Cyclical Argument Essay
Ancient Philosophy
11/19/12
Can one be immortal? Is it possible to be dead before one is alive? What does
immortality really mean? These are questions that some people do not think about or
discuss on a daily basis. There is much to be learned about one’s immorality. Socrates
once said, “Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings, so that you
shall gain easily what others have labored hard for”. Thinking about one’s immorality
means to dive deep in literature and examine different philosophers’ thoughts and
theories on the subject. The philosopher named Plato in the book the Phaedo asked
questions such as these many years ago. In the Phaedo, Socrates looked at whether or
not one can be alive when that one is dead has asked questions such as these numerous
years ago. This argument is called Plato’s Cyclical Argument. The essay written by
David Gallop comes to different conclusions about why the Cyclical Argument is and is
not limited in terms of immorality. In this essay, Gallop’s similarities and differences
that the Cyclical Argument posses will be defined and discussed.
The Cyclical Argument is called cyclical because one goes from being alive to
dead, dead to alive and the soul must cycle through this (Class Notes 9/17/12). The
Cyclical Argument runs as follows:
(1) If x comes to be F, and F has an opposite, con-F, then x comes to be F from con-F.
(2) The opposite of being alive, is being dead
[1,2] (3) If x comes to be alive then x comes to be alive from being dead.
(4) If x comes to F at some time (t) from con-F, then x exists at some time prior to t.
[3,4] (5) Those who are alive nevertheless exist before they are dead. People alive exist
while being dead. (Plato, 107-108).
This argument is not the easiest to interpret, but once it is examined premise by
premise, the argument can be easily followed. If one wished to challenge a premise as to
why this argument is not sound, one may choose premise one or two. Both of these
premises either contradictions or contraries. Contradictions are something like hot and
not hot or everything is either black or not black. Contradictions do not admit of a
continuum. It is valid to say that every object has either one or the other. Contraries are
opposites that have opposing ends of a continuum; for example the temperatures hot and
cold. There are more temperatures other than just those two. Water can be warm, luke
warm, room temperature, chilly, or freezing.
If premise one would to be false, it would
be because premise one is a contrary and then premise two would be true. If premise one
was true and premise two was false, then premise two would be a contradiction. One
cannot say everything is alive or dead. Being alive as an opposite or not being alive. It is
similar for being dead as well. Being dead has an opposite of not being dead (Class
Notes, 9/17/12). The Cyclical Argument is one of interest because in order to be alive,
one must be dead first, but in order to be dead, one must be alive first, hence the question
how can one be alive while being dead? This argument is similar to the chicken and egg
argument. Which one came first, the chicken or the egg? One can debate both sides on
end, but is there an exact right answer for it? Gallop analyzes and strives to find an
answer that will fit this problem.
In the piece that David Gallop writes, he is reviewing Jonathan Barnes’ critique
on the Phaedo’s Cyclical Argument and disagrees with what Barnes’ discusses about the
immortality and the soul. Barnes argues that the Cyclical Argument was not meant to
prove immorality, but the soul only has a finite duration (Gallop, 207). The soul is only
supposed to last so long before it goes out of existence. Gallops states that the Cyclical
Argument goes back to an even early argument found by D. O’Brien that distinguishes
between partial and full immorality and that the body and soul can only survive for a
finite number of times before they go out of existence (Gallop, 207). It is also stated that,
“Only a proof of the soul’s imperishability would secure the full immortality that Cebes
demands” (Gallop, 207). In the Greek language, immortal means immunity from death
(Gallop, 208). In the Cyclical Argument, Plato is referring to immortal as “practically
immortal” which means that the soul and body last almost forever, but not fully to the
end of time (Gallop 208). Some may argue that, “Immortal, ‘being everlasting’ must be
imperishable. In none of these places does ‘being everlasting’ mean possessing merely
‘partial’ immortality or the capacity for temporary survival” (Gallop, 208). Barnes
argues that the Cyclical Argument cannot mean total immortality due to the mere fact that
it refers to something being partially immortal and to be alive while being dead requires
full immortality. Gallop disagrees with this because Plato does not discuss anywhere else
that the soul can be “partially” immortal.
Gallop states that the Cyclical Argument tries to prove that the soul is not and
cannot be limited, by saying the ‘soul exists when their owners do not’. Gallop considers
this argument to not stand completely on its own because in the Phaedo, Cebes then
introduces the Recollection Argument right after the Cyclical Argument. The
Recollection Argument, which also states that the soul is in some essence immortal
(Gallop, 208). In lines 73a2, Cebes says, “in this way too, it appears that the soul is
something immortal” (Gallop, 208). The words, “in this way too” try to show that the
soul is somewhat immortal, but it could possibly only mean “partially” immortality. By
saying the soul is “partially immortal”, this limits the soul’s possibility of being fully
immortal (Gallop, 208). This might not be the most likely interpretation of the soul’s
immortality especially because there isn’t any other place that Plato suggests that, but
nonetheless, it’s still a possibility.
