Tagin Schultheis
IDST: Intro to Liberal Arts
2 October 2014
Philosophical argumentation in Phaedo
Many arguments are made in Pheado and all of them present different points with
distinctive evidence. Socrates presents multiple arguments for the immortality of the soul.
However, after he explains his theories, people who are present begin to come up with their
own philosophical arguments.
Echecrates encounters Phaedo and begins a conversation with him. He is anxious to
talk to this man because he was present at Socrates death. Phaedo begins to tell what
happened. Many of Socrates’ friends were in his cell, including Crito, Simmas, and Cebes.
Socrates explains how suicide is incorrect and true philosophers look forward to the separation
of the body (84b). Socrates provides multiple arguments to support his claim.
The first argument is from the opposites (70b). Socrates explains how everything comes
to be from out the opposite. He says “as for example the beautiful is presumably opposite to
the ugly, the just to the unjust, and so on in other cases”. He is simply proposing an argument
that states that there is a correlation between life and death.
The second argument is the Theory of Recollection (76e). This theory talks about how
learning is simply a recollection of previous knowledge. When the soul separates from the body
it is able to gain more knowledge. In the process of coming back to life we forget much of our
knowledge and can learn these things again through recollection.
The argument from the analogy is the third argument (84b). Socrates concludes that
there is a separation between material, visible, and perishable versus immaterial, invisible, and
immortal. Socrates explains that the soul is the one part and the body is the other therefore the
soul is immortal because it survives death.
Simmias and Cebes, the Pythagorean philosophers, both come up with their own
arguments. Cebes concludes that the soul is long-lived and is able to live longer than the human
body. However, he argues that this does not provide evidence to say the soul is immortal.
Simmias explains that he believes the soul is like an attunement. The soul can only last as long
as the body exists. It will not last any shorter and will not last any longer. Socrates ends with a
myth (116e-117a). Then drinks the hemlock and proceeds from this life to another.
All of this started because Socrates wanted to prove a point. He wanted to inform people of the
correlation between life and death. His goal is to convince people that they should be looking
forward to death because it is a material separation. Socrates strongly believes in his own
arguments and this is why he tries to convince others to believe in them.
In my opinion I believe that in order for Socrates to succeed he must convince Simmias
and Cebes that his arguments are the true. If he can persuade two Pythagorean philosophers
than he can persuade anyone. Therefore making him look correct, which is exactly what he
wants. Socrates does not want to be wrong, which is another reason why he plays the devil’s
advocate and questions all other arguments. He wants the satisfaction of knowing that not only
he, himself, believes in his arguments but others do as well.
The misology does not have any real answers, which is the problem. It is full of confusion
and dishonesty (88c). Which is easy to understand when studying the soul. All of the arguments
that are presented are conclusive in some type of way. Socrates uses one argument that are
presented are conclusive in some type of way. Socrates uses one argument to prove another
argument to then prove a theory. For example he uses the existence of the forms to prove that
the soul exists before the body. It is a continuous pattern in which no solid evidence is formed,
because all information is based on different theories or arguments. If you have no solid
evidence then no solid answers can be formed.
Socrates is different from the sophists. They both want to persuade people however
there is a part of Socrates that is persuading people to inform them of it. If he teaches them
what persuasion is they will have a better understanding of what he is trying to teach.
Socrates does a better job persuading people versus teaching people how to persuade. He
wants people to believe what he believes. Yet he should be teaching people how to explain
their own arguments in a way that people will agree with them. Like we talked about before in
class, Socrates unknowingly corrupted the youth. All Socrates did was try to persuade them to
stand up for what they believe in along with their own thoughts. This is a prime example of
Socrates practicing what he preached. He is standing up for what he believe to be true and
questioning all other arguments.
Although many different points are made, there is no one right answer. There are
multiple theories and everyone has the right to believe in what they think. Socrates comes up
with his own arguments and bases them on his own theories. Therefore none of the arguments
are based on actual evidence. This then allows everyone to come up with their own arguments
because there is no one argument that is correct. In conclusion there are no arguments or
theory’s that can be proven true if there is no evidence.