Who Are You: Plato and Aristotel - Essay Example

Who are you Part One: Area of Philosophy One may hardly make a mistake suggesting that the problem in question should be viewed within the area of Metaphysics as the controversy is focused on certain abstract as well as non material objects. As for a definite philosophical problem, one should point out that the text puts emphasis on the relationship between body and soul as well as whether it is possible to for one to exist without the other. Thus, the problem employs some fantastic technology and it focuses on the result of such actions: whether a person will remain the same. Part Two: Argument Analysis The first friend philosopher that will be asked to share his views on the situation in question is Plato. He will point out that soul is a non material substance that was hardly be transplanted with the help of a part of brain as the latter does not contain it in the strict meaning of this verb (Elkaisy-Friemuth and Dillon 2). One of the most important assumptions that are made by this kind of thinking is that if a body does, the soul is released free and there is no way to return it. It is understandable that Plato is not able to present any factual evidence to support his claims. That is why it would be logical to treat his position from the point of view of speculation as well as personal interpretation of the facts as Plato primarily refers to different consideration and logical models in order to convince the audience. The second friend who will express his opinion about the situation in question is Aristotle. His main argument will be focused on the idea that soul is closely connected to the body. Therefore, it is possible to influence the former with the help of the latter (Johansen 119). The most important assumption in this case is that if one locates the part of the body where the soul is, it is possible to remove it and place into a different body. Speaking of the factual evidence, Aristotle might suggest that unhealthy body is not able to produce a sound soul. While this evidence is factual, it may be rather difficult to verify as a lot of different abstract notions are taken into consideration. That is why, one would make no mistake while pointing out that the claims that are presented by Aristotle are also may be regarded as speculations. Part Three: Argument Evaluation It is quite understandable that it is safe to accept the premises which are expressed by Plato regarding the impossibility of transplanting a soul with the help of a brain as the argument that he makes features sound logic. Of course, some might question several aspects of it such as What if the soul decided to choose a different body by itself? However, if a person accepts this kind of thinking, it would lead to a logical conclusion that soul is connected to one body only. The assumptions of this point of view are based primarily on dichotomy of soul and body, claiming that the former is more superior. The soundness of the claims is beyond any doubt as it does not feature blunt logical fallacies that might distort the initial premises. That is why the validity of the argument is self evident. Speaking of the thinking which is presented by Aristotle, it is also safe to accept it as it leads to logical consequences and is able to provide a satisfactory answer to the question. However, there are several questionable assumptions such as to what extend the body is able to have influence on the soul. The logical conclusion of this point of view is that soul is a secondary attribute of a body which may be transferred to a different body. Thus, the primary assumption of the Aristotle’s position is that body is superior to soul in different aspects, especially when it comes to existence. The soundness of the claims is evident since Aristotle backs up his position with formal logic. That is the reason one can easily accept the validity of his considerations and become a proponent of soul transplantation, so to speak. Part Four: Conclusion Keeping in mind the two positions which were articulated about, it would be rather advantageous to present my own argument regarding the situation. Thus, I would have to agree with Plato in that the nature of soul is deeply rooted in the non material world and one can not affect it, moreover transplant, while working with the material objects. The major assumption that I advocate is that in spite of the fact that the operation might be successful it is not able to transfer the conscience even though it will transplant the part of brain which is though to be responsible for it. Similar to Plato, I will not be able to refer to any factual evidence except for the fact that by now there has not been such an operation which was successful. That is why point of view is more a speculative one, but it is safe to accept as I analyzed it and got rid of possible logical errors in it. Speaking of questionable assumptions in it, one might point out that the exact mechanism of the relationship between soul and body is still not fully examined. However, the logical conclusion that my position is likely to lead to is that no matter how hard the doctors will try, they still will not be able to transplant a soul in a different body. The primary assumption for my position is that brain as well as soul are two completely different matters. The soundness of the claims is seen in the fact that it is may be supported by the work of famous philosophers. Finally, the validity of my position is seen in that it is able to explain the failure of the above mentioned operation with the help of formal logic and easy to understand notions which can be verified by extra research. Works Cited Elkaisy-Friemuth, Maha, and John M. Dillon. The Afterlife of the Platonic Soul: Reflections of Platonic Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Print. Johansen, T. K. The Powers of Aristotles Soul. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford UP, 2012. Print. Read More