Different Approaches to Immortality and Discussion of Platos Answer to this Problem - Essay Example

Assess different approaches to immortality and discuss Plato's answer to this problem. What must it be like to live forever How must it feel to have experienced the past millennia and anticipate the next The very mention of immortality results in an explosion of our imagination. It conjures up images of ancient Gods, Vampires and other mysterious and mythical creatures; it makes us question our own lives and what we could accomplish and witness should our time upon this earth be limitless. The purpose of this paper will be to access different approaches to human immortality (focusing upon the human soul as a vehicle for this), in particular exploring Plato's teachings and ideas on immortality. Firstly, I want to briefly look at the influence that immortality has had through the ages and in particular, the effect it has had upon our religious and personal beliefs. The influence of immortality has had a basis in human society for thousands and thousands of years. Whereas many people will fantasise about the idea that our physical bodies may surpass their lifespan, it is now universally accepted that no one can live forever (in the physical sense); yet the debate as to whether there is some essence, namely the human soul, that 'lives on' after our physical body has passed away continues to fuel much debate. Thousands of years ago the search for the Philosopher's Stone, a red coloured compound which was believed to greatly prolong human life, as well as turn metal into gold (and thus bring wealth as well as long life), became the holy grail of the medieval world. Buddhism in particular places much emphasis on the belief that our 'essence' moves from creature to creature through reincarnation, that we are reborn into a new body each time our physical one dies, and that our actions in the last body determine which new body we are put into. Christianity, unlike Buddhism believes that our actions in this life determine whether we spend the rest of eternity in Heaven of Hell. There are many people who will then go on to argue that if a person does not go to Heaven or Hell, they will become trapped in Limbo, wandering 'in between' the astral planes. Christian beliefs seem to have derived a lot from the teachings of Plato, be it that the changed Gods to God. The fact that immortality has played such an integral role in society and religion raises many questions. It begs an answer to the question 'what is motivating people to look for things (namely religious beliefs and actual objects, such as the Philosopher's Stone), that will secure their immortality Why do people want to live forever' Moving on from this question then we can ask 'are religious systems and people in powerful positions manipulating people's belief (particularly in the immortality of the soul, and hence the fate of it after death), in immortality to control their actions' A King, for example in medieval England could use the Church as a vehicle for ensuring that all his subjects obey his every order. Yes, it was believed that a King had 'divine right,' but were these 'rights' believed to be from God or were they a creation of the Monarchy, or an age old belief that the monarchy had corrupted The King could easily have, and did, punish heretics, using their deaths as a warning to others that if they too committed heresy their souls would be damned to hell, because an insult to the King is an insult to God himself. It follows from this that I am sceptical of the idea that the soul will ascend or descend to its Christian resting place. Whilst I too humour the idea of the soul, I find myself drawn towards the idea of reincarnation. Perhaps it is my ego, yet as I sit and think, I cannot help but recall the teachings of Hume. He stated that we could never know our 'true self,'1 be that our soul or something else, because all we can ever experience (Hume was a renowned advocate of Empiricism2), is our perceptions. I am aware that I am constantly in a 'perceptive state' (thinking, reasoning, unconsciously or consciously), I cannot see how even though my body may perish, that these 'perceptions', or the ability to perceive, can simply cease to be. We must be careful not to be drawn into a lengthy debate concerning Dualism3 and Hume's teachings; what I am trying to stress is that I feel that it is reasonable to believe that our perceptions are more likely to be transferred into a different body, rather than dissipate into nothing or exist independently in some mystical plane. If we loose an arm, we do not die; perhaps we could apply this to the loss of our body entirely Perhaps these 'perceptions' are not a soul, but debates as to the true nature of the human soul are of common interest everywhere. What I have just said though serves to show that all of us will have some idea about what our soul is, and like Buddhists and those who believe in reincarnation, we all have some idea about the 'lifespan' and transition of the soul after physical death. Plato sought to find an answer to these problems. Plato (427-347 B. C. E.), the greatly venerated Greek Philosopher cemented his place in philosophical history as one of the recognised and quoted champions of the belief in the immortality of the human soul. Plato constructed four arguments that he felt proved that humans are immortal in the way that they have a soul, and this soul lives on forever. These four arguments are referred to as the Affinity, the Recollective, the Cyclical and the Forms arguments4 (the latter being his strongest argument for the existence and immortality of the soul), which can be found in one of the last dialogues, the Phaedo. The main theme within the Phaedo is that the human soul is immortal.5 Like in the majority of his work, Plato uses Socrates as his main character, a philosophical hero; Socrates champions Plato's, and what were once Socrates' own beliefs. The Affinity Argument in the Phaedo