In response to Socrates' assertions that the soul is immortal, Simmias and Cebes raise serious objections to the idea that the soul is immortal or can even survive the death of the body. Simmias presents his objection uses the analogy of the harmony of a lyre [85e-86d], while Cebes using the image of a weaver and a cloak[87c-88c].
Can you explain ONE of these objections? Does Socrates have a valid response -- or can you construct one for him?
One objection to Socrates's argument concerning the immortality of the soul, that the soul is like a harmony produced by a lyre, ultimately persists throughout the discussion without a satisfactory response being provided by Socrates. The argument likens the soul to a harmony and the body to a lyre which produces the soul. Meaning that even though the harmony is more aethereal and divine than the lyre, when the lyre is broken so is the harmony. The argument says that the soul is like the harmony in that way and when the body that produces the soul is decommissioned, so is the soul. Socrates makes a few key responses to these arguments that are largely unsatisfactory when pursuing the nature of the soul. The first is his whole argument that the idea of the lyre is congruent with his previous belief that knowledge is recollection. The issue with the response is that Socrates's argument for knowledge is recollection is built on a false premise: The fact that the knowledge we possess overtime we had possessed in another life. His reasoning for this argument is that humans have instinctual prior knowledge of life, namely the forms. However, modern research and our understanding of evolution seems to disprove this notion. This is because humans, like all other animals, have evolved certain traits through natural selection which made survival more likely. Many of these are cooperative traits which allow for group survival, but many of them are based in knowledge. Bees, for example, build their honeycomb in hexagonal pattern because that trait/knowledge of hexagons allows them to store food as efficiently as possible. The bee did not gain this knowledge from a past life, it gained it through evolution. Meaning that the Lyre argument's incongruency with the recollection argument is a strength and not a deficiency of the argument. The only other response that Socrates makes that is of worth enough to acknowledge is his point of the soul having command over the body. However his point here once again betrays just how dated his sentiments are. Our modern understanding of the brain as controlling decisions through the pre-frontal cortex while simultaneously being part of the body is what fully dismantles this point. With our modern understanding of the brain as the central decision maker in our bodies, it undermines our idea of the soul as our point of reference for identity. This fact only strengthens the argument that the soul is like a harmony. In this allegory, while the rest of the body is the wooden exterior of the lyre, the brain is the strings which project the divine soul/harmony, perhaps metaphorically. This point is yet more strengthened with our gained knowledge of how chemical differences in neurodiversity can shape our identity. Each of our instruments is tuned differently to produce a slightly different harmony in the chorus of souls that is humanity.
ReplyDeleteSimmias's objection, often called the Harmony Argument, challenges Socrates's claim that the soul is immortal by comparing the soul to the harmony of a lyre. A harmony is something invisible, beautiful, and dependent on the physical structure of the instrument. When the lyre is intact and properly tuned, harmony exists, and when smashed or the strings are cut, the harmony disappears. Simmias suggests that the soul might be like this. A finely tuned "attunement" of the body's physical elements, like hot and cold or wet and dry. If so, then when the body dies and falls apart, the soul would vanish as well. Even if the soul seems more divine or refined than the body, it would still depend on the body's organization. Socrates' response to this objection is largely persuasive. First, he argues that the harmony theory contradicts the earlier doctrine of recollection. If the soul were merely a harmony produced by the body, it could not have existed before the body in order to remember the Forms. Yet recollection implies that the soul pre-exists embodiment, which rules out the idea that it is simply a byproduct of bodily arrangement. Also, Socrates points out that a harmony cannot oppose or resist the instrument that produces it. A harmony is always perfectly attuned to the lyre; it cannot be more or less of a harmony in a moral sense. But souls clearly do oppose bodily desires; people can resist hunger, lust, or face their fears, and souls also vary in virtue and vices. This suggests that the soul is not merely a passive effect of bodily structure but an independent agent that can rule the body rather than being generated by it. If we were to strengthen Socrates reply, we might add that Simmias' analogy confuses correlation with causation. While mental states are correlated with bodily states, this does not prove that the soul is nothing more than a bodily arrangement. Modern parallels, such as software running on hardware, show that a system can depend on something tangible without being reducible by it. In this way, Socrates' rejection of the harmony theory remains philosophically compelling: the soul's capacities for reasoning, moral judgement, and self-control point to something more than a fragile harmony that vanishes at death.
