Socrates Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul - Essay Example

Part A. Socrates’ Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul Introduction While speaking during the last fewhours before his death, Socrates made some important arguments relating to the immortality of the soul. One of the most important questions that he attempted to answer was whether the human soul is actually immortal. In his affirmation, Socrates notes that a man who has devoted his entire life to philosophy should be ready to die at any time, because in the course of his life, he has been actually preparing for his death. The ultimate goal of the philosopher is to be independent from the body as much as possible. Socrates argues that during this time, the soul can effectively comprehend many of the things happening in the environment, which is the essence of true nature. With all its organs, the body can only perceive individual things from its organs but cannot effectively comprehend them. In his explanation, Socrates believes that the human soul is immortal. The Immortality of Life First, Socrates bases his arguments from the law of opposites; in this case, everything often happens to exist from its opposite. For instance, a person becomes tall only after having been short, same to a fat one (Gertz 72). In this understanding, it becomes evident that life and death are two essential opposites in life. In this case, we can make an analogous reasoning that while the living often becomes the dead, the dead, on the other hand, must become living. In this argument, life and death are in a constant perpetual cycle so that death can never be an ultimate end of life. Another argument that Socrates raises is about the immortality of life is based on the principle of recollection. In this understanding, Socrates argues that the process of learning is very essential in recollecting those things that have been previously learnt before people were born. In his argument, the process of true knowledge originates from many of the unchanging and eternal forms, which actually underlie perceptible realities (Gertz 74). For instance, people can perceive that two pieces of wood are equal in their length and unequal in their width, just because they have some kind of an innate comprehension about forms of inequality. In this case, people possess an innate comprehension of things being equal even when in real experiences; those things can never be equal. People have the ability to grasp and make some meaning from this understanding even when they have never had a real encounter with such experiences. The grasping of these things therefore, comes from the recollections of the immortal knowledge people had before their time of birth. In this argument, the soul mast have been living at a certain point before the birth of an individual, which later implies that the life of the soul goes beyond that f the human body, and hence its immortality. To consolidate his argument about immortality of the soul, Socrates has also based his analysis on the argument analysis of the concept of affinity. In this point of view, it is easy to make a clear distinction between things that are immortal, invisible and immaterial from those which are visible, perishable and material. The soul and the body belong to two different categories, with the soul being of the former, while the body belonging to the latter. In this case, the soul is purely immortal and takes various forms. A soul, which is not detached properly from its body easily, becomes a ghost, which later tends to have a longing to return to its flesh (Irvine 41). Simmias’ Objection Simmias raises an objection to Socrates’ argument, suggesting that the human soul can sometimes be invisible and immaterial, same as the act of tuning an instrument. In this case, the tuning of a particular instrument can only take place if the instrument happens to be in existence as well. In his response to Simmias, Socrates explains that Simmias’ arguments are purely conflicting with the of recollection. The soul can never in any way be compared to the attunement that happens on the instrument, this is because; before the body existed, the soul was already living. The soul is that which animates us; in this case, we are humans, and alive just because a soul exists in us. According to this perspective, the soul is perfectly associated with a certain kind of life. It is important to realize that the soul is not associated to its opposite in anyway – death (Irvine 39). Part B. Aristotle’s Thoughts on Change Change, was a topic that puzzled most of Aristotle’s predecessors. At one point in time, Plato observed that in actual sense, real things, in their natural form, do not change (Bostock 35). In this case, he based his change on the realm in the form of appearance, which is the physical world. Another predecessor of Socrates, Parmenides, went ahead to deny that change was not a concept that existed in any case. It is important to realize that those conflicting perspectives of change between Aristotle and his predecessors made it difficult for them to manage the change. According to Aristotle, change can be described as the process of coming-to-be or simply the genesis. Aristotle provides a perfect example of the argument against coming-to-be or simply the genesis, which sounds like that of Parmenidean. In his argument, he notes that what is already in existence cannot become again, this is because, it already exists. In the same way, nothing cannot also happen to generate, which does not already exist. In this argument, two important issues are raised; first is that something can only happen to be from what it already is. Alternatively, it can also happen to be from what does not exist already (Cohen 7). However, none of them is possible. In this case, nothing can actually exist. It is important to realize that Aristotle attributes his projects in a different way from those of his predecessors. He notes that the concept is not actually change itself, but rather, it is simply about becoming (genesis) or coming-to-be (Coughlin 45). Secondly, he argues that his responsibility is attempting to establish the initial principles of actual becoming (archai). Nonetheless, what we do in the process of characterization looks quite appropriate. In this case, Aristotle tries all he can to provide some solutions to the conflicts between him and his predecessors. In his argument, the idea of becoming o simply coming-to-be is what actually happens when something starts to grow and become large, or alters its temperatures (Coughlin 52). Coming-to-be, in this case, is simply altering the manner in which something changes form. Secondly, the initial principles given about a certain phenomenon are merely the fundamental concepts, which have to appeal in the process of justifying how the actual phenomenon occurs. In this case, to understand a concept, it is necessary that we have to comprehend the particular change effectively, as well as how its fundamental principles happen. Works Cited Bostock, David. Space, Time, Matter and Form: Essays on Aristotle’s Physics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2006. Print Cohen Marc. Aristotle on Chance. 2004. 10 November 2014. < https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/archange.htm > Coughlin, Glen. Physics, Or Natural Hearing. South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustines, 2005. Print. Gertz, Sebastian. Death and Immortality in Late Neoplatonism: Studies on the Ancient Commentaries on Platos Phaedo, Leiden: Brill, 2011. Irvine, Andrew. Socrates on Trial: A play based on Aristophanes Clouds and Platos Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, adapted for modern performance. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2008. Print. Read More