Facing his execution with some of his closest friends (as described in the Phaedo), Socrates dismisses an gloomy predictions about his death: death is a good thing and something that he is confident he will outlast. What is the basis of this confidence? Socrates develops three arguments for the immortality of the soul. If just ONE of these arguments is sound, he will have demonstrated that we all have a reason to cheer for the Grim Reaper. But is he correct?
Examine ONE of Socrates' arguments in the Phaedo, briefly describing its main points. What is one problem or objection to that argument? Is there any way Socrates can address, avoid or otherwise get around that objection?
One of Socrates' arguments that the soul is immortal, is based upon his argument that the soul is an invisible form, therefore it is simple, unchanging, and immortal. Socrates points out that there are two different spectra of existence. There is first the visible things that are composite that you can touch. Then there are the invisible things that transcend beyond our vision, however, we are still aware of their existence, like our emotions, and for Socrates, his soul. In order to prove this ladder, Socrates starts his argument by reasoning that the soul is simple, that it is something not made up of a number of parts. In order to create a soul, you don't need different pieces. Unlike a machine or even a human being, which needs an assembly of parts to be considered a certain thing, the soul is simple. It cannot lose a part and lose its title of a soul, it simply is a soul. He then goes to argue that because it does not have parts, it cannot decay. If a soul cannot decay or break down over time, that means it is unchanging. This means our souls are immortal because the invisible are two things, unchanging, and non composite. However, if any piece of Socrates' argument is based upon arguments which cannot actually be proven because they are all so non physical. If a single one were to be proven untrue, Socrates' whole idea of the immortality of the soul would be lost. Socrates only makes the assumption that invisible things have this “immortal”, but there is a likely hood that that isn't true. Let's say that something simple and invisible, like our consciousness, could decay. Due to certain illnesses like Alzheimer's, a person's consciousness can decay, and eventually even be lost all together. If something simple can decay or die, that means that the exact same thing could happen to the soul. Immortality cannot be defined by something being invisible. There are other things that are invisible that would not be considered immortal. Emotions are not something you can see or touch, but you know they exist. Emotions can come and go, and can even be permanently lost. If this is true, this also disqualifies Socrates' argument that if something is invisible, simple, and non composite can change, we really have no idea what the parameters are for change or decay. If we cannot actually prove what will make something die, we cannot argue that the soul is immortal by Socrates' argument of the forms.
ReplyDelete