The Philosophical Aspects of Plato’s Phaedo

The Phaedo is an ancient Greek dialogue, by the famous philosopher Plato. Plato was a student of the great Socrates, and he profoundly benefited from his teachings in the years before the latter’s death. The dialogue claims to recount the events that took place on the day that Socrates was to be executed (Plato, 2013). Of all of Plato’s dialogues on the trial and death of Socrates, Phaedo rules out to be the best as it expresses the Socrates physiological, epistemological and metaphysical views. As such, this literature piece will talk about the philosophical aspects of the Phaedo.

Summary

Cebes and Simmias are doubtful creatures. Cebes is seen indulging Socrates, even asking him whether or not he thought it rational for a man who had not been born to fear death but who had accepted it in the realm that with death they will meet the gods to just commit suicide. He also heads on to inquire about why it is not in the face and endeavor of man to join their good owners, in spite of the fact that these very owners-the gods- are perceived to be good people (Westerink, 2009). Further, Simmias has concerns over death as a separation of the soul from the body. He agrees that the soul and the body are one. Thus, if the body dies so does the soul. He expresses this gesture in the context of the lyre not being separate from the strings. Thus, in this plain excerpt if the lyre has no strings or there are strings but no lyre then there is no music; the same would be true that if the body dies so does the soul.

Further, Socrates asks Cebes if he has any other objections. The latter is thrilled, and although he agrees with Socrates that the soul exists before birth, he wants to know what proof ascertains that the soul indeed exists after death (Westerink, 2009).

The core issue

Is the soul immortal after death? 

All this cosmic endeavor begins when a few of Socrates’ friends visit him in his jail cell, where he awaits his execution. Socrates had not been immediately sent for execution and as such, would stay in his cell for more than a month because the mission crew had been sent to Delos. In the ancient Greek, before judgement was to be passed, the presence of the mission was essential. Thus, when they arrived, Cebes, Simmias and other people visited him to find out on matters concerning a poem that is said by Evenus, that he had begun writing. It is at this juncture that Socrates tell Cebes he should inform Evenus that just like any other philosopher he should be prepared to follow him to death. He said this in light of the issue that it is wrong for a person to take his life which he did when he consumed the hemlock. These later boils down to “why if philosophers are so willing to die why would they not just take away their life” (Brann et al., 1998).

Socrates begins defense of the thesis by defining death as a separation of the body and the soul. He rules out that the body and the soul are two separate entities. It is for this reason that Socrates sets out to outline some reasons as to why philosophers are ever prepared for death. First, he explains that they are people who are separated from the urge which is created by the body. He argues that a true philosopher’s body should not be bound by the desire of food, drinks, and sex. As such, he is a unique entity that frees the self from the body (Plato, 2013). All this is about the senses of the body which seek to make it inaccurate and deceptive. It is for this reason that most knowledgeable philosophers are people whose bodies are in solitude. To them, the body is impendent in the conquest for truth. Through this reality, philosophers are later able to prepare themselves for the coming of death. Thus, Socrates defines philosophy as a preparation for dying; a process referred to as purification of the soul from its attachment to the body. In his boundaries, Socrates expresses that unlike ordinary humans, philosophers are people who find satisfaction in death. Thus, it would be only unreasonable if a philosopher would choose to submit to his bodily pleasures as opposed to finding ultimate fulfilment in death, a highway for gaining wisdom.

Later, Cebes ends up inquiring and demanding Socrates to provide a rationale on the issue of people who believe that the soul is destroyed once one dies. Socrates provides a response to the cyclical, recollection and affinity argument. In the cyclical argument, Socrates responds that just like the soul of the dead comes from the living, so does the soul of the living come from the dead. He further expresses his argument in the opposite state's manner, that is, for something to be small then it must have been large, and the vice versa is also true. Thus, if two opposites do not find a room to balance then they would remain in the same state; the smaller will remain smaller while the larger will remain larger (Plato, 2013). Thus, since being alive and dead are two opposites states and coming to life and dying are the other two opposite processes linking the states, then the processes are balancing out each other. Therefore, everything that is alive must die, and everything that is dead must come back to life.

In the argument of recollection, Socrates supports his point by pointing out how a person can be able to remember something that he or she has never come across upon inquiry. In a normal state, a person would not be able to recall anything. Upon inquiry, the brain will ring a cognitive bell, and he or she will recall something learnt previously (Brann et al., 1998). In Socrates argument, the body is only able to remember because it had previously experienced the issue in the other life.

The affinity argument builds on the school of thought that the soul has much likeness to a specific level of reality. Existence takes two forms; one that is perceived by the senses and the other by the mind (Brann et al., 1998). The one perceived by the senses is the human, unintelligible, mortal and always changing while that perceived by the mind is non-compatible, deathless, intelligible and stagnant. The soul takes the shape of that perceived by the senses while the body takes the shape of that perceived by the brain. Thus, a soul that is free from worldly pleasures but filled with philosophical training will manage easily back to the world when it dies, and that which is polluted by bodily influence will stay bound by the world.

Thesis and Defense

As a result of the arguments developed by Socrates, I believe that the soul continues to exist even when the body does not (Westerink, 2009). This is seen in the light where one utters that they are experiencing a “déjà vu.” Déjà vu is a feeling that one experiences and while in it they believe that it has happened before. Approaching this phenomenon medically, it is said to be linked with mental health cases. Scientist claim that it is caused or made worse by depression, anxiety, epilepsy or schizophrenia. In the realm of arguments from Socrates, I believe that the underlying cause of this issue is related to the fact that it was experienced in the previous life that was possessed by the soul. Before death, it would be relevant to have a holistic approach that the recalls are from the previous lives that were possessed by the souls and not medical related issues.

Objections and Responses

Objections would lie at the heart of Christianity where the soul is said to die once the body dies too. According to Christians, man was created of the dust from the ground by God. He later breathed through his nostrils, and he became a living soul. It is through this breadth that man is said to live upon. Thus, from the Christian perspective, the soul can be referred to as a combination of two things; the body and breadth. Hence, a soul cannot exist unless the body and the breadth are combined. If one is missing, so does the other. This can be countered in the arguments generated by Plato on Phaedo that the soul is immortal. Hence, when one dies, then the soul departs and finds solace in another body (Brann et al., 1998).

Conclusion

The arguments provided by Socrates are ideal for the understanding of life and death. The concise and the step by step explanation and arguments raised from objections by Cebes and Simmias are fundamental for expanding Socrates thoughts prior to his time of death. It is sad that the Greek authority saw him as a threat to the civilians while in reality, his aim was to open up people views to an all-inclusive approach to life. Therefore, metaphysical, psychological, or epistemological views put forth by Socrates are enlightening enough for human understanding of the soul connection to the body and its ultimate immortality.

References

Westerink, L.G. (2009) The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s “Phaedo”: Olympiodorus. Prometheus Trust

Plato. (2013) Phaedo. Start Classic

Brann, T.H. et al. (1998) Plato’s Phaedo. Focus Publishing