In the Phaedo when Socrates is faced with an imminent execution he is cheerful and confident that he has nothing to worry about. He believes that death is not a problem at all because the soul is immortal. But should have a reason to worry? In this post let's not consider the arguments for the immortality of the soul but rather the connection between the soul, personal identity and surviving death.
What theory of personal identity is he basing his confidence on? Putting aside the stronger claim that the soul is immortal, does he have any good reason to think he can (it is possible to) survive death on this theory?
In the Phaedo, Socrates’ theory of personal identity as a purely intellectual soul fails to ensure his survival after death because it divorces the self from the embodied experiences, memories, and social contexts that constitute human identity.
ReplyDeleteSocrates defines the “true self” exclusively as the rational intellect, viewing the body to only be a hindrance to be discarded. Throughout the Phaedo, Socrates dismisses the physical pleasures and sensations of life, and continues to portray the body as a hindrance, as he calls the body “a prison” for the soul [82e]. Philosophy is practice for dying [67e], so death is considered to be not something to be dreaded, and instead a release from a prison. He suggests the body plays an insignificant role in the “self”, and that the reasoning is only what can be considered one’s “self”. However, it ignores a key aspect of the self: reasoning can be shaped by physical perspective. Without physical sensation and context, it only is a generic thing that thinks. This portrays self to be a more generic category rather than an individual, and it loses sight of the events in one’s life that make oneself. Through Socrates’ argument, it seems that death means that there is only something to gain through death, but, after death, the physical self is destroyed, leaving only the reasoning. This is not enough to be the full self, as the self is shaped by more than just reasoning.
If the transition to the afterlife is a cleanse, then it wipes away all of the personality that is Socrates. Socrates uses irony and humor in his words, and is even dismissive of his treatment of his wife, Xanthippe, before his death [60a]. These aspects of Socrates are part of himself, of his reasoning. One’s self is defined by their history and relationships. This means if the soul is pure, then it lacks the humor or quirks that made Socrates himself. Therefore, when the soul is cleansed through death, that is an effective death of the soul. Due to the loss of the “baggage” of life, it means that his personality is lost.
Even if Socrates proves that that soul is indestructible, he still fails to prove that “he” will be the one that enjoys immortality. He attempts to prove that a life force survives, but this doesn’t mean that the person is what survives. This is similar to a flame moving between candles: the energy remains, but the candle is consumed. The soul becomes a traveller that has no home. It outlasts its luggage, but loses itself. He has falsely based confidence that believes that he will survive. Even if he can prove the soul survives, Socrates himself (in full) will not.