Introduction
Phaedo is one of the dialogues that were written by Plato, the great Greek philosopher. Plato wrote it to give an account of the conversations and proceedings that happened on the very day when the Statesmen of Athens killed Socrates, his tutor and a philosopher as well. It recounts his trial and death.
The Phaedo was written in Plato’s middle period targeting philosophers, proponents of philosophy, and those who love knowledge. It presents four arguments concerning the immortality of the soul. Plato also uses it to talk about his principle of the link between soul and body, his sentiments concerning the relation, and its explanations from a technological viewpoint.
With this hint about Plato’s Phaedo, the paper presents his major metaphysical, epistemological, and psychological views about Phaedo. Besides, the writer gives his/her opinions about the views based on their strengths and flaws.
Plato’s major views and arguments about the Phaedo
Plato argues that philosophers should be willing to die. This comes up when he tells Cebe to remind Evenus who is also a philosopher that he should be prepared to follow other philosophers through death. Plato points out that, just as other philosophers were put to death, Evenus should also follow them.
However, Plato argues that the philosophers should not take away their own lives since this would annoy the gods that possess the philosophers, an argument that other people do not understand easily. For example, Cebe enquires from him the reason why philosophers who have the will to die do not commit suicide.
Socrates then answers that this would make the gods angry since they are the guardians of the philosophers. Weiss confirms this by arguing that the major aim of philosophers is to practice it with the aim of dying (58). This defends the argument by Cebe that no one would want to die and leave the service of gods since they are the best masters.
In fact, Plato justifies his claims about the pleasure of death though the definition of death as what separates the body from the soul. Weiss argues that Plato used the argument by Socrates that true philosophers hate the pleasures of the body, for example, drinks, sex, and food.
According to Socrates, the argument reveals why a philosopher fights to free his or her body. He argues that the senses of the body are not accurate but deceptive. Plato further confirms this in the argument, “when the soul is mostly by itself, then a philosopher can search for knowledge successfully” (Weiss 62). Bodily pleasures like food, sex, and good drinks act like impediments for the philosophers in their pursuit of knowledge.
Plato also confirms this in his worldview on forms. According to Weiss, Plato refers the forms as beautiful, the just itself, bigness, health, and the good (59) besides arguing that all forms are not guided by sense but by thoughts and hence the reason why they are likely to mislead the philosopher in his/her search for knowledge.
The greatest impediment to a philosopher’s search for the truth is the body. Weiss also argues that the body fills a person with desires, wants, fears, illusions, and nonsense. There is no thought that comes from the body (60). This means that any true philosopher must come out of his/her body in order to succeed. Plato points out that philosophy is training on the process of dying. Upon death, a philosopher will gain the wisdom he/she has been searching. Therefore, a philosopher should not fear death.
Plato’s second major view about the Phaedo comprises the three-fold argument about the immortality of the soul. Cebes argues that many people do not believe in the immortality of the soul. He follows by arguing that people must be convinced of the idea of the soul continuing to exist even when one dies, and that the soul continues to have intelligence.
Weiss argues that Plato, through Socrates, presented a cyclical argument that, since souls of the dead normally come from living creatures, the living souls then must originate from the dead (57). He justifies this with the view that all things originate from their real opposites. For example, for one to be big, he/she has to be small initially. He adds that, for every pair of opposites, there must be two opposite processes.
For example, there is the process of increase and decrease in the larger and smaller pairs. In addition, he argues that the two opposite states must balance each other. Otherwise, all things would be similar. For example, if a decrease were not able to balance an increase, everything would diminish.
Moreover, he argues that being dead and alive are two opposite states of being. Therefore, coming to life and dying are opposite processes in these states. Weiss points out that coming to life must therefore balance dying (58). Finally, he argues that all things that die have to come back to life.
The second argument on the immortality of the soul is through recollection. Plato points out that, if a person hears, sees, or even perceives a thing and thinks about how he/she knows it, he/she can think of something else with a different knowledge. This means that knowledge can be recollected.
Plato then argues that not everything that seems equal is equivalent to the equated thing per se. He points out the existence of two worlds: the visible and the invisible world. He adds that the soul is similar to the invisible world while the body is likened with the visible world. Plato argues that, if the soul is assisted to get out of the body through training on philosophy, it is then able to get into the invisible world (Sedley 362). Therefore, the philosophers are trained to get out of the body.
The third Plato’s argument about Phaedo is the objection from Simmias and Cebes based on how Socrates responded. Philosophers are obsessed with the hope of better things after death. To him, this may be the reason for his firm argument about life after death. Plato points out that people should weigh every argument before they take action to follow it.
In addition, if one makes the wrong decision and follows the wrong argument, he/she should blame him/herself for lack of knowledge: not the argument and its discussion. Plato also argues that the soul is harmonious. There is no way it can be part of the wickedness of disharmony. Every soul is as good as the other.
In fact, Warren confirms this revelation in his argument that the soul rules over all other elements opposing it while conversing with passions, fear, and desires (98). This claim indicates that the soul has some control of the body. In addition, a great opposition exists between the body and soul. According to Plato, everything is judged according to the theory of forms that was presented by Socrates.
The fourth key argument about Phaedo by Plato is the myth about Afterlife. At this point, the argument is that, since the soul is very important in this life and the life to come, people must worry about morality. The premise is that there is punishment for the wicked souls. According to Annas, Plato portrays a journey that the soul takes to the underworld. This begins from judgment of the dead soul that proceeds to the underworld.
