What conclusions can be reasonably drawn about the spiritual nature of the human being, or the “Soul,” based on your reading of the Phaedo, its commentators and secondary sources? You might include a treatment of the question whether or not there is such an identifiable entity as a “Soul” in reality, thus justifying your discussion of it. You might also address the question of its mortality, or immortality, as you see it.
The conceptions of soul and its immortality are central to Plato’s philosophical theories. In his dialogues Apology, Phaedo, Meno and Republic, the ancient philosopher not only provides a definition for the soul, but also analyzes its main components, and its connection with the physical body.
According to Plato’s philosophical doctrine, the soul is an imperishable, intelligent and indissoluble entity, which animates human body and continues to live after person’s physical death. Plato’s philosophical theories are valuable for distinguishing between the phenomena of material and spiritual worlds, defining such an entity as a human soul and selecting the appropriate parameters for evaluating it, taking into account its spiritual and imperishable nature.
Plato’s Apology represents Socrates’ defense speech in which the great philosopher raises the issues of death, improvement of soul and immortality. This dialogue supports the idea that after the death of a physical body, a human being continues its existence in another form. Socrates is accused of inventing new gods and influencing the youth of Athens by his teaching.
The fact that the speech is delivered at court before the accused is recognized as guilty and is sent to prison intensifies the impression from his reasoning concerning the fear of death.
Rejecting the fear of death, Socrates states that “no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good” (Plato Apology). Thus, confronting the generally accepted definition of death as a negative phenomenon, the accused philosopher makes a supposition that disregarding people’s fear, the death of a physical body may appear to be the greatest good.
Not claiming for comprehensive knowledge, Socrates provides arguments for supporting his supposition that death is for good. “Either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another” (Plato Apology). Assuming both variants, Socrates puts emphasis upon the importance of improving the soul instead of concentrating on material values.
In general, the accused philosopher does not insist on a particular view but rather offers to take all possible versions into consideration. Though Socrates does not insist on immortality of soul, the fact of its existence is undeniable for him. At the end of his speech, Socrates states: “The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows” (Plato Apology).
Thus, it can be logically assumed that the finishing phrase of Socrates’ speech restates his main idea concerning uncertainty of existence after the death of a physical body. However, in his following dialogues, Plato develops his idea of immortality of soul and provides more arguments for dispelling Socrates’ doubts.
Developing the theme of life after physical death, Plato devotes his dialogue Phaedo to the issue of immortality of soul. The philosopher provides four weighty arguments for separating soul from the material world and supporting his claim that its life continues after the death of a physical body.
Socrates, as the main speaker of the dialogue Phaedo uses the argument from the opposites for claiming that death as the opposite category for life cannot be regarded as the permanent end. The philosopher assumes that all the opposite categories are transitional and generated from one another. “Anything which becomes greater must become greater after being less” (Plato Phaedo). Thus, according to his reasoning, for becoming thinner, a person had to be fatter previously, while for becoming fatter, an individual had to be thinner.
Taking into account this notion and admitting that death is the opposite for life because these two conditions are mutually exclusive, it can be logically assumed that not only life can be transferred into death but also death can be transferred into life in an endless circle of generation of the opposites. However, the categorization and opposition of the states of life and death is rather questionable, and this fact reduces the strength of the argument from the opposites for supporting the idea of immortality of soul.
Despite the weakness of the argument from the opposites, it raises the issue of existence after the death of the physical body. Though this argument is insufficient for supporting the assumption of life after death, it is an important starting point which prepares listeners for further argumentation.
The second argument defined as a theory of recollection points out at the importance of eternal knowledge for all people. Socrates assumes that earth knowledge represents the process of recollecting things that an individual knows before his/her birth but then forgets and has to recollect during the physical life. The philosopher argues that the true knowledge is the awareness of the basic unchanging forms, which are necessary for comparing and contrasting various phenomena, finding out their differences and similarities.
For example, the knowledge of the form of equality allows a person to compare the length of two sticks and assume that they are equal. Discussing the range of the eternal forms, Socrates admits that “we are not speaking only of equality absolute, but of beauty, goodness, justice, holiness, and all which we stamp with the name of essence in the dialectical process” (Plato Phaedo).
Thus, theory of recollection supports the idea of the immortal soul as the bearer of knowledge of the eternal forms, implying that the life of the soul goes beyond the limits of the life of the physical body, starting before its birth and continuing after its death.
In his third argument, Socrates involves the category of affinity for distinguishing between perishable material objects, which are perceptible and spiritual things which can only be grasped by thought.
