The Phaedo is undoubtedly one of the most philosophically dense conversations of Plato’s middle period. It comprises discussions on four arguments regarding the soul’s immortality, the theory of forms and powerful arguments favouring the philosophy of life. The Phaedo is in constant dialogue with pre-Socrates theories, particularly the theories of Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus. In this writing, I contend that the four arguments put forward by Socrates regarding the immortality of the soul don’t give a conclusive proof. However, the arguments appear to be an attempt by Socrates to give the most relevant explanation (Palmer, 2021). A closer look into the arguments reveals that the best explanation given by Socrates depends on the consequences of ambiguities and informal fallacies, eventually leading to inconsistencies in the comprehensive argument.
In his first argument, Plato uses Socrates to posit that things come from their antitheses. Contrasting between awake and asleep, an individual transitions from wakefulness to sleep and vice versa. It is a phenomenon with two different processes. Plato’s second argument in relation to Socrates appears to have a circular form, creating confusion. He argues that a soul has to exist in the afterlife to give life to a body in its state of death and eventually revive the body into a state of life since what gives life into a dead body and enables its revival is the soul that still exists after death (Miura, 2019).
Socrates’ third argument on the immortality of the soul exhibits a wide range of inconsistencies that eventually cast doubt on its overall validity and coherence. In this argument, Plato presents the idea that the soul cannot be in harmony with the body since that would suggest that the soul has basic parts. Referential and lexical ambiguities about the term harmony is a constant theme in the arguments. The opponent may argue that between death and the soul, one exists as a component of the other, and the soul cannot, therefore, experience death (Palmer, 2021). In an objection, the audience defends Socrates’ view as if he was in court and suggests that the argument will be more likely perceived by an individual’s senses. An objection is, however, raised regarding committing a fallacy of composition.
In his fourth and final argument regarding the immortality of the soul, Plato gives Socrates a contention that the soul cannot be annihilated at death since it resists its demise. Socrates argument is based on his theory of forms: the existence of any given entity “f” alongside “F”, which is an abstract concept, depends on “f” partaking in the essence of “F”. Socrates uses this to develop an analogy elucidating that everything exists by inheriting the attributes in the underlying reality where it is derived (Palmer, 2021). In the argument, Socrates suggests that the soul can never transition into death despite being able to partake in it.
In conclusion, Plato agrees that the soul is immortal and separate from the body and believes that the soul does not come into existence with the body but instead exists prior to the existence of the body. Equivocation in the arguments results in inconsistency, making it more ambiguous. The theory of forms takes metaphysical hypotheses exploring moral and rational order. The theory portrays the philosopher as indifferent to the body’s pleasures.
References
Palmer, J. (2021). The Method of Hypothesis and the Nature of Soul in Plato’s Phaedo. Cambridge University Press.
Miura, T. (2019, January). Immortality and imperishability of the soul in the final argument of Plato’s Phaedo. In Plato’s Phaedo (pp. 193–198). Academia-Verlag.
write