Existence of the soul

military personnelity of the dispositionIntroductionThere ar a image of unfit philosophical questions that commonly interest philosophers. Chief among these questions is the total throughence of the soul. What will produce of me when I die? Will I cease to re wassail or not? And if I do continue to exist will I remain in my current form or that of another animateness form? These atomic number 18 questions which ar frequently discussed when talking close to the soul. Platos work at on carriage afterward destruction is regarded as unmatchable of the very(prenominal) first pieces of written philosophical work on the human beings of the soul. Platos Phaedo is an take on to issue these questions an attempt to arise that the soul pre-exist the body and that it continues to live after death. Platos Phaedo moldiness thitherfore be discussed if a conclusion is to be reached on whether the soul pre-exist the body. Much of Platos work, unlike many other philosophical w ritings, is in colloquy. Platos chats are named after the central character, which in this case, is Phaedo. Besides Phaedo, other primal characters in the dialogue are Echecrates with whom the dialogue begins with, Socrates who is the main character in the dialogue, Simmias of Thebes, a follower of the philosopher Pythagoras and Cebes whom also is a follower Pythagoras. Phaedo centres on the death of Socrates, who was sentenced to death in 399BC for corrupting the minds of the youth and denouncing the gods. After the trial, Socrates is in prison waiting to be condemned by drinking Hemlock and this is the come out of Platos Phaedo which begins to pick up at support after death. It is clear that the introductory section of the dialogue takes place from (60a) whereby Socrates after massaging his leg states that pleasure and pain are close related, despite the fact they are opposites. The point Socrates makes here seems logical as empirical experience shows that masses chamberp otnot appreciate the ups of life without having the downs. Socrates indeed goes on to claim that any unrivaled saucy will follow him to death, as a omniscient person or a philosopher long to be divergenced from the body. This is an important point of Platos dialogue as it ignites the discussion of the immortality of the soul. Why would Socrates claim that those who are wise should follow him to death shortly? For Socrates death is simply a release of the soul from the body. Socrates believes that firstly he will be entering the partnership of good and wise gods and secondly he expects to enter the company of all in(p) people that are better than those still alive, and consequently it is good to abdicate life (Daniel pitcher lecture notes, 2008). Furthermore the body for Socrates is a obstacle for a philosopher seeking the truth. The bodys demands such(prenominal) as food, drink and sex are not the c at one meterrns of a true philosopher and more so the body force outno t bid reliable information, our sense datums constantly deceive us. (A fine pillowcasemaybe example). The truth is the real record of any pop offn thing i.e. justice in itself, which has never been perceived by anybody. In order to reach the uncontaminated truth one must be pure and uncontaminated. Socrates goes as far to say the philosophers melodic line consists precisely in the freeing and separation of the soul from body (Daniel Hill lecture notes, 2008). However by arguing this point Socrates is presuming that life exist after death, mostthing which provokes Cebes to raise an objection questioning Socrates line of thought by highlighting that it is widely accepted that when one dies the soul may be released from the body and dispersed like smoke and so destroyed Cebes scrap is one which Socrates must respond to and he does so by producing cardinal commands to support his claim that the soul is immortal. First is the Argument from Opposites which aims to show the ro und of golf of death and rebirth must go on forever. Secondly is the surmisal of reminiscence which aims to show that the reasoning part of the soul did exist onward birth, thence making it plausible to hold that it will also exist after death. Third is the affinity argument, which concerns itself overly with the reasoning part of the soul, in particular the nature of the Forms and the control of desires. The final argument Plato introduces portion outs the soul as the cause of life. The Argument of Recollection is what must be discussed in point due(p) to as stated above it concerns itself with the pre-existence of the soul. conjecture of RecollectionThe guess of Recollection is introduced by Cebes, who briefly outlines the argument as follows that all skill is just really mobilizeion and that by recollecting it shows that we must go through well-educated sometime before which is impossible unless our souls existed somewhere before they entered this human shape. So it seems that the soul is immortal (Daniel Hill Lecture Notes 2008). Simmias then asks Cebes to remind him how the inference of Socrates conjecture of learning as recollection goes and Cebes provides twain reasons. Firstly Cebes puts aside that when people are asked questions, if the question is put in the right mood they bunghole answer everything correctly, which they could not possibly do unless they were in ownership of cognition (Daniel Hill Lecture Notes 2008) and secondly if you confront people with a diagram or anything like that, the way in which they react