Plato 's ' Phaedo For The Immortality Of The Soul

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

Plato's final argument in Phaedo for the immortality of the soul is one of the most interesting topics of all time. It goes hand to hand with the application of the theory of forms to the question of the soul's immortality, as Plato constantly reminds us, the theory of forms is the most certain of all his theories. The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince us of the immortality of the soul by using several main arguments. These include the argument of forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, Plato provides his final proof, although it may be his last attempt to give his reasoning, it is not very convincing. Plato has some good points and reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, but his arguments often

Plato sees death as a good thing and the way we can understand this is by reference to the Platonic forms. The platonic forms are the essence of the abstract; they are the purity and the true Good that are clouded by materialism. For instance, we have beauty that is hidden in aesthetic objects (or in love); we have Justice, Truth, and many other Ideals. Access to these Ideals affords us true bliss and Knowledge (which is the essence of intimate contact with a God, or the immoveable being of all who stands outside the world). However, since we are in this corporeal world, we are distracted by our body and by physicality from these Real substances. The philosopher, therefore, looks forward to death when his soul (that which hunkers towards these Ideals) will be separated from the distracting body and be able to clearly and keenly perceive the Forms in their unblighted essence.

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

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.

Within this essay, I am going to argue that the simple soul is a more plausible conception than the idea of multiplicity within the soul within Plato’s work. This is due to the multiplicity of the soul resting on a circular argument of Plato’s ideal city which in turn rests back upon his idea of the tripartite soul. However, it can also be argued that neither conceptions of the soul are plausible due to them both relying on Plato’s theory of the Forms. Throughout Plato’s works of the Phaedo and the Republic, his account for the soul is conflicting as Plato’s two accounts cannot be reconciled. I will also refer to Plato’s work in the Phaedrus to aid my explanation of the multiplicity within the soul.

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

avenues for the philosophical life. Socrates defines death as the release of the soul from the body . This definition implies both a view of death as placing distance between the soul and the body during this life and a complete separation at the moment of death. The responsibility of the philosopher is to seek liberation here in this life and, in so doing, to prepare for the afterlife, as preparation for both the literal and figurative deaths coalesce into a single activity.

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.

Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the

Federal Law states that freedom of press cannot be taken away from you. Thomas Jefferson states in 1786, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” A speech delivered by Erskine Halls on June 5th 1931, “….the U.S supreme court overruled the lower courts’ decisions, recognizing the gag law for what it actually is: Censorship.”

One of the positive effects of such a belief regarding the soul and its existence after the body's physical death is that it can serve as motivation to lead a virtuous life. This fact is readily demonstrated within the speech and actions of Socrates, who attempted to lead a high life of virtue, reasoning, and thinking in order to protect his soul from any sort of debauchery which might affect it in the afterlife. Socrates' conception of the afterlife was somewhat as muddled as Plato's, during The Apology he claimed he knew nothing about it, yet he also asserts that it will either be a restful, lasting slumber or a state in which one has an enjoyable degree of communication with the

of forms before it was planted in the body. The soul is made up of non

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.

In this dialogue Socrates and the philosophers explore several arguments for this idea of an immortal soul. These arguments were to illustrate and verify that death is not the dying of body and soul collectively, but when the body dies the soul continues to live on. Socrates offers readers four main arguments: The Cyclical Argument, which is the idea that forms are fixed and external. The soul is the sole purpose of life in this argument, and therefore cannot die and it is also to be seen as virtually never-ending. Next is The Theory of Recollection, which insists that at birth everyone has knowledge that the soul experienced in another life. Meaning that the soul would have had to be existent before birth to bear this said knowledge.