exam question 1; plato
Immortality
READING: PLATO
Plato’s interestted in if our souls should persist after death or can they be destroyed?
Plato background
Socrates student, taught aristotle, etc etc.
Phaedo
Story of the trial of socrates. Recap: pissed the ppl off, just wanted to chat. Ton of disciples. Gadfly; sting ppl, little respect for authority. Ppl in power claimed ehe was corrupting the youth (ie, the apology from phl200). Argues that the soul lives beyond the body 4eva. “Philosophy is preparration for death”.
Arguing that its not so bad that hes abt to die.
Two args and two objecttions for the immortality of the soul
Arg 1: the argument from recollection p63-67
Cebes says “likely that the soul is distinct from the body, sure.”
Doesnt directly defend that the soul lives on after death, but that tthe soul is before birth. Its something tatt can exist without the body, so why wouldnt it continue AFTER the body?
Theres a feature that plato thinks we have. The only way to explain what we’re capable of is ot hope that we have that knowledge before birth ie a soul.
“ALL learning is recollection”. Hm idk. Theres a specific form of knowledge that we cant acquire just by looking at stuff. This is knowledge of the forms
The forms!! Put it this way, how does X fit in the world? Where could it be in the physical world? Plato asks this question abt our concepts.
Consider the no2. We can visually see two things of things, but where is the actual number 2? We have this knowledge of the number two, but not of any particular ttwo things. But we use our knowledge when there are anything of two things.
Consider triangularity. Theres no 1 true triangle and every triangle is compared to it. There’s only the concept of the triangle that can be applied to other triangles; 3 sided figure.
Plato thinks this is true of anything we can recognize as common in any physical thing; all things partake in the form of something. ex) all shoes take in the form of pairs. All chairs take in the form of chairness etc.
Argues that justice is a form.
The cave allegory explains forms.
Aristotle was against plato; the action is in particular things.
p1) we have knowledge of the forms (knowlwedge of equality, triangular, goodness)
p2) the best explanation of why we have knwoeldge of the forms is that we have immaterial souls
The action is here! Why believe this premise?
Sensory knowledge. Anything we encounter with the senses will imperfectly match the forms. Ie: the form of equality. U might call two sticks equal, but theyre never equal. What about equality itself.
Any two particular equal things are only roughly equal. We couldnt have gained our concept of perfect equality from looking at anything in the real world.
Before we began to see or hear or perceive, we must have had knowledge of the equal itself. Prior to our sense perceptions.
c) therefore we have immaterial souls
Forms are sometimes called properties or universals.
Expanded argument:
p1) we have knwoelde of the forms such as equality
p2) we could not have acquired our knowledge of the forms after birth
p3) if we have knowledge of the forms and we ccouldnt have acquired this knowledge after birth, then we must have acquired our knowledge of the forms before we were born
p4) if we acquired knowledge fo the forms before we were born, then we must have immaterial souls that existed before we were born
c) we have immaterrial souls taht existed before we were born.
Start from the main premises and explain why thatt supports the conclusion, for future argument assignments.
Obj 1: cebes cloak objection p75-76
We were going for knowing if we have souls after our death. Post birth souls.
Imaigne a cloack weather and the cloak itself. He goes thru a few cloaks. Before the cloak was born there mustve been a weaver, but tthe weaver can die but the cloak lives on. It can exist longer than the weaver even though the weaver came before the cloak.
How do we know ur not on ur last cloak (body)? Maybe ur soul is more durable than ur body, maybe its durable and its already preceded ur body. How can u think ur soul is just gonna dissipate?
Trying to catch and question ppl making jumps and gaps in the argument.
Arg 2: arg from inviisbility p68-70
Generate a reconstruction.
Sometthing not made of parts is hard to explain change.
c) the soul is indestructible.
p) the soul is invisible
p) invisible things cant be destroyed
p) invisible things dont change
p) the forms are invisible and they dont change.
p) visible things all change.
p) things that dont change are not composite
p) things that arent composite cannot be destroyed.
Obj 2: simmias harmony objection. P75
One strategy for objections is to show that i can mimic ur argument and end up with something false.
Simmias says to think abt musical harmonies. The lyre in the strings thta make the harmony, the physical stuff u can see and touch. But the harmony itself is invisible. The harmony cannot change and be destroyed. So harmonies are immortal. When u stop playing, the harmony is destroyed. Why not think the soul is like that?
Precursor to modern phsyicalism. The soul is a harmony of the physical parts of the body. The soul emerrges when body (instrumentt) is working tgth.
Doesnt seem like all invisible things cant be destroyed. Heres a model for how to understand the soul. Maybe its a harmony of neurons.
Trust in argument is important. To see if the parts work. U dont want to believe blindly but u also donnt wana be overly skeptical. Balance between skepticism and faith.
Philosophy is hard btu that doesnt mean to give up!
Recap pysicalists and dualists. Material bodies vs immaterial souls.
Plato is assuming the existence of the soul argument. By arguing for the forms. Two realms; the physical world that we can perceive and interact with, and the non-physical realm of the forms. Being able to recognize those things
The soul is more like hte forms, in the non-physical realm. U can be a dualist abt abstract concepts