is one of Plato's weakest arguments for proving that the human soul is immortal. In the Phaedo, Simmias expresses his scepticism concerning Socrates' belief in the immortality of the soul, particularly towards the Affinity Argument. This argument is as follows: "invisible, immortal, and incorporeal things are different from visible, mortal, corporeal things,"6 the soul being in the former of these categories. This argument concludes that because the human body is the latter, it will perish (this is true, a dead body will naturally decompose), therefore the human soul must live on. Like all of the four arguments, this one appears at first to be very convincing. Simmias and Cebes though are still not convinced. Cebes uses the famous example of a weaver's cloak to express his lack of faith in Socrates' argument.7 He says that a Weaver's cloak may be seen to deteriorate or perhaps have been completely ruined prior to or following the death of the Weaver himself, but it does not necessarily mean that the Weaver will outlive the cloak in some way. Cebes raises issues surrounding 'weaknesses and 'strength,' which Socrates does, even if somewhat indirectly, by referring to opposing characteristics of specific entities or things (in this case the soul and the body). Cebes argues here that if the Weaver's cloak will diminish, what is to stop the soul of the Weaver diminishing into nothing as well8 Cebes argues that the next death that the soul experiences could easily be the one, which leads to its demise. It is because of these reasons that Cebes would "rather not rely on the argument from superior strength to prove the continued existence of the soul after death."9 As I have said, at first glance Socrates' argument seems convincing; but as Cebes points out, the main flaws with this argument are that it all it seems to do is differentiate between the soul and the body. It states that the soul is immortal and for this reason it must live forever, because it is the opposite of the perishable body. Simmias voices his concerns when he says that if the soul is the harmony (invisible and divine), and the lyre is the body (mortal and perishable). He says to Socrates that if the lyre perishes, then so too will the harmony, because the harmony depends upon the lyre.10 This argument is similar to Cebes', and it serves to place further emphasis on the flaws in Socrates' argument. The next argument I want to look at is similar to the latter. The Cyclical Argument is felt by most Philosophers to be the weakest of the four arguments. Socrates sums up the argument effectively here: "Now if it be true that the living come from the dead, then our souls must exist in the other world, for if not, how would they have been born again"11 This argument, like the previous one, depends upon the notion of 'opposites.' Socrates uses examples such as hot and cold, telling us that each state has to come from its opposite (something must be heated up, from cold to become warm, whereas something hot must cool down to become cold). It is from this observation that Socrates concludes that the dead are generated from the living, through death, and the living from the dead through birth.12 He therefore believes that there must be some sort of limbo or afterlife where the dead reside, waiting to be reborn. Before I want to look at the flaws of this argument, I will introduce you to Socrates' Recollection Argument, as I feel that the two depend strongly upon each other if what Socrates is saying is to have any strength to it. The Recollection argument explores a-priori knowledge (opposite to what Hume believe; the doctrine states that a-priori knowledge is knowledge that we did not gain through our perceptions, it is as though we were born with this knowledge implanted in our brain). Socrates felt that because there is evidence that we as humans have a-priori knowledge, that this proves that our soul has 'lived before,' perhaps in several different forms.13 As you can see these two arguments (the Recollective and the Cyclical), compliment each other beautifully. The Cyclical Argument shows that the living generates the dead and vice versa, so if our souls are being 'recycled,' it makes sense that we would remember things that we learnt in our previous lives. Again, like the Affinity Argument, these arguments are particularly convincing upon first examination, particularly when we look at these two arguments side by side. These arguments though are still weak, the Cyclical Argument arguably more so. The Cyclical Argument is not successful in showing that the human soul is immortal. Yes, hot generates cold and vice versa, but applying this belief to the human body and the soul does not make sense. We can witness the effects of hot and cold, we cannot see any evidence of a soul, least of all the immortal trait that Socrates is certain it possesses. For this simple reason the Cyclical Argument, upon closer inspection is flawed. You could argue though that when you introduce the Recollection Argument into the mix that the Cyclical Argument can be given some strength. If we as humans do possess some form of a-priori knowledge, then this could prove that the soul is immortal because we would have had to have lived before to gain this knowledge. This seems to be a strong argument, but I am afraid that this argument has flaws also. We have all had instances where we feel like we just 'know' that something is true, or that we can operate something or understand something like it is second nature to us. Is this proof of a-priori knowledge Could it just be that some people are very intelligent and easily pick up new skills and knowledge very fast In some cases perhaps we have learnt something that we can now do brilliantly, we just cannot remember learning to do it Take for example a child who, at age 4 learns to ride a bike. Years pass and he never touches a bicycle for years. Due to some mental disorder (or just plain forgetfulness), the child, now an adult aged 