Plato on Knowledge and Philosophy: (1) The philosopher (or lover of wisdom) should turn away from the distractions and pleasures of the sensuous (or empirical) world, and instead contemplate "the eternal world of forms." Why? The everchanging, sensuous world is not a true or pure source of knowledge. (pp. 7-8) (2) Likewise in death, the soul departs the body and strives to enter into the eternal realm. ____________________________________________________________ (3) So, the philosopher is the one who best prepares for death. Cebes’ reply (p. 4): "If death is such a good, then why should we not just go kill ourselves, and hasten this anticipated separation of soul from body?" Socrates’ Answer (p. 4): (1) We are possessions of the gods (2) They have wise plans for us. (3) We should not interfere with those wise plans. _________________________________________ (4) It would be wrong for us to interfere with those plans by taking our own lives. Convincing?? ut why should we be so confident in the existence of an afterlife? What reasons are there to believe in the existence of an eternal soul? (Cebes, p. 10) 1. Argument from Opposites (p. 10-12) (1) Opposites come from opposites (the shorter from the taller, etc.) (2) Life and death are opposites. ___________________________________________________ (3) Life, then, comes from death (or the living from the dead). ___________________________________________________ (4) So there must be an afterlife. If you aren’t persuaded (should you be?), then here’s another: 2. Argument from Irreversible Processes (p. 12-13) (1) If one does not come back from the dead, then death would be an irreversible process. (2) If death were irreversible, then there’d come a time at which everyone is dead. (analogy with sleep) ___________________________________________________ (3) So if one does not come back from the dead, then there’d come some time at which everyone is dead. (4) But it’s unreasonable to suppose there’d come a time at which everyone is dead. ___________________________________________________ (5) So it’s reasonable to conclude that one comes back from the dead. Convinced yet? Try this one. 3. Argument from Recollection (p. 13-17) (a) We can make judgements involving pure forms (or qualities). (b) To make such judgements, we must have had acquaintance with those pure qualities(we must have grasped their ideas). ___________________________________________________ (1) So we must have had acquaintance with those pure qualities. (2) Such an acquaintance must have occurred either before or after birth. (3) But we couldn’t have gained such an acquaintance through sensuous experience after birth. [Why? A pure quality doesn’t exist in the sensuous realm. (Nothing in the sensuous world perfectly or purely exemplifies any quality. Everything is a mixture of many qualities.)] ___________________________________________________ (4) So our acquaintance with pure qualities must have occurred before birth. ___________________________________________________ (5) Thus our souls (the knowing part of us) must be capable of existing while we are not alive. Are you persuaded yet? Does this get us what we want? Think of Simmias’ reply (bottom of p. 17): The Doctrine of recollection might show that the soul existed before birth. We might even accept that it is relatively durable. But why suppose that it must continue after one’s death? 4. Argument from Intangibility (p. 18-20) (1) Our souls are intangible (or invisible)and our bodies tangible (visible). (2) The intangible is much harder to change than the tangible. _________________________________________________ (3) Our souls, therefore, are much more eternal than our bodies. Is this any more persuasive than the rest? What are some reasonable replies? Simmias (p. 24) : A harmony is an invisible effect of a well-tuned instrument. But although invisible, it is certainly not indestructible, and depends chiefly upon the organization of the instrument. What if the soul is like that, and similarly depends upon the good condition of one’s body? [What is Simmias’ strategy? And how does Socrates reply?] Cebes’ Response (The Analogy of the Weaver and the Coat, p. 25): What’s going on here? 5. Argument from the inadmissibility of opposites (p. 38-39). (1) The soul is that part of us that makes us living (our animating force). (2) That part of us which makes us living will not admit of death. It "retreats" in the face of death. ______________________________________________________ (3) There’s something in us (our soul) that does not admit of death. Comforted, finally?? Think of Crito’s question at the end (p. 44). What is Socrates assuming about the connection between the soul and personal identity?