The soul moves to the three regions of the earth and its shape, and finally to the punishment of wicked people and pious philosophers’ rewards (Annas 121). The idea of believing in rewards and punishment of the soul makes people improve their souls while still alive. People become more virtuous in order to avoid punishment after they die. Many people in the world have changed their behaviors in preparation for the afterlife.
Annas further affirms this when he argues that Plato admonished the living to repeat this tale like an incantation of their lives (127). According to this argument, Plato strongly believes that those who search for the truth will receive a reward in the afterword. Thus, he convincingly admonishes his friends and those who would want to know the truth to volunteer their lives for it. The premise here is that gods, who are the masters of the philosophers, will punish others.
The fifth Plato’s view of the Phaedo is depicted in the death of Socrates. Plato views the reality of death from a positive perspective. He argues that there is no need for a decent burial or one leaving behind any instructions on how to bury the body because, when one dies, what remains after death are not the person but just a body.
For example, Socrates shows how he longs for “the afterlife that he had always searched through philosophy by asking for the poison required by his sentence” (Weiss 62). He then drinks it very comfortably as if he enjoys the process of dying. Plato depicts the death of a philosopher in a very gentle and enjoyable manner.
For example, Socrates drinks the poison very calmly and even with a good cheer after which he lies down to die. This part of the Phaedo gives a new energy to the argument. The reality of the enjoyable death of a philosopher becomes more evident. For example, Socrates does not waste any more time after he finishes his conversation with his friends. He bids farewell to his family, takes a bath, and then asks for the poison.
He swallows and comfortably waits for it to kill him. Apolloni confirms Plato’s argument that the invisible world never changes: it is intelligible, deathless, non-composite, and divine (5). The reader can now understand the reason why he tells other philosophers to follow the same route. Dying is something that can be enjoyed according to Plato.
My opinion on the argument
Plato convincingly argues about the harmony of the soul and body. He is also able to convince the reader about the ability of the soul to control the desires of the body. He points out that, regardless of the great opposition that exists between the body and soul, the soul is able to control the bodily desires for food, sex, and drinks.
He has a plus for this claim. He also sturdily argues about the desire of philosophers to die in order to obtain the happiness they always look for in their pursuit for the truth. The weakness of this argument is that Plato is not able to prove how philosophy separates the soul from the body because the two must exist in harmony. Hence, the opposition he talked about earlier must always exist until one dies.
Sadly, Plato points out that the vision of the soul is intelligible and indivisible, which is a weakness of Plato’s argument in that he depicts the death of a philosopher as an enjoyable and gentle undergoing, which does not concur with the norms (Sedley 359). For example, he narrates how Socrates asks for the poison himself just after saying goodbye to his family and friends. He then lies down to die. Death cannot be enjoyed. In most cases, it is violent.
Human beings are also very resistant to death. The other weakness in Plato’s argument is that he considers being dead and being alive as opposite. His argument is therefore not convincing at this point since these two words cannot be directly opposite. It is not convincing in that any human being can yearn for dying. Cohen argues that people react violently to information that threatens their lives (1154). It is therefore difficult to understand why a philosopher would enjoy dying.
This clarification does not come out in Plato’s arguments. As a plus, the views of Plato about Phaedo can be relied upon since he manages to approach them though examples that the philosophers fight for dying. Those who love knowledge would want to realize the truth besides being ready to die for it. For example, he gives a vivid example of how a philosopher died in pursuit of the truth. If people had not believed in this truth, the philosopher could have regretted his opinion.
The argument is also true because, as Plato argues, there is a complete separation of the body and the soul once a person dies. The body is left destroyed: it decays. The other prove of reliability of this argument is that people have been able to use their souls to control bodily demands. For example, people can fast and go for days without food and drinks.
It is also possible for people to deny their bodies the pleasure of sex and lives to control it by their souls, for example, the catholic celibates. Plato’s argument can also be relied upon since the ability to control ones bodily desires for worldly evils has led to world’s morality. If people would control their bodily desires for sex, for instance, there would be no evils like rape and incest in the world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Plato’s argument about the Phaedo has faced acceptance and criticisms. Plato argues that philosophers enjoy dying, the soul controls the body, and that there is a better afterlife. He qualifies his arguments though examples. By the end of it, he illustrates how a true philosopher lives and dies.
This convincingly makes his arguments appear factual as those of Socrates who was his teacher who dies in pursuit of the truth. He also appeals to other philosophers to follow suit by being prepared to die for the truth. In my opinion, Plato’s arguments make sense not only to other philosophers but also to all who love philosophy.
Works Cited
Annas, Joel. “Plato’s Myths of Judgment.” Phronesis, A study of Plato’s myths in the Gorgias, Phaedo, and Republic 27.1(1982): 119-43. Print.
Apolloni, Dennis. “Plato’s Affinity Argument for the Immortality of the Soul.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 34.1(1996): 5-32. Print.
Cohen, Gal. “When beliefs Yield to Evidence.” Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26.1(2000): 1151–1164. Print.
Sedley, Dan. “Teleology and Myth in the Phaedo.” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 5.1 (1990): 359–83. Print.
Warren, John. “Socratic Suicide.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 121.2 (2001): 91-106 Print.
Weiss, Reis. “The Right Exchange: Phaedo 69a6-c3.” Ancient Philosophy 7.1 (1987): 57- 66. Print.