his audience that he cannot fear what he does not know.
However, the number three cannot ever be even for it holds a natural form of oddity that cannot be changed, the same is found with immortality. A soul cannot admit to death, which is the opposite of its essence immortality just as the number three cannot admit to being even. Leading to Plato’s conclusion of how a soul then must have to retreat, connecting back to Socrates believing death is best characterized by the soul separating from
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical. The Law of Conservation of Mass
The existence and continual study of Socrates’ philosophy regardless of differing accounts is astonishing in itself since it survived not through the specific philosopher, but through other people. Which is a testament of the impact that a man, such as Socrates, can make. When we think of Plato, who is regarded as a father of western philosophy, we are quick to think of his major work The Republic, his student Aristotle, and his writing on Socrates. (We think of his writings on Socrates as mere footnotes in philosophical thought without examining them.) “Nothing comes from nothing,” Parmenides proudly claimed, and this philosophical doctrine applies to Plato’s thought.