provides the clearest conclusion that the theory is correct (Daniel Hill Lecture Notes 2008). Cebes argument is very dense however the point he seems to be trying to make ignore be understood by using a mathematical question. For example if you were asked, what is 6+33? You would give the answer of 39, yet it is unlikely that you would bemuse learnt that exact sum before hap, so the fact that you earnd it shows t hat you must have learnt it in a earlier life. Cebes answer for Simminas is allusive thus Plato introduces Socrates to give the argument in full detail. In Phaedo Socrates begins with the suggestion that one can only recollect what one has learnt at some previous point. Socrates too understands that recollection is the process of organism reminded of something and uses the example of lovers who are reminded of the person they love, when they recognise a piece of clothing or any other underground property owned by their lover (Plato 2003). However to have preceding companionship of all things gained from experience within the world would be absurd, thus Plato outlines what he means is that we have acquaintance of go up entities or as Plato describes the cognition of Forms. What does Plato mean by nobble entities or Forms? Plato means entities such as justice, beauty, goodness and holiness etc. The example he gives is comparability. Plato writes in Pheado We admit, I suppose, that there is such a thing as comparison not matesity of stick to stick and stone to stone and so on, scarcely something beyond all that and distinct from it absolute comparability (Plato 2003). Its seems what Platos argument is trying to show is that there is a concept of compare which is recollected when we slew certain objects, such as two sticks of similar length or if we feel the weight of two stones of similar weight and we know whether or not they are of equal weight because we understand the concept of compare without it ever being taught. However what must be understood is that Plato is not saying that equality is within the sticks and stones themselves, as they may reckon equal to me but unequal to another but rather by comprehend the sticks and the stones that we get the sentiment of absolute equality.Socrates then continues to highlight that we are mindful that sticks and stones do fall short of being equal, but to be intended of the fact that they fall sh ort means that we must have a the concept of what it is to be perfectly equal. However how do we know of this equality when Plato denies empirical knowledge as reliable? Socrates answers That we must have had some previous knowledge of equality before the time when we first realised (Plato 2003). Therefore Socrates deduces that we obtained our knowledge of equality before birth. So if this holds true with equality then it must hold true with all other abstract entities or Forms such as beauty and justice. However Socrates continues claiming that Each of us loses this knowledge at the moment of birth, but afterwards by disposed(p) exercise of our senses, recover the knowledge which we once had before, I suppose that we bode learning (Plato 2003). Hence Socrates concludes that all learning is recollection. Socrates then moves on to present an alternative explanation to support his argument claiming that someone who truly knows a subject ought to be able to explain it to others, yet most people cannot explain the things that he (Socrates) has been explaining to Simmias (http//www.sparknotes.com/ school of thought/phaedo/section5.rhtml). Socrates explains that if someone can be brought to recollect knowledge of the kind he is explaining and then able to explain that knowledge to others, then it goes to show that knowledge existed in a past life and it was forgotten the at birth. Simmias raises an objection to this point stating that perhaps we gain knowledge at birth, but Socrates simply reminds him that if we possessed it at birth then surely it would be absurd to lose it at the exact corresponding moment we gained that knowledge. Socrates then concludes that the existence of the soul before birth is as certain as the existence of beauty, goodness, and all things in themselves that the soul supplies knowledge of when we see the physical things that approximate to themPlatos argumentPlatos argument seems to be tenacious and reaches a sound conclusion that th e soul pre-exist birth. However the argument has been criticised by many philosophers due to the gaps within the argument. These gaps within Platos argument must be explored in order to come to a conclusion on whether the surmisal of Recollection does prove that the soul pre-exist the body. A chief criticism of Platos theory of recollection stems from the foundation of his argument. Plato discusses two different kinds of knowledge intrinsic knowledge of the Forms (goodness, beauty and equality etc.) and the recollection of knowledge, and this is where the problem lies. In Phaedo Socrates is intent on showing that what we know was present before birth However Plato gives no explanation of when before birth we acquire this knowledge or how. Further, if we did come into this world knowing of abstract qualities such as justice, holiness and equality etc, the next thought would be that when did we first come into contact with these abstract qualities?. Plato gives no time frame and this is important as it obvious that when we, as humans get to a certain age all of us tend to know similar concepts such as those of the Forms