Plato Phaedo 2

What is the Argument from Opposites in Phaedo?

Socrates argues that all things come to be from their opposites, sleep from waking, larger from smaller, and that this reciprocal cycle keeps the world in balance; since life is the opposite of death, life must come from death, requiring souls to exist after death so they can return to life.

How does this argument support the soul’s immortality?

Because if all living things died and never returned to life, everything would eventually be dead; therefore, the cycle between life and death must continue, which requires the soul to exist in a disembodied state after bodily death.

What is the Argument from Recollection in Phaedo?

The argument states that when we judge imperfect objects as “falling short” of perfect Equality, we must already know the Form of Equality, which cannot come from the senses; therefore, the soul had this knowledge before birth, proving its pre-existence and suggesting its survival after death.

Why does recollection imply the soul existed before birth?

Because the senses never present true Equality, yet we recognize imperfect instances as deficient; we could only detect deficiency by comparing them to a prior standard, meaning the soul must have encountered the Forms before embodiment.

How does recollection support immortality rather than only pre-existence?

If the soul exists independently of the body before birth, it is reasonable to conclude it can also continue to exist after death, since it is not generated by or dependent on bodily life.

What is the Affinity Argument for the immortality of the soul?

Socrates argues the soul resembles the invisible, intelligible, simple, and unchanging realm of Forms, whereas the body resembles the visible, composite, and changing realm; since like is known by like, and the soul knows Forms, the soul must be akin to what is eternal and thus is likely immortal.

Why does the soul’s “likeness” to the Forms matter?

Because things that share characteristics with the eternal and indestructible are themselves stable and enduring; if the soul resembles the unchanging rather than the perishable, it is reasonable to conclude it does not dissolve at death.

What is Simmias’ harmony objection?

Simmias compares the soul to a harmony produced by a lyre; just as a harmony disappears when the lyre is destroyed, the soul might be a product of the body and perish when the body dies.

What is Socrates’ first reply to Simmias? (Recollection conflict)

Socrates argues that the harmony analogy contradicts the Argument from Recollection, which already established the soul’s existence before the body; a harmony cannot exist before the instrument, so the analogy fails.

What is Socrates’ second reply to Simmias? (Wickedness objection)

If the soul were a harmony, it could never be “more or less” harmonious; yet souls can be virtuous or wicked, which implies degrees of moral disorder; therefore the soul cannot be a harmony, because harmonies cannot vary in goodness, whereas souls clearly do.

What is Socrates’ third reply to Simmias? (Causal power)

Socrates notes that the soul governs and directs the body, while a harmony cannot direct the lyre; because the soul exercises causal control and harmonies lack such power, the analogy collapses.

What is Cebes’ cloak objection?

Cebes argues the soul might outlast many bodies, just as a person outlasts many cloaks, but could eventually wear out and perish; thus Socrates has shown only that the soul is durable, not necessarily immortal.

How does Socrates reply using the Form of Life argument?

Socrates argues that the soul is defined as the principle that brings life and therefore always participates in the Form of Life; because opposite Forms never admit each other (e.g., Hot never admits Cold), the soul can never admit death without ceasing to be soul; thus it must be deathless and immortal, not merely durable.

What vision of the afterlife does Socrates present after arguing for immortality?

Socrates describes a cosmic judgment where souls go to different destinations: purified philosophical souls live bodiless among the gods; ordinary decent souls undergo purification in the Acheron; incurably wicked souls descend to Tartarus; and souls attached to bodily pleasures become ghosts and later reincarnate as animals reflecting their dispositions.

Why does Plato include the myth after the rational arguments?

Plato uses the myth to illustrate the ethical consequences of immortality, showing that philosophical living shapes one’s eternal fate and demonstrating through narrative what rational argument alone cannot convey—how the soul should be cared for.

Why would the philosopher be in good cheer when facing death? (Give two reasons.)

The philosopher believes death releases the soul from the body’s distractions, allowing it to encounter truth directly.

The philosopher trusts that living a virtuous, disciplined, philosophical life leads to a better afterlife, so death is not a loss but the fulfillment of their deepest pursuit.

What does Phaedo teach about the relation between reasoning, the body, and knowledge of reality?

Socrates argues that the body distracts, deceives, and confuses the soul through desires and unreliable senses; because true being is invisible, unchanging, and intelligible, only reasoning, not the bodily senses, can grasp the nature of reality, which consists of the Forms.

Can being and truth be known through the senses? Why or why not?

No. The senses give only changing appearances, while truth concerns what is unchanging; Forms are not visible, composite, or mutable, so the senses cannot reveal them. Only the intellect can know real being.

How can we know the true nature of reality, and why?

We know reality through intellectual reasoning, because the Forms are abstract, eternal, and accessible only to the soul when it separates from sensory interference; knowledge requires contact with the unchanging, which only the intellect provides.

Offer a major criticism of Socrates’ arguments for the soul’s immortality. (Claim → Explanation → Reason)

Claim: Socrates’ arguments rely on controversial metaphysical assumptions that may not be justified.
Explanation: The arguments presuppose the existence of Forms, the pre-existence of the soul, and a strict opposition between bodily and intellectual realms, none of which is empirically verifiable.
Reason: If these assumptions are questionable, then the conclusions about immortality become uncertain, weakening the philosophical force of his claim that the soul cannot perish.

Are you persuaded by Socrates’ arguments for immortality? Why or why not?

An exam-ready answer:
Claim: Socrates’ arguments are insightful but not fully persuasive.
Explanation: They present elegant metaphysical reasoning but depend heavily on the reality of Forms and the soul-body dualism, and alternative explanations, such as psychological or biological accounts of cognition, can explain our abilities without invoking a pre-existing soul.
Reason: Because the arguments lack decisive evidence and rest on debatable premises, they do not conclusively establish immortality, though they remain philosophically powerful.

How do Socrates’ final actions demonstrate philosophy rather than merely teach it?

Socrates consoles his friends, faces death calmly, refuses fear and resentment, treats the body as unimportant, and emphasizes practicing virtue; his serenity enacts the philosophical life he taught, showing that philosophy is a practical discipline, not just argument.

What is the meaning of Socrates’ last request to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius?

Asclepius is the god of healing; Socrates’ final words imply that death is a cure, a release from the illness-like limitations of bodily life, and he expresses gratitude for this liberation of the soul