The physical body consisting of material particles belongs to the first group of perceptible objects, while the soul does not consist of particles and belongs to the group of spiritual things. Admitting that the soul differs from the mortal body significantly, Socrates makes an attempt to prove that the soul which is not composed of particles is exempt from destruction and consequently can be recognized as immortal.
However, commentators admitted that this difference is insufficient for supporting the claim that the life of soul is eternal. Interpreting this argument from affinity, critiques stated that this Socrateic argument was not categorical and can be summarized as the assertion that “the soul is less subject to dissolution and destruction than the body, rather than, as the popular view has it, more so” (Lorenz Ancient Theories of Soul).
Thus, it can be stated that the argument from affinity can be used for separating soul from the material world but is insufficient for supporting the claim of its immortality.
Socrates’ fourth argument is based upon Plato’s theory of forms, which implies that perfect forms, such as the forms of beauty and life do not admit their opposites at all. Thus, the form of beauty as one of perfect forms is self-sufficient and does not contain the form of ugliness at all. Then, it can be logically assumed that if the form of life does not include the form of death, the soul, which animates people and is connected to the form of life cannot be influenced by death of the physical body.
Presenting all his arguments, Socrates manages to persuade his listeners that “the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and multiform, and changeable” (Plato Phaedo).
In general, it can be stated that discussing the nature and functions of the soul in his dialogue Phaedo, Plato defines it as an intelligible, indissoluble and consequently immortal entity animating human mortal and changeable body.
Plato uses the idea of immortality of the soul as an axiom for supporting his claims concerning the process of acquiring knowledge in his dialogue Meno. Developing the idea which was expressed in the second argument of the dialogue Phaedo, the philosopher uses the principle of the immortality of soul as the truth which has already been proven and acknowledged for supporting his claim that the process of acquiring knowledge represents the process of recollecting something that was already known but later forgotten.
In a rather matter-of-fact manner, Socrates as the main speaker of the dialogue, states that “the soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist” (Plato Meno). Then, the philosopher continues his argumentation without providing additional support for his claim concerning the immortality of the soul.
Certainly this assumption would be insufficient for proving the claim, and the dialogue should be perceived in the context of the rest dialogues by Plato shedding light upon the same issues of soul and its immortality. Thus, the idea of imperishable and indissoluble soul has become an integral element of Plato’s philosophical conception, which was used for supporting other ideas and could be supported in its turn with other fragments of the doctrine.
Continuing his exploration of the human soul, Plato raised the issue of its immortality in his dialogue Republic, expanding his theory with new categories. In Republic, the philosopher divides the soul into the three main parts and attributes the mental and psychological functions to soul. In this dialogue, the reason, spirit and appetite are recognized as the main parts of the soul, while each of them is responsible for a particular function of this spiritual entity.
This structuring pattern is used to explain the struggle between person’s desires as the struggle between the components of one entity. Lorenz says: “The Republic theory involves not so much a division of soul as integration into soul of mental or psychological functions that had been assigned, somewhat problematically, to the body” (Lorenz Ancient Theories of Soul).
Thus, exploring psychological and mental aspects of human existence through the lens of the soul, the philosopher proceeds to the domain of morality. Summing up the Republic theory of soul, it can be stated that “The soul is that which the body loses at death. The soul is also that which the body loses through moral degradation” (Phillips 94).
Thus, expanding his theory of soul in the dialogue Republic by dividing it into separate fragments and involving the psychological, mental and moral aspects of human existence, Plato makes his argumentation of the immortality of soul more consistent and relevant to the real life facts.
Taking into account Plato’s arguments concerning the role of the soul in recollecting the basic forms and the struggle between the desires, it can be logically assumed that the soul is responsible for animating the body which is only its physical container and accounts only for the short period of physical existence. Analyzing Plato’s philosophical doctrine, it can be stated that the soul as an imperishable and non-material entity continues to live even after being separated from the body due to its physical death.
Analyzing Plato’s dialogues Apology, Phaedo, Republic and Meno along with his commentators, it can be concluded that human life is not limited to the short period of physical existence of a physical body because the parameters of time, space and mortality which are applicable for evaluating the phenomena of material dimension are not suitable for analyzing such an imperishable entity as soul.
Works Cited
Lorenz, Hendrik. Ancient Theories of Soul. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 23 Oct. 2003. Web.
Phillips, Dewi. In Dialogue with the Greeks: Plato and Dialectic. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004. Print.
Plato. Apology. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.
Plato. Meno. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.
Plato. Phaedo. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.
Plato. Republic. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.