described by Socrates in Phaedo. Further, Plato maintains that no true knowledge can come about from experience and that knowledge is innate therefore experience from a previous life could not have given us the knowledge of the Forms, such as equality, beauty and justice etc. On the other hand in Platos defence that it could be said that our very first soul was created with such knowledge that is our first soul was created with the knowledge of Forms. However there are those that object to this line of view claiming that Plato does not provide an answer on how the cycle of birth and death of the soul begin? And if it has a beginning how can it end? (http//www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/phaedo/section5.rhtml). Owen Mcleod highlights this fact stating If the soul cannot die, then the soul is indestructible. The general principle being assumed here seems to be that if x cannot die, then x is indestructible. But.If x is destructible, then x can die. This is clearly false. Inanimate objects of all sorts rocks, shoes, corporations can be destroyed, and hence are destructible, but they do not literally die upon destructionMore so is Platos implication of equality. Plato advances equality not just as a relation to two objects but as a property in itself. Yet we wouldnt normally think of a single stick on its own of being able to have the property of equality and so forthFurther Platos knowledge as discussed above is not that of future events or empirical knowledge but that of the knowledge of the Forms. Therefore for the Argument from Recollection to work the Theory of Forms must be accepted. This is as Hackforth states the doctrine of Forms is with that of the souls existence before its incarnation in other words, they stand and fall together. Attempts to prove the Theory of the Forms may observe or fail, but what the signific ance here is that Platonised Socrates does not explicitly prove or justify the Theory of the Forms Another problem of Platos argument is regarding the fiber of judgment that Recollection of the Forms leads us to make.If as Plato states that everything we perceive in the world, including those sense perceived judgments are sustained by the Forms, it would suggest that all human beings judgments are correct, as the Forms are pure truth. Yet this conclusion would be widely inaccurate as human beings make many wrong(p) judgments, the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster is a testament to this as it was human errors which resulted in destroying the lives of thousands of people.ConclusionPlatos Theory of Recollection is a coherent argument and one which attempts to prove that the soul does pre-exist the body. Plato Phaedo works on many grounds due to the fact that we as human beings can relate too ofttimes of what Plato has written. It is widely accepted that when humans look at an object we can be reminded of a particular person or event. Therefore it does not seem strange to think of abstract qualities such as equality in the same way. Nonetheless, the Theory of Recollection rest upon expound which once examined shows misgivings within the argument. Plato Argument from Recollection relies heavy on his Theory of Forms which he assumes are not doubtable and due to this the Theory of Recollection automatically proves the existence of the soul. Yet the Forms are susceptible to doubt, as discussed before if humans decisions are imbued by the Forms then surely the Forms are doubtable as human beings decisions are incorrect time after time. Further modern day philosophy has simply described Phaedo as a religious doctrine back up by poets (Hackforth 1992), suggesting that Phaedo may have proved the pre-existence of the soul in antediluvian Greek, yet now in the modern era it is must be seen as no more than a religious doctrine which was widely accepted at the time. Against mo dern philosophy Platos argument does not appear to be justified. Karl Poppers falsification theory, for example, demands that any suggestion that is put forward must be done so in terms that allows it to be falsified. If the idea requires certain assumptions that are impossible to prove, like the Theory of the Forms, then we cannot consider it as being valid Yet the context in which the dialogue was written must be considered when evaluating the Theory of Recollection. Socrates is condemned to death and his final hours are upon him, it is clear that Socrates purpose in the dialogue is to explain his views on death to his friends. Socrates lack of concern in the face of death surprises Cebes and Simminas and this prompts Socrates to convey his views on the immortality of the soul. Furthermore the period the dialogue was written, it was universally accepted that life existed after death. Thus Plato task is to link life after death to life before death. Therefore a modern reader must uncase this in mind when considering Platos Theory of Recollection. Thus after examining Platos Theory of Recollection it can be concluded that though the argument is coherent, key premises are subject to criticism which undermines Platos argument. Furthermore with development of modern philosophy and developments in science the Theory of Recollection is subject to further failings, thus to a modern reader it would be difficult to accept the Theory of Recollection as golden proof for the pre-existence of the soul, yet at the time Plato wrote Phaedo the argument would have been accepted by a great number of people.