Barnes gives three different examples for the Cyclical Argument. The three
examples are (A) our souls exist in Hades after our deaths, and have power and wisdom
(70b2-4) (B) our souls exist in Hades after our deaths’ (70c4-5) and (C) our souls exist in
Hades’ (71e2) (Gallops 209). Barnes’ arguments follow from one another. Gallop and
others disagree with these statements. Gallop states that B and C are too similar and are
hard to separate (Gallop, 209). It seems that if (B) if our souls exist in Hades after death
and then to say (C) our souls exist in Hades that these two premises would be easier to
combine the two and just say our souls exist in Hades. Saying (B) and then (C), seems to
be redundant, but Barnes’ reason for this is that (B) is an elliptical from (A) and
henceforth do not need to go off of the Recollection Argument (Gallop, 209). Although
one would not have to use the Recollection Argument to give reason for the premises
Gallop states, “For Plato nowhere hints that the power and wisdom of souls in Hades
requires a proof distinct from the proof that souls exist in Hades: nor should he have
done; for how could there exist a soul which had no power or wisdom? (Gallop, 209).
Barnes also states that (B) and (C) are restricted within the cyclical argument. “The
Cyclical Argument, we might say, concerns itself exclusively with prenatal death and
existence; and from that nothing follows about post mortem death and existence”
(Gallop, 209-210). In essence, the Cyclical Argument does not prove (B), but Barnes
believes that Plato wanted to prove (B) (Gallop, 210). Barnes states that the confusion of
(B) and (C) is the weak part in the argument. Since (B) and (C) have not been fully
proven, than (A) cannot be proven either (Gallop 210). This makes the argument
unsound. Gallop believes that Barnes’ logic is just an unbalance of work between the
Cyclical Argument and the Recollection Argument (Gallop, 210). Gallop also believes,
“It seems perverse to insist upon a distinction between (B) and (C), when the only
difference is the omission in (C) of the words ‘after our deaths’ or ‘when we have died’,
and yet to view (B) as elliptical for (A), when the former lacks the very significant words
‘and have power and wisdom’” (Gallop, 210). Gallop distinguishes the mere fact that if
one where to rearrange the words to say, “Our souls exist in Hades’ as elliptical for ‘our
souls exist in Hades after our deaths’ than to take this latter sentence as elliptical for the
whole of (A)?” (Gallop, 210) This seems to make more sense than the way Barnes’
describes it.
Gallop examines Barnes’ question of how a soul can exist without power or
wisdom. Gallop elaborates that a soul could not exist without power nor wisdom. Gallop
goes on to state that while a soul cannot exist without power nor wisdom, in the Phaedo
that some souls don’t have wisdom or don’t have power, but yet still exist in life and in
death (Gallop, 211). In the Phaedo, there could be a few instances where the soul both
has power and wisdom (Gallop, 211). Gallop gives an example of having souls of Hades
not recognizing Odysseus when he came down to the Underworld because they did not
have any wisdom or power to identify who he was (Gallop, 211). Souls in Hades are so
far removed from power and wisdom that they would not have the skill to recognize
individuals.
The Cyclical Argument has many opposites in the premises. According to
Barnes, the Cyclical Argument depends on two principles. The first is the Principle of
Opposites and the Principle of Existence (Gallop, 211). The Principle of Opposites says
that (i) If F and G are opposite properties, then any object that acquires the property F at a
time t possesses the property G during a period immediately prior to t and (ii) conversely
(Gallop, 212). With this principle, one of the problems that strike both Gallop and
Barnes is that the principle does not meet all of Plato’s examples (Gallop, 212). This is
even seen in the first opposites of the Phaedo of beautiful and ugly and unjust and just
(70e3) (Gallop, 212). Both are concerned with whether or not alive and dead are actual
opposites. Being alive does have an opposite of not being alive and being dead has an
opposite of not being dead. These are more concrete that having dead and alive be each
other’s opposites. How Plato words “those who are dead” to “those who have died have
two different meanings.
Plato in the book the Phaedo asked questions such as these many years ago. In
the Phaedo, Socrates looked at whether or not one can be alive when that one is dead has
asked questions such as these numerous years ago. This argument is called Plato’s
Cyclical Argument. Two essays written by David Gallop and Michael Pakaluk have
come to similar but yet different conclusions about why the Cyclical Argument is limited
in terms of immorality. In this essay, Gallop and Pakaluk’s similarities and differences
that the Cyclical Argument posses will be defined and discussed.