ReplyDeleteSimmias states that the harmony of a liar and the soul of a body are akin to one another because they are both intangible, divine, and connected to a sort of mortal body. Simmias goes on to further state that since the harmony of a liar ceases to exist when he strings or frame of a lyre are broken, then “clearly, when our body is relaxed or stretched out without due measure by diseases and other evils, the soul must immediately be destroyed”(86 c). Socrates gives the counter argument that the soul and the harmony of a lyre are not as similar as Simmias would describe as “the liar and the strings and the notes, though still unharmonized, exist; the harmony is composed last of all, and is the first to be destroyed” (92 b,c). Socrates means that since they had previously proven the soul to exist before the body that it is in that way dissimilar to a harmony. The “body” of a harmony defines that harmony contrasting the preexistence of the soul from the body, as it is impossible for something to exist before the parts that create it. A harmony is also different from a soul in that “if it is more and more fully harmonized, [it is] more and more fully a harmony”(93 a,b). whereas no soul is inherently greater than another. The harmonization of a harmony is determined by the tuning of the strings and the skill of the musician, however the “soulness” of a soul is equal for every soul.
ReplyDeleteSimmias' harmony analogy challenges the immortality of the soul by suggesting it is a functional side effect of the body, yet Socrates successfully refutes this by highlighting the soul's ability to self discipline . Simmias argues that the soul is like the harmony produced by a lyre, where the lyre and strings are the physical components, and the harmony is the invisible result of those parts being in the right tune. From a psychological point, this sounds like the idea that consciousness is just an emerging property of the brain, and that once the physical hardware of the brain stops working, the software of the soul must disappear too. Furthermore, Simmias points out that even though harmony is more divine than the wood of the instrument, it is still the first thing to perish when the strings are cut or the body decays. This is a significant objection because it implies that the soul isn't a separate entity that travels to an afterlife, but is just a temporary state of being alive. However, Socrates counters this by pointing out a major flaw in the logic: a harmony can never be in conflict with the instrument that creates it. A song cannot decide to play notes that the strings aren't vibrating, but the human soul frequently opposes the body’s physical desires. We see this in psychology through willpower where a person chooses to ignore hunger or pain to achieve a higher goal. If the soul were just a tuning of the body’s systems, it would be a slave to those systems and could never argue against them. Because the soul acts as a leader that can push back against physical urges, it cannot be a mere byproduct like harmony is to a lyre. Socrates’ response is valid because it identifies that the soul has a commanding nature that a simple result of physical parts could never possess.
ReplyDeleteSimmias challenges the idea that the soul is immortal by comparing it to harmony produced by a lyre. In this analogy, the lyre and its strings represent the body, while harmony represents the soul. Harmony is invisible, ordered, and more refined than the physical being, but it depends on the instrument’s proper function. From this perspective, the soul seems to be a byproduct of the body rather than an independent thing. This resembles the view that consciousness is a property of the brain, meaning that when the brain stops functioning, consciousness disappears as well. Simmias strengthens his argument by pointing out that although harmony may seem more divine than wood or strings, it is still the first thing to vanish when the instrument is damaged. This suggests that the soul, like harmony, would perish when the body dies, making immortality unlikely. Socrates responds by identifying a key flaw in this analogy. A harmony can never oppose the instrument that produces it. It reflects the condition of the strings and cannot exist independently or act against them. The human soul, however, often resists bodily desires. People can choose to ignore hunger, endure pain, or restrain impulses in pursuit of higher goals. This ability to exercise self control shows that the soul does not merely follow the body’s physical states. Because the soul can challenge and direct bodily urges, Socrates argues that it must be more than a passive byproduct like harmony. Instead, it functions as a deciding force within a person. This role supports the idea that the soul has an independent nature, which weakens Simmias’ claim and preserves the possibility of immortality.
ReplyDeleteOne objection to Socrtes claim that the soul is immortal was brought up by Simmias, who uses the harmony of a lyre analogy. Simmias suggest that the soul is like a harmony produced by a musical instrument. He refers to the lyre saying when the pieces are put together, harmony exists. Similarly, the body is made up of different physical elements, when these elements are put together, the soul exists. Although, when the lyre is destroyed, the harmony disappears. Simmias claims that this means when the body dies, the soul might also disappear. Simmias claim says this means that when the body dies, the soul might also cease to exist. Even though harmony is invisible and seems more perfect than the instrument, it still depends entirely on the instrument for its existence. This goes against the idea that the soul can survive the death of the body. Socrates responds by arguing that the soul cannot be like harmony because harmony depends on the physical condition of the instrument, while the soul often opposes the body. For example, the soul can resist bodily desires, such as hunger or pleasure, which suggests it is not simply a byproduct of the body. Socrates also points out that harmony comes in degrees but souls do not seem to work that way, one soul is not more of a soul than another. I think Socrates’ response is strong because it highlights an important difference between harmony and the soul. If the soul can control and oppose the body, it makes sense to think it is something independent rather than something that disappears when the body breaks down.
