According to Plato the soul is immortal and way more valuable than the body. He believes that once the ties from the body and soul are cut the soul will move on. Plato creates an argument for how there is no real relationship between reality and the soul because the soul picks up things like senses and the body feelings like pleasure. Plato would agree with Melinda because they both share the same spiritual view on the world and ideas about souls. Aristotle believes the soul is that it is just another part of our body. He explains the soul helps us process the things we go through our everyday life but once we have died our soul does not continue on. Aristotle relies on scientific facts for his view on the world. Both Mellissa and Aristotle …show more content…
He states "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 dissoluble, and changeable” which concludes he believes that once the ties from the body and soul are cut the soul will move on. Plato creates an argument for how there is no real relationship between reality and the soul because the soul picks up things like senses and the body feelings like pleasure. Plato and Melinda share opposite views about how they view life but Melinda could argue that after Mathew dies that his soul will move on to a better place. Melinda strongly believes in the medical facts and charts that Mathew is gone for good and doesn’t see the point of life support but would like to let go of her bother. She would use this argument because it is all for pulling the plug on life support because she feels that Mathew is gone and it would appease her sister if she approached it this way. I strongly believe that Mellissa still would still argue against pulling the plug on Mathew because she is so worried about the moral consequences that might follow. It seems that Mellissa has accepted that her brother will never be conscious again but doesn’t want to carry the burden of murdering him because it could affect her own soul. Mellissa could exploit …show more content…
For example he states “we must now extend our consideration from the 'parts' to the whole living body; for what the departmental sense is to the bodily part which is its organ that the whole faculty of sense is to the whole sensitive body as such” to argue that the body is what is important. Aristotle believes that once the body dies that the soul dies along with it. Aristotle and Mellissa have the same scientific outlook in life. They both rely on charts and scientific facts on how to look at the world and it influences their decisions. They both don’t believe in the spiritual world or an afterlife and believe that once the body can no longer function the person inside is gone. Mellissa would use the idea that the physical body is just a shell so there is no point of keeping Mathew alive. The doctors provided charts and scientific facts that Mathew will never come back so she believes that its time to let him go. Melinda would still disagree with this because she has a spiritual outlook in life and fears the moral consequences of cutting Mathew’s life short. As I’ve stated before Melinda cannot pull the plug on Mathew because in her eyes his soul still lives
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
For this reason, Plato believes that we must separate the soul based on how it
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
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
Melissa is more likely to be attracted to Aristotle’s basic orientation and his view on the soul. Melissa’s mind set leans more towards the scientific thought process when it comes to life and death. Like Aristotle her beliefs are more of the here and now. Making due with the reality put in front of them. Even though Melissa’s thoughts and beliefs mostly come with facts she still has some belief that there is something beyond the body that makes Matthew who he is, Matthew. But with that belief she also thinks without brain function there is no Matthew to save. It is a body with no ability to think and live. So like Aristotle she does think that there is a soul that is a part of our bodies. But without the ability to think then you are not living.
Our senses can correctly perceive the natural forms. Basically, reality became a debate between Plato's two worlds and Aristotle's single world reality. Secondly, Plato and Aristotle contrast in their view of what knowledge we possess at birth. Plato supports the doctrine of Innatism, which claims that we enter this world with prior knowledge. All people possess immortal souls; therefore, the knowledge acquired in one life can be transferred into the next reincarnation.
We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.
It seems that there is one thing that most ancient Greeks can agree on, and that is the existence of the human soul. The obviousness of the soul’s existence could be related to the Latin word for soul, anima, which also means spirit, breath, and life. We also get the word animate from anima, something that is animated has the ability to move of its own accord. It follows from this that humans, being living things with the ability to move of their own accord, have souls. Though there is no disagreement about the existence of souls, the views of human souls vary. Homer, Heraclitus, Democritus, and Socrates all have different views of what the human soul is, what it does, and its level of importance.
For Plato, the soul is considered to have three parts: the appetitive or the passions, the spirited part or the will, the reasonable part or the intellect. The appetitive deals with the bodily necessities and desires. The appetite is often considered base or even sinful, but is clearly not so for Aristotle: the passions merely demonstrate a person’s basic necessities, which one can not consider without considering the human person in the same way. The spirited part reacts to injustices or incorrectness in one’s surroundings, and it is often described as the “angry” part, as anger deal with perception of injustice as well. The reasonable part concerns itself with finding the truth and distinguishing it from falsities, and is often considered both the highest and hardest to perfect part of the soul. Each part has its own intricacies and specifics, allowing them to aid the human...
However, Islamic religion do not believe in incarnation, which Plato is arguing here. Muslim philosophers think that Allah the God created the souls before creating the bodies. Each soul has to wait for Allah 's permission to descend to the earth and bring a baby in the woman womb to life. After the person live on this earth and experience death his soul will be drawn from his body and will be kept in good place or bad place according to what the person did during his life. The soul will stay in that place until the judgment day, where all dead bodies will get up from graves. At judgment day, Allah will decide whether the soul needs to stay in heaven forever or it will go to paradise. I believe that our understanding of the soul’s immortality will not be complete until we experience death and separating from the body. Therefore, Plato 's argument about pre-existence of the souls is just thoughts and ideas that need faith to be proven and not
To Plato, the soul is a self mover that is not restricted to mortality. He also states that without the soul, the body would not be able to move; the soul is the provider of energy for movement in the body. Since the soul is a self mover, it is inherently a source of energy and life that depends on nothing else to exist; therefore, the soul is immortal.
All three arguments propose an intriguing account for Socrates’ claim that the soul exists past death. 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. It seems that any counterargument can be debated using at least one of the three arguments, simply begging the question.
Plato believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
Aristotle argued and disagreed with Plato’s views of the self and soul being a separate from the body. Aristotle’s view is that all humans have a soul, yet they cannot be separate from the body in which they reside. To him, there are four sections of the soul; the desiderative and vegetative parts on the irrational side are used to help one find what they are needing and the calculative and scientific parts on the rational side are
He believes that the soul takes shelter within the body. The three parts are all located in three different areas: reason is in the mind, spirited is in the heart, and desire is in the stomach. Reason is what controls the whole soul (Plato p. 49). The mind tells the body what to do, how to feel, what to say. The mind controls our appetites and decides who to honor according to memories about those people or events. The spirit is in the heart, the heart is what shows us how we feel about others. The stomach is desire as we crave to have certain possessions such as food or other physical materials in life. If what Plato is saying is any truth, than the argument presented that our soul is our life and our body is nothing but what carries our soul, is therefore false and unsupported by this idea of the mind, heart and stomach. Then so, our thought that Plato’s idea that we can make ourselves alive, is fairly reasonable and true. This is because it is more understandable to say that the reason why our souls are what makes us alive is because our souls are physically made of three parts that control the way we live. Our body is now not only what carries life for us, but what allows us to keep it. Our soul is different from the body because it represents life, but it is our body that allows our lives to