The Four Arguments For The Existence Of The Soul In Socrates '

In Socrates’ final hours, there was many of his friends all in his cell; his old friend Crito and then two Pythagorean philosophers; Cebes' and Simmias'. Pythagorean philosophers or Pythagoras philosophers is a early pre-socratic greek school of philosophy. It’s bases on the metaphysical beliefs of Pythagoras. They studied/ where influenced by, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy and music. The story begins though, with Socrates’ explaining that although suffice is wrong, a very true philosopher should always look forward to death. That the soul is immoral, a philosopher should spend his high training it to detach itself from the body. Socrates’ then went on to state four arguments for his claim. The first argument was the Argument from Opposites.

This harmony could only exist so long as the instruments exists; and it can’t be any longer. For comparison, Simmas' wants Socrates’ so he gives some examples. First, to imagine a harp or a lyre, the lyre has strings and the strings are in harmony. Second, the lyres’s strings are visible and material. Third, the harmony is able to “divide” meaning it is invisible and immaterial. The final example is, if you cut the strings of the lyre or break them, you also destroy the harmony. Simmas' then goes on and explains the soul. He says that the should is the body is the harmony, it’s parts and elements. The harmony in the body is always between, dry, wet, cold and hot. Also, that if you were to get a disease or injury, it undoes this harmony of your soul, or the elements of your body, but really the should dies even before the body dies. There are four approaches to the mind, Dualism, Materialism, Epiphenomenalism and Idealism. To further explain, dualism means that there are two and only two kinds of objects that exist. Bodies and Minds. If the soul is everlasting, the dualism would remain true. Materialism can be explained by if something exists, then it is physical. If this approach would remain true, then the should could be everlasting only if the body can. Epiphenomenalism means that if there is something physical, that is the cause of mental events, but there cant be mental

For example, the Argument Socrates’ gave about Affinity. Socrates’ gave the idea that, the soul is of the first kind where as the body is of the second kind. The soul would be immortal and would then survive death. I believe that this can’t be true for the reasons of, you can’t have a soul without a body. So, furthermore the body should be of the first kind and then the soul should be of the second kind. I do believe that the soul is immortal, in the sense that it can live on within the universe but the soul can not truly live on without a body to possess. The only argument of Socrates’ that I do believe to be true is the Argument of Opposites. Socrates’ implied that once we die, we don’t often stay dead infant we come back to life after a period of time. Which this goes hand and hand with the theory of reincarnation. Reincarnation comes from the religion of Buddhism and its the belief that the soul, when the body once dies comes back to earth as another body or form. It’s the rebirth of the soul. For Socrates’ Theory of Recollection, I am half and half. For one, I do agree that when we are born our life is for getting back the knowledge that we already know. The knowledge that we had in our past life if our soul were to exist before we were born. But, I believe what Socrates is explaining is different from what I believe. I believe