Socrates Four Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul in the Phaedo - Coursework Example

Philosophy 100 – Introduction to Philosophy Socrates’ Four Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul in the Phaedo & A Comparison of the Myth of the True Earth in the Phaedo with the Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic In Phaedo, Plato presents one of the classic dialogues in Philosophy in which Socrates on his last day illustrated the immortality of the soul using four lines of argument. These are based on cyclical change between opposites, recollection, affinity or similarity, and the causal power of the forms. Each line of argument is analysed to show how it is supposed to demonstrate what it sets out to prove, and then evaluated to consider whether it succeeds or fails. In the second part of this essay, a comparison is made of the Myth of the True Earth in the same book, with the Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic. Specifically, an examination is made of the way Plato uses them to illustrate the relationship of the soul to the realm of forms on one hand, and the realm of ordinary sense objects on the other. In the first line of argument, Socrates points out that all things that have opposites originate out of their opposites, and further that “in all opposites there is of necessity a similar alternation” (Socrates). In other words, opposites coexist at the same instant (likened to two bodies sharing a head), and there is a perpetual cyclical change between them as they are continuously generated from each other. Regarding the latter, something being greater in comparison to another for example, presupposes that it must have been less before, and vice versa and similarly with other pairs of opposites. In the context of looming death, it is pointed out that these pairs include life and death, and such intermediate processes as waking and sleeping. Thus begins Socrates’ rational attempts to support the idea of the immortality of the soul by first showing that the soul continues to exist (with intelligence) after death. There was already a prevailing doctrine that described the underworld into which souls go after death. However, in the absence of ‘real evidence’ that the living originate from the dead, even though it is clear that being born follows from a previous state of existing in another world, it was necessary to discuss the matter in detail. That the living are generated from the dead, and the dead from the living, and observing that there is a process of dying, implies that there is also a process of returning to life. Cyclical change between all opposites is necessary because otherwise, if for example everyone else were also put to eternal sleep as Endymion was, his sleep would be indistinguishable from the sleep of others and therefore hold no meaning. Similarly, Anaxagoras’ concept of infinitely divisible matter has to be contrasted with the concept of the composition of substances. Likewise, if dying were the only process to take place, the phenomenon of returning to life would eventually cease causing no one to remain alive. Hence, souls exist not only during life but also during death making them immortal, and there is a cyclical change between the two states. The dualistic nature of creation is evident in many ways and areas of life and this is an observation that Socrates highlighted well. However, by incorporating the idea of cyclical change between opposites to prove the immortality of the soul is far fetched because not all opposites are in a state of perpetual generation from each other but coexist merely in a complementary manner. To give an example from geometry, the horizontal and vertical edges of a plane being perpendicular to each other, although they meet at one particular point, remain perpendicularly divergent and do not interchange. While on one hand, day and night are good examples of cyclically changing opposites, male and female for example are not because neither metamorphoses into the other. This cyclical argument was responsible for a stagnation of thought in western intellectual thinking on the phenomenon of substance changes until the eighteenth century when Kant pointed out that existence is not itself a property. Thus, we were able to observe for example in the second law of thermodynamics that for a closed system, the entropy can only increase but not decrease. The argument based on recollection derives from Socrates favourite doctrine that knowledge is simply a recollection. It implies that there existed a previous time from which the recollection originates. Thus, the soul also necessarily existed at this time "before existing in the form of man" (Socrates). For example, when someone is questioned about something, the fact that he is able to respond in a proper manner shows that he relates to knowledge and reason that was already present in him originating from a previous time, That is, "what a man recollects he must have known at some previous time" (Socrates). Similarly, other examples of recollection are also mentioned in the text, but in all the cases, it is made clear that it is of no consequence whether the thing conceived is like or unlike that which is recollected as recollection still takes place regardless. Furthermore, it follows that there must have been an acquisition of knowledge of equality and aim for it before being born because otherwise "we could not have referred to that standard the equals which are derived from the senses" (Socrates). After all, as soon as we are born, we begin to see and hear, and perceive in other ways as well. The use of the senses at the instant of birth means that not only did we know about the equal and unequal, but also possessed other notions such as “beauty, goodness, justice, holiness…” (Socrates) pertaining to the absolute essence of all things. This recollection argument is one-directional as it proves the existence of the soul in a previous state before birth even to the incredulous Cebes’ satisfaction, but as Simmias also acknowledges, it does not deal with what might happen after death. The question also arises as to precisely which point in time our souls actually acquired the knowledge before birth that can be recollected, but it is clear nonetheless that notions of absolute essences are tied to the soul having existed with intelligence for at least some period of time before birth. As for the argument only dealing with “half of what was required” (Socrates), Socrates reminds the others that the lacking in this argument is already accounted for by the previous argument in which it was admitted, “that everything living is born of the dead” (Socrates). Thus, the two need to be combined to convince one of the true immortality of the soul i.e. its existence both before birth and after death. Still, Socrates continues further to alleviate their fears. The third line of argument leads to questioning whether the soul is a composite (of parts) or incomposite (having no parts). The reasoning applied is that a natural compound can break up thereby undoing the process by which it was put together, whereas something that cannot be resolved into parts cannot therefore be destroyed. “Now the compound or composite may be supposed to be naturally capable, as of being compounded, so also of being dissolved; but that which is uncompounded, and that only, must be, if anything is, indissoluble” (Socrates). The soul being incomposite is therefore indestructible whose existence does not end after death because that would be impossible. Thus, this argument relies on recognizing things that are neither composite nor compoundable. To prove that the soul cannot be compounded or decomposed, it is shown that it always remains the same and is unchanging. The essences mentioned earlier are absolute by nature and therefore self-existent and unchanging, “not admitting of variation at all, or in any way, or at any time” (Socrates) whereas things perceived with the senses like the body are always in a state of change. The soul being a thing that is ‘unseen’ as opposed to seen is then related by Socrates in one of the most descriptive passages in the text: “…when returning into herself she reflects, then she passes into the other world, the region of purity, and eternity, and immortality, and unchangeableness, which are her kindred, and with them she ever lives, when she is by herself and is not let or hindered; then she ceases from her erring ways, and being in communion with the unchanging is unchanging.” (Socrates) The above description refers to the soul when it is detached from the corporeal element of the body earlier used “as an instrument of perception” (Socrates). Except for ‘the most stupid person’, it is clear that the soul is unchangeable and therefore cannot be compounded and is immortal. It also follows that in being immortal it resembles the divine. This argument of affinity as it is called is a very powerful argument. Even if it doesn’t convince one of the immortality of the soul, at least it provides a very useful distinction between absolute forms like the soul and many fundamental concepts that are an essence and not subject to change (i.e. are immutable) and alterable forms like the body that are attributes and undergo change (i.e. are mutable). The final argument based on the causal power of forms builds upon the discussion that preceded it and was presented because Cebes’ understanding was still deficient. Socrates attempts to show the nature of the cause that had preoccupied his thoughts and thereby prove the immortality of the soul. The argument begins with asserting that forms like beautiful are only relative to absolute notions of the same, or in other words, the absolute notion of in this case beauty is what causes us to understand what is beautiful. Socrates gives the example of heat and cold as distinct from fire and snow. Neither does cold remain in the presence of fire nor does heat remain in the presence of snow, nor is the converse the case in either because when one approaches the other either perishes or withdraws. That is to say, “the idea is not only attached to the idea in an eternal connection, but anything else which, not being the idea, exists only in the form of the idea, may also lay claim to it.” (Socrates) The point is that although opposing ideas co-exist, they do not necessarily co-exist in the same context. Illustrating further with odd numbers, Socrates then identifies the soul as the thing that renders the body alive, that is, it is the cause behind the outward form. As the soul ‘does not admit of death’ it is therefore immortal. Socrates considers that he has ‘abundantly proven’ the immortality of the soul but it takes a little longer before the incredulous Cebes and Simmias are both finally convinced. The common understanding reached was that the soul is not only immortal but also indestructible and imperishable such that “when death attacks a man, the mortal portion of him may be supposed to die, but the immortal retires at the approach of death and is preserved safe and sound… in another world!” (Socrates) The final argument is not only convincing in proving the immortality of the soul but it also clarifies the causal relationship between that which is immutable as the soul is and the mutable as the body. Once there is satisfaction that the soul is indeed immortal, the rest of the discussion changes course to consider ‘what care should be taken of her’ and the detailed descriptions of the ‘True Earth’. The True Earth is contrasted in the Phaedo with the hollow one in which we dwell. The analogy used is supposing we were at the bottom of the sea and then rise above to put our head out of water to see a more purer and fairer world beyond. It is mentioned as situated in the ‘pure heaven’ and is the place of ‘true light’. The true earth above has far brighter and clearer colours than man has ever seen; ‘the radiance of gold’, a whiteness whiter than snow, yet there is a “continuous appearance of variety in unity” (Socrates). Things that grow such as flowers and fruits are also “a degree fairer than any here” (Socrates), and even stones are a “degree smoother, and more transparent, and fairer in colour than our highly-valued emeralds and sardonyxes and jaspers, and other gems… (Socrates). The rich descriptions continue with the inhabitants of the true earth, the seasons, sacred places, the gods that dwell therein and conversing with them, how the celestial bodies are viewed from that vantage and so on. The current prevalent understanding is that this is merely a description of an unreachable realm of forms. However, those who are more familiar with the concept of heaven or paradise recognize it as such and how the dense and tainted world we live in is but a reflection of the true earth. Plato gives his own illustration on the same theme in his Republic using the allegory of the cave. Ordinary people are likened to prisoners who only look straight ahead and can only see shadows of objects. In order for such a person to see the light in the upper world, it would be necessary to first start looking “at the reflections of men and other objects in water, and later on at the objects themselves” (Plato) before looking further towards the heavenly bodies. The purpose of Plato relating this allegory however is to recognize the mundane and phenomenal world for what it is but for his listeners to descend and live with their fellows in the cave “and get used to seeing in the dark” (Plato) The advantage of this is the ability engendered for distinguishing the various shadows and know what they are shadows of. The person can then better appreciate what is just and good, and be truly awakened. It was befitting in the Phaedo that Socrates would argue for the immortality of the soul and then conclude with describing the true earth, as it was to be his last discourse on philosophy. Plato on the other hand related the allegory of the cave to improve conditions in the present world. The relationship between the soul and the realm of forms is made more explicit in the Paedo whereas with ordinary sense objects is dealt with to a greater extent in the Republic. The True Earth is illustrated in great detail as the real abode of the immortal soul because this realm of forms is similar to the soul in being pure and refined. The cave in which we live however, is much dense and gross for the soul but is a necessary temporary station while being imprisoned within the physical body only able to perceive reflections of forms. Works Cited Plato. Phaedo. Arc Manor Press. 2008. [Used for part one] Plato. The Republic. Book seven. Penguin Classics. Penguin Books. 1987. [Used for part two] Read More