ReplyDeleteIn the Phaedo, Simmias and Cebes raise valid objections to Socrates's proposal that life exists past death, one of which being the analogy of the cloak and the weaver, proposed by Cebes. When Socrates says that the soul can inhabit many bodies and is immortal, Cebes concedes and agrees with the first part of Socrates' assertion, yet denies the second, comparing the immortality of the soul to that of a weaver. The weaver can make many cloaks, just as the soul can inhabit many bodies, but eventually the weaver will die and as such, won't be able to make any more cloaks, such as the soul will cease to exist and be able to inhabit any more physical bodies. Cebes has a valid point in that he acknowledges that the soul is separate and can exist outside of the body and inhabit multiple bodies over a period of time, but simply being able to exist outside of the body does not make the soul immortal. Socrates' defense is that the soul cannot die, because it's entire purpose and existence is to facilitate life. And because it's purpose is to bring life, it can never die, because without the soul, there would be no life. Effectively, Socrates is arguing that the soul is immortal because it exists outside of our existence and anything that could cause it's death. This is because it is above all else in the same way that god is immortal because he created life, therefore he cannot die, because without him there would be no more life. In my opinion I do not believe that Socrates has a valid response, because even though the soul is the proprietor of life and exists outside of the body, it does not guarantee it's immortality. In my opinion, Socrates disregards the idea that eventually everything will cease to exist, and even if the soul is exempt from this, it will have no more body to inhabit, like if the weaver were immortal but had no more cloth to turn into cloaks.
ReplyDeleteIn the Phaedo, Cebes challenges Socrates' claim that the soul is immortal using the analogy of a cloak and a weaver, prompting Socrates to rebut with his theory of the forms, but Socrates’ argument relies on premises that make unproved assertions, making it invalid. The argument behind Cebes’ cloak and weaver analogy relates the soul to a weaver and the body to a cloak. Cebes acquiesces that the knowledge is recollection argument and the opposites argument prove the soul precedes life and survives death, but asks the question, what if it only survives just as a weaver may make and outlive many cloaks, living past many bodies, but not living eternally. This argument shows how Socrates’ previous arguments fail to demonstrate how the soul is immortal. Socrates responds to this with the theory of the forms. He argues the premise that the soul is related to the form of life, therefore cannot experience the form of death. His final conclusion is that, because the soul cannot experience the form of death, it must be immortal. While this argument may be satisfactory for Cebes, who already agreed with Socrates’ recollection argument that already relied on premises about the forms, Socrates’ argument is reliant on claims about the forms that are just assumed, not proved. As a result of this cyclical logic, Socrates’ final argument is closer to an abstract restatement of his initial arguments rather than a new defensible claim.
ReplyDeleteSimmia says that the harmony of the Lyre is comparable to the body and the soul. A Lyre is a physical instrument just how the body is a physical living thing. On the Lyre, the harmony depends on if the strings are arranged correctly and she compares the harmony of the lyre to the soul. Simmia says that the body is the Lyre and the soul is the harmony meaning that when the lyre is destroyed the harmony would disappear with it. So this means that when the body dies the soul dies with it disproving immortality. Socarates repsonses consist of arumetns that say things like ths oil isnt the same as the harmony, and that harmonys come in different types but souls do not. A strong point he makes is the causation of the soul. He says that the soul causes actions that the body performs and is not just a part of the body. This in turn makes Simmia’s claim about the soul and harmony less convincing. Something weak about his argument is that today, people who think about this argument will be able to connect more to simmia because people might say that the mind is what controls the actions that we do everyday. In conclusion, Simmias objection to Socrates is strong and has evidence and thought behind even making a very strong argument about the Lyre. But socrates raises questions that also contradict what Simmia said but his questions and claims are not strong enough to fully put down her objection.
ReplyDeletein this reading, Simia says that the music which is made when playing a lyre is like the soul in comparison to the body. it only exists as long as the body is there to support it. if the body gets destroyed, like the music of a lyre it will no longer be able to exist without the body. because of this, the theory that the soul is immortal can be argued against because it will wither away if there is no body to support it. Socrates doesn't believe this however, thinking that the soul is the controlling force and the body the music that comes from it. due to this, the two philosophers come to a standstill, each offering reasonable arguments but both with flaws.
ReplyDelete