45, picks up a bicycle and can ride it almost straight away. He cannot remember riding it as a child and immediately believes that he is a 'natural.' A-priori knowledge deserves a paper written about it in its own right, but the fact that Socrates uses it as evidence to prove that the soul is immortal does not strengthen his argument. Finally, we arrive at what has been praised as Socrates' strongest argument in favour of the immortal soul, The Form of Life. Socrates argues that the soul is immortal because it is the source of life.14 To explain what he says Socrates uses the example of beauty.15 He says that everything in the world participates in what he calls 'the forms.' To exemplify he says that all beautiful things participate in the Form of Beauty. He also goes on to talk about numbers, numbers such as two, four and six participate in the Form of the Even. In this way then "the soul, by its very nature, participates in the Form of Life which would mean that the soul could never die."16 The soul is depicted as partaking in the Form of Life, thus is can never die because as Socrates stresses, forms can never become their opposites. Even can never become odd and thus the soul can never die because it is the source of life. The Form of Life Argument is arguably Socrates' strongest in defence of the immortality of the soul, yet it too is susceptible to criticism. Many critics feel that the argument is based "upon a premise that is not necessarily true."17 The premise is that "the soul is that which causes life."18 Since we cannot prove that this premise is true the argument does not hold much weight; however, the argument is the most logical and sound of all four arguments, and in the Phaedo Socrates sees this argument as irrefutable proof that the soul is immortal.19 Plus, while the soul may survive death, the argument fails to show how the soul survives death, and how its existence would continue. We have looked at all four arguments in the Phaedo, what important issues can we draw from them Well, if we examine each argument individually we can easily point out why they do not do a great deal to prove the existence of the soul, but what I feel they do demonstrate is the need that people have to believe so strongly in the notion of a soul. If we examine the character of Socrates within the Phaedo we soon come to learn that Socrates is dying. Is then this eagerness to convince others to believe in the immortality of the soul a last attempt to clear away the fears that Socrates may have surrounding death Throughout the Phaedo there are several references made to 'faith,' and Simmias says that he does not wish to disturb Socrates in his final hours.20 Socrates senses these worries and assures his friends that as a Philosopher he welcomes death, because the loss of his physical body will remove any obstacles that as a Philosopher, would keep him from the 'truth.'21 For him then, death is welcome, because like Hume who said that perceptions keep us from our 'true self,' our bodies do the same. Socrates condemns suicide though, as our bodies are the property of the Gods, so rather he welcomes death,22 but does not hurry it. He goes on to say that if we act wrongfully (particularly causing harm to our bodies which belong to the Gods), we will be punished in death. This makes sense, the Gods would wait until we had died to seek vengeance, because if we acted wrongfully then repented in life, we could change for the better. This belief helps to strengthen Socrates' belief that the soul is more important than the body, yet it does contradict what he says about the body not being as important. Yes, it is the property of the Gods, but that is all he takes it to be. Sometimes his duty to his Gods outweigh the importance of his physical being; since his arguments do not prove (arguably) that a) we have a soul, and b) if we have a soul it is immortal. Following on from this then, Plato concludes that the afterlife is somewhere where he will have the possibility to converse with great men throughout history, and learn everything that he could not in life. This raises questions though because if the soul is're born' and we are left in new bodies with a-priori knowledge, how can we find these 'men' to converse with, they might not be around. Going back to the question I asked you earlier, why is there this compulsion to believe in a soul Why do we want to be immortal Judging from the Phaedo I think it is fair to say that a lot of it has to do with overcoming our fear of death, or rather annihilation. The Philosopher's Stone is not something we can purchase in a shop, so the only way we can calm our fears is by focusing on the one thing we could have that may be immortal, our soul. It was Erwin Rohde23 whom said that in pre-Pythagorean belief (prior to Plato's school of thought), the soul had no life when it left the body. This 'chilling' thought no doubt acted as a catalyst for Socrates and later Plato who as philosophers, unable in this lifetime to discover the 'truth,' wanted to prove that there was a way they could understand what they so desperately wished for in life. The examination of the Phaedo do more than just explore arguments that arguably show that the human soul is immortal, it is demonstrative of our human nature, a nature that fears death and fails to understand some 'essence' that we cannot deny we feel inside us. Perhaps this essence is our life force, a soul, but how can we tell Perhaps we are constrained by our physical bodies. The problem is though, as in this case, we can never know the truth until we pass away, and are forced to deal with the possibility that perhaps we do not live forever after all. BIBLIOGRAPHY http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/PlatoPhaedo.html http://www.philosophy.UCF.edu/hume.html The Phaedo by Plato http://www.wikipedia/wiki/descartes.html http://www.wikipaedia.org/wiki/Phaedo.html http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohde.html Read More