The Critique Of Socrates's Forms

The Critique of Socrates’s Forms

In the Phaedo, Socrates is concerned about the soul. He wants to show how the soul is immortal and will survive after death. He does this through the opposites (Phaedo, 107-70d-72d) and the recollection (Phaedo, 111-73a-76c) arguments. While discussing recollection and opposites, Socrates introduces qualities (which turn into forms starting at Phaedo, 112-74a). In this paper, I will argue that Socrates’s forms fail for two reasons: he does not prove the existence of forms, and he does not sufficiently prove the existence of innate knowledge. Frist, this paper will go over Socrates’ opposites argument. Second, the argument of recollection. Then finally, it will show the failure of Socrates’ arguments that involve

Socrates gives examples of waking/sleeping and life/death (Phaedo, 109-71d). Right before Socrates does the life and death argument he gets everyone thinking about sleeping and waking up. In order to go to sleep you would have to be awake and in order to wake up you must have been asleep. Then, Socrates translates this into life and death. Socrates asks, “Do you not say that to be dead is the opposite of being alive? I do. And they come to be from one another? Yes. What comes to be from being alive? Being dead. And what comes to be from being dead? One must agree that it is being alive” (Phaedo, 109-71d). The opposite of being alive is being dead and the opposite of death is being alive. If one of the opposites is present, then we can deduce or come to a conclusion about the other. For example, if a person is alive then we can deduce or come to the conclusion that they are not dead. And the opposite is also true; if a person is dead then we can conclude that they are not alive. Another example that Socrates mentions is the opposite of dying is coming back to life (Phaedo,

Socrates gives the example of equality (Phaedo, 112-74c). We can compare things together (like people) they may seem equal, but if we look deeper we may realize that there is a sense of equality itself that is beyond the object or person. When Socrates gives his example of equality (mentioned above) he uses the example of sticks and stones. Sticks and stones may seem equal, but they are not perfectly equal. Equality has something in itself, and we are just recollecting equality while looking at the sticks and stones. Socrates explains that we did not just acquire knowledge of equality by looking at the sticks and stones. We recognize this when we realize, by looking at the sticks and stones, that in one sense they are equal, but in another they are not equal. The sticks and stones are not perfect, equality itself is perfect. So, things that look equal and the equal itself are not the same. In the Phaedo it states, “But it is definitely from the equal things, though they are different from that Equal, that you have derived and grasped the knowledge of equality? Very true, Socrates. Whether it be like them or unlike them? Certainly” (Phaedo, 112-74c). So, we recollect things that we have knowledge of, but we recollect them through things that are different. In this example of the sticks and stones we were able to see at first equal sticks and stones, but then we realized that the sticks and stones fall short of equality