In this paper I will argue that forms are important for the immortality arguments.
In this case I will show that there is a forms and it plays a vital role in Phaedo 's final arguments for immortality therefore forms are important.
PART I: Explanation of forms in Phaedo 's final arguments for immortality
Phaedo is one of Plato’s classical dialogues which takes place between Socrates and his friends in the prison on his last day of life in 399 B.C. Phaedo is a conversation which mainly focuses on afterlife and soul or rather immortality of the soul. Plato 's Phaedo refers to this term commonly as “the final argument”. Final argument is divided into 3 arguments which consists of “Cyclical argument”, “Theory of Recollection argument” and “Affinity Argument”.
Plato assumes that there exists two kinds of things in nature more commonly referred to as “the cyclical argument”: forms and opposites (Phaedo 102 a – 103 b). Plato’s forms are related universally, they do not change where ever you go for example: there are a lot of things that are
…show more content…
Socrates, is the main character in the Phaedo, the scene starts with an example, referring to one of the attendants, Simmias. Simmias is taller than Socrates because Simmias displays tallness, there must be some forms of tallness that Simmias shares in, in order to show he is tall. By looking at this we can say that Simmias is sharing in the forms of tallness because he is in comparison with Socrates. Without the comparison the forms of tallness would not exist. Forms has no relation to Simmias directly considering the fact that if Simmias was short he would still exist (Phaedo, 102 B,C). Simmias can be tall in relation to Socrates and short in relation to some other person (Phaedo. 102B). However, Simmias cannot be both tall and short in relation to the same person at the same
In the book “Phaedo,” Plato discusses the theory of forms with ideas that concern the morality of the form. There are four philosophers that are expressed which are Phaedo, Cebes, and Simmias regarding the execution of Socrates. Socrates is presented in “Phaedo” on the morning of his execution where he is being killed. He tells his disciples Simmias and Cebes that he is not afraid of dying because a true philosopher should welcome and look forward to death but not suicide. A man should never commit suicide. He says that we are possessions of the Gods and should not harm themselves. He provides the four arguments for his claim that the soul is immortal and that a philosopher spends his whole life preparing for death.
Plato, and G. M. A. Grube. "Phaedo." Five Dialogues. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2002. 93-
Socrates was wise men, who question everything, he was found to be the wise man in Athens by the oracle. Although he was consider of being the wises man alive in those days, Socrates never consider himself wise, therefore he question everything in order to learned more. Socrates lived a poor life, he used to go to the markets and preach in Athens he never harm anyone, or disobey any of the laws in Athens, yet he was found guilty of all charges and sentence to die.
Discussion of D.Z. Phillips Conception of Immortality In his book 'Death and Immortality', D Z Phillips starts by asking the question: does belief in immortality rest on a mistake? The first two chapters are negative in the sense that they examine traditional philosophical, as well as common sense, conceptions of what immortality means. Phillips argues that philosophical analyses centred on the notion of immortality have generally been constructed around certain essential presuppositions: presuppositions that assume some form of continuation of personal identity after death. One cannot logically deny that, by definition, death entails the end of bodily existence, so one, it seems, is logically drawn to the notion that survival after death entails the survival of some kind of non-bodily identity - the soul. In the last two chapters Phillips disputes this presupposition, claiming that a perfectly valid conception of immortality can be maintained without resorting to any form of dualism.
For my final project I chose to compare two works of art from ancient Mesopotamia. A visual work of art and a literary one. The visual work of art I chose was the Statuettes of Worshipers which were created around 2900 to 2350 BCE at the Square Temple at Eshnunna, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The literary artwork I have chosen is the Epic of Gilgamesh written roughly around 2800 BCE by author or authors unknown. It was set in Uruk, another city in ancient Mesopotamia. Both of these works of art share a common theme; the theme of immortality. It is my hopes that within this paper I can accurately show how each of these works of art express this theme, and how it relates to modern society.
In the book Plato 's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of Socrates execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias beliefs who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper is going to focus on Socrates four arguments for the soul 's immortality. The four arguments are the Opposite argument, the theory of recollection, the affinity argument, and the argument from form of life. As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul
The 'doctrine of recollection' states that all true knowledge exists implicitly within us, and can be brought to consciousness - made explicit - by recollection. Using the Platonic concepts of 'Forms', 'particulars', 'knowledge' and 'true opinion', this essay explains what can or cannot be recollected, why all knowledge is based on recollection, and why the doctrine does not prove the soul to be immortal.
For Plato, Forms are eternal and changeless, but there is a relationship between these eternal and changeless Forms and particular things we perceive by means of our senses in the world. These particular things change in accordance to the perceiver and the perceiver’s environment and this is why Plato thought that such things do not possess real existence. For Plato, onl...
[III] Immortality: “through Art, and through Art only, that we can shield ourselves from the sordid perils of actual existence”
What is particularly striking about the opening exchanges of the Euthydemus between Socrates and Crito is that they seem to establish the setting and characters of the dialogue concretely—Socrates and his attractive young friend Clinias meet the well-known brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorus at the Lyceum and ask them to display what Crito calls their “particular wisdom,” and what they call simply “virtue.” However, within these first few pages of dialogue, we already begin to sense something about the brothers that makes them difficult to pin down. When Crito asks, “Where do they come from, and what is their particular wisdom?”, Socrates is vague on their origins—they are from both Greece and Italy, and at the time of the dialogue, they are exiles with no proper city (271c). Thus, they seem to be from everywhere at once. Their “particular wisdom” turns out to be quite unparticular as well—Socrates claims they can win any fight, making them, one would assume, wise at everything. Whereas both Socrates and Crito dwell on the physical and character descriptions of Clinias and even Ctesippus, the brothers, who are ostensibly the primary focus of the dialogue, are given no personal description at all (271b, 273a). Indeed, when Ctesippus takes up a tirade against them in the Lyceum, he is completely unable to identify them, addressing them as, “men of Thurii or Chios, or from wherever and however you like to be styled” (288b). In his frustration at their elusiveness, he articulates this very unnatural ability of the brothers to be from everywhere and argue any position, and quite accurately compares them to Proteus, the shape-shifter (288c).
Meanwhile, Aristotle's hylomorphism is necessary here, however, in that he would like to be able to explain how living things are generated and change and grow. “For Aristotle this is the matter. Matter can take on new forms some of which are accidental while some our essential”. It is clear from this quote that Aristotle means something very different by his use of Forms. While Plato believed Forms were universal truths that can only be truly known to the immortal soul, Aristotle believed the Forms to be fully knowable through investigation unlike Plato's theory, “which sees individual things in this world as somehow participating in the unchanging world of the Forms, has difficult with explaining how thing...
The argument of Forms was the most convincing in proving that the soul is immortal due to the explanation and examples that Socrates provides ...
To Live as A Monster or Die as A Good Man: An analysis of Plato’s Theory of Forms
Plato: For today’s class Aristotle and I are going to discuss our ideas on the Theory of Form
Plato argues for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo. He provides 3 arguments for his theory, the arguments from opposites, recollection, and affinity. Each argument proposes an intriguing account for his claim that the soul must exist past death. His evidence and proposal for each account leave no room for counterarguments. Fellow philosophers like Simmias and Cebes provide two different counters for Plato’s claim, however he accurately disproves them by using his 3 arguments as rebuttal. Plato’s three arguments for the proving of the immortality and longevity of a soul provide clear and concise reasons to agree with his approach.