In Plato’s, Phaedo, one of the arguments that Socrates makes for justifying his theory about the soul being immortal is the argument of opposites. The argument of opposites is found from 70c to 72c in the Phaedo. The argument is not logically valid as there are a few fallacies that occur with the definition of opposites with which Socrates defines his argument. This argument ultimately fails at being logically valid as contrary to premise 1, all things that have an opposite do not come from only their opposites. Socrates also does not specify in this argument whether he is referring to the soul dying or the body dying in the final premises. If the body is the one that dies then his argument becomes logically invalid and it would ultimately fail because that would mean that living bodies come from dead …show more content…
In the first case, he uses the opposites as a way to show the absolute differences between two things. Socrates shows us that the opposite state of being larger is being smaller and the opposite state of being ugly is being beautiful. The opposite state for being faster is being slower and the opposite state of being weaker is being stronger. Socrates suggests that the adjectives that have an opposite need to have one adjective that occurs before the other. So, for an adjective such as beautiful, it must follow that one must have been ugly before becoming beautiful. For an adjective such as sleeping, one must have been awake before falling asleep. However, Socrates treats the idea of being dead and being alive as opposites that are equivalent to states such as weaker or stronger, smaller or larger, and slower or faster. This logically cannot work and is a fallacy because something cannot be “deader” than dead or “aliver” than alive. There are no progressive changes in between being dead or being alive as there is with being fast or
For the individuals who are searching for a tasteful meaning of devotion, the discourse is a failure, for no conclusion has been come to concerning the exact idea of that goodness. It has now and again been kept up that the genuine motivation behind logic isn't to answer addresses yet rather scrutinize the appropriate responses that have been given. Anyways, this is precisely what Socrates has been doing in this back and forth. Euthyphro has displayed a few speedy and prepared responses to the inquiry "What is devotion?" however upon magnification, each of these questions has appeared to be unsuitable.
Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.
Socrates clearly states, in support of this opinion that that according to Euthyphro’s account,
He may want to know what happens after death and knows there is only one way to find out. Socrates does however know death is inevitable and thus finds the avoidance of it to be
Diotima added that, unlike the gods, humans are neither immortal nor eternal, and that everything in this world would perish eventually; thus, comparing ourselves to the gods and their unchanging, immortal features is unfair. As Socrates' concept of dualism became increasingly popular, more objections and competing beliefs were raised against him. Although Diotima's statement that mortal human beings cannot be immortal in an imperfect world strikes the core of Socrates' philosophy, it raises further questions regarding the relationship between souls and
Socrates’ original argument was not valid or sound. The premises were corrected but the argument needed another premise to make the conclusion true. Adding premise two takes away any confusion there was to what immortality meant. Since Socrates’ spent almost the entire book creating a just person and a just city the information about what is good and bad for a soul makes sense. It also makes sense that those things cannot destroy the soul because injustice and other vices could only lead the body to make poor choices and possibly get sick or die from those poor choices.
His statement brings up controversy, making the argument fail to back up its point. Socrates argues that a just soul and a just man will live well, and an unjust one badly. This argument consists of the following: 1. The function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else.
Conclusion: No one knowingly desires bad things (M 78). In premise one, Socrates could be talking about two different kinds of desires: first order desires and second order desires. First order desires consist of a desire for something specific. For example, you could desire to eat healthy.
No matter which path death is, death is a gain. One will either be a peaceful sleep, or a journey to another world filled with intelligent people and knowledge. He had support to his theory, but only talked about conversing with people from the past. The apology is repetitive in the last two paragraphs because Socrates desired to talk to all these different people. He did not clarify as to why living on Earth was cruel and that death was the only answer.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is put into trial because he is accused of corrupting the youth with his teachings that deviate from the established beliefs of the Greek society. Although he justifies that he is only doing what he believes is his duty, he reasons that even if he is given a death penalty, death is nothing to be feared. He raises multiple strong and effective arguments that explain to his audience that it is illogical to fear death. All of these arguments revolves around the central idea that death is not evil and that “no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death” (Apology, 41c). The first argument that Socrates presents during his trial is the idea that death is not the most important thing to worry about in
He also believes that it is not difficult to refrain from death, but it is difficult to stay away from evil since it surrounds us all. Doing something evil and sinful will torment one’s soul forever, even after death. Socrates believes
The final argument of Plato’s Phaedo was created to prove souls cannot perish. Plato does so by arguing how a soul cannot die nor cease to exist on the same fundamental grounds of how the number three can never be even. For the number three holds the essence of being odd, without being odd entirely. Similarly, a soul holds the essence of life through immortality, however the soul is not immortal itself and only participates in immortality, just as the number three participates in being odd. Additionally, an essence or form cannot admit to the opposite of itself just as small cannot be large simultaneously, and hot cannot be cold.
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical. The Law of Conservation of Mass
Ethos the guiding beliefs of a person, belief, or organization Found Example They are working to keep a democratic ethos alive in the community. (Merriam-Webster) Original Example The tribe set up their ethos early on in their settlement. Pathos A quality that causes people to feel sympathy and sadness Found Example There is pathos to the deflated certainties that left the Washington lawyer Leonard Garment weeping, inconsolable, outside the Senate chamber as the debate was ended.
Part A- Socrates In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates.