In this paper, I will outline Socrates argument concerning forms which lays a foundation for Cebes’ counterargument.
Beginning in line 78d, we find Socrates in the middle of a discussion with Cebes and Simmias concerning the concept of certain “essences.” Socrates begins to distinguish two forms of essences by asking Cebes, “But how about the many things, for example, men, or horses, or cloaks…are they, in direct opposition to the essences, constantly changing in themselves, unlike each other, and, so to speak, never the same?” (78e) Through this, Socrates outlines the details of what can be considered absolute essences or that which can be perceived with the senses. More specifically, Socrates highlights the most characteristic difference …show more content…
After a wave of propositions Socrates ultimately convinces Cebes that (79e) “the soul is infinitely more like that which is …show more content…
From this, one can imply that any general concept derived from the category of metaphysical essence will inherently outlast a corresponding sensory or visible essence. Characterized by the silence that follows, Cebes finds this proposition to be an “incomplete” and to a greater extent, a feign argument. This argument is built on the notion that that which is metaphysical lasts longer than the physical. This premise is faulty. Consider an idea that is permanently lost and compare it to an animal that has died. While the idea can be lost and never recovered, an animal continues to decay and adheres to the characteristic of constant change. Similarly, a soul that is destroyed cannot be recovered, while the body that dies still remains changing because it decays. Another principle that proves Socrates premise false is Newtons first law of thermodynamics which notes that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed." Given that all matter is made up of energy, it is impossible according to science for a body to be destroyed, whereas the metaphysical like an idea or a soul can be completely destroyed because it is not made of energy. Hence, Socrates' premise is
Beginning in line 78d, we find Socrates in the middle of a discussion with Cebes and Simmias concerning the concept of certain “essences.” Socrates begins to distinguish two forms of essences by asking Cebes, “But how about the many things, for example, men, or horses, or cloaks…are they, in direct opposition to the essences, constantly changing in themselves, unlike each other, and, so to speak, never the same?” (78e) Through this, Socrates outlines the details of what can be considered absolute essences or that which can be perceived with the senses. More specifically, Socrates highlights the most characteristic difference …show more content…
After a wave of propositions Socrates ultimately convinces Cebes that (79e) “the soul is infinitely more like that which is …show more content…
From this, one can imply that any general concept derived from the category of metaphysical essence will inherently outlast a corresponding sensory or visible essence. Characterized by the silence that follows, Cebes finds this proposition to be an “incomplete” and to a greater extent, a feign argument. This argument is built on the notion that that which is metaphysical lasts longer than the physical. This premise is faulty. Consider an idea that is permanently lost and compare it to an animal that has died. While the idea can be lost and never recovered, an animal continues to decay and adheres to the characteristic of constant change. Similarly, a soul that is destroyed cannot be recovered, while the body that dies still remains changing because it decays. Another principle that proves Socrates premise false is Newtons first law of thermodynamics which notes that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed." Given that all matter is made up of energy, it is impossible according to science for a body to be destroyed, whereas the metaphysical like an idea or a soul can be completely destroyed because it is not made of energy. Hence, Socrates' premise is