Of Good Cheer In The Face Of Death In Plato's Phaedo

Improved Essays
At the beginning of Plato’s Phaedo Socrates tries to explain to his friends why he is “of good cheer in the face of death” (63e). He argues that those who practice philosophy are actually training in preparation for death. It would be absurd for philosophers to be fearful or resentful of death, he argues, since they have wanted and practiced for it a long time (64a–68a). In this paper
I shall present Socrates’ argument for this conclusion and critically evaluate it. The argument appears to commit the fallacy of equivocation. But I think Socrates’ argument can be salvaged by very slightly reformulating it. Nevertheless, the argument tacitly assumes that the soul is immortal and survives the body’s death. Without a defense of this controversial
…show more content…
And presumably Socrates thinks philosophers willingly and cheerfully practice philosophy. If he is right that philosophy is practice at and training for death, then it does seem absurd for philosophers to fear and resent it.
Socrates spends most of his time defending premise (2). Socrates uses three sets of considerations to defend his characterization of philosophy as practice at and training for the separation of the soul from the body: first, philosophers despise the pleasures and goods of the body, like food and drink, sex, fine clothes, and other such things (64d–e); second, philosophers love and pursue the pleasures and goods of the soul, like wisdom and knowledge (66e); and third, the body is no help with, and is even a hindrance to, the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge.
Socrates supports this third consideration by pointing out that the body’s senses often deceive us
(65a–c), and the body’s needs often distract us and prevent us from pursuing knowledge and wisdom (66b–d). He also points out that the body’s senses are no help in grasping things like the
Just itself, the Beautiful itself, and the Good itself (65d–66a), which, presumably, he
…show more content…
The considerations that Socrates offers in defense of his characterization of philosophy appear to introduce an equivocation into his main argument. The equivocal term is “separation.”
In premise (1) the term “separation” refers to the removal of the soul from the body in the sense
3
that the soul exists apart from the body. But Socrates’ defense of premise (2) makes it clear that in that premise the term “separation” refers to the disassociation of the soul from the body in the sense that the soul is not influenced by the body. And these are two different senses of
“separation.” To see the difference, compare what philosophers do with what a group of wouldbe suicides might do. Philosophers practice pursuing the truth by means of reason and argument.
Socrates may be right that this requires the disassociation of the soul from the body’s influence.
Would-be suicides, on the other hand, might practice pursuing death by learning to tie hangman’s nooses, mix deadly poisons, and so on—all for the sake of removing the soul from the body in death. The separation of the soul pursued by philosophers obviously differs from

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    “Crito” and the beginning parts of “Phaedo” portray Socrates as somebody who has entirely “given up” on life. A plan of escape is presented to Socrates in full confidence- to clarify, “confidence” in both connotations meaning the plan was more or less fool-proof too- and still, he refuses. His foundation, in this case, is for altruistic reasons. Escaping would be unjust, he tells Crito, and so would injure his soul. This justification is hard to believe for some readers considering that he argued against the existence of definite definitions of just and unjust and a professional in knowledge of all their features so profusely in “Euthyphro”.…

    • 1318 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In Book I of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and Polemarchus debate the assertion “it is just to give to each what is owed to him,” that Simonides originally theorized. The postulation develops from Cephalus’ prior claim that a just man is one who “speaks the truth and repays his debts” (331d). Socrates undermines Cephalus’ definition of justice by proposing a scenario wherein a madman lends a sword to a friend, and the friend may either return the weapon or keep it from the obviously dangerous individual. Socrates concludes that returning the weapon, which would be the “just” action according to Cephalus because it constitutes honest repayment, is unjust. In his debate with Polemarchus, Socrates once again critiques the proposed relationship between…

    • 1807 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What Socrates means when he says that philosophers should welcome death is he is trying to explain that philosophers spend their whole life training for death and when death comes upon them they should embrace it rather than cowering in fear. Simmias had stated, “those who practice philosophy in the right way are training for dying, and they fear death least of all men.” (Phaedo 67e5-6). Socrates had stated that only a philosopher that is not afraid of death can possess the qualities of self-discipline and bravery. Self-discipline is very important to philosophers because it shows how much inner-strength they have and how they are in control of their mind and body. According to Socrates, you should not be afraid of death because the afterlife…

    • 966 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Plato’s Phaedo presents the final conversation of Socrates preceding his execution by poison, discussing death, the afterlife, and the pursuit of philosophy. In this dialogue, Socrates explains what it means for one to die, and the strong association philosophy has with death, that is, philosophy as the preparation and even the living out of death. Socrates is prepared to die because of his practice of philosophy which causes him to suppress bodily desires, therefore, ready to leave his body behind for the afterlife. He does not have a fear of death, but looks forward to it, because of its effects on the soul. Despite accepting death and even looking forward for its occurrence, Socrates explains why it would not be fitting to commit suicide…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Plato conditions his conclusion and then supplies the condition. While the human body stops and disrupts the soul with needs and desires. In other words, the soul cannot be “killed” by body. “We are agreed that the deathless is indestructible, the soul, besides being deathless, is indestructible,” (Phaedo 144). Plato’s theory of forms argues about the immortality of the human…

    • 1681 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In the Phaedo, Plato provides several arguments in an attempt to prove the immorality of the soul. In this essay, I will focus on his Final Argument, which describes the Forms as causes, subject to destruction or displacement when the particular undergoes some change. Next, I will show how Socrates applies these ideas to argue for the immortality of the soul. Finally, I will present a few reservations I have about the validity of this argument. The Final Argument emerges from Socrates’ response to Cebes’ objection, which questions whether the soul is truly immortal and can exist after death.…

    • 1675 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Phaedo Reflection Essay

    • 1439 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The Crito dialogue discusses the central idea around living and dying based on accordance with the principles, and one should not retaliate evil for evil. The life of wickedness is easy to pursue, but is weighted heavily on the soul after the physical body dies. The Phaedo dialogue is unique and presents Socrates views on the immortality of the soul. The importance is placed on the theory of opposites, recollection and affinity. Through Socrates voice of reason we see the importance placed upon a life of a philosopher, which is stressed and discussed significantly in the dialogue.…

    • 1439 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Socrates continues to explain how he can’t violate the verdict, which in this case is the death penalty therefore, it would be wrong because Socrates couldn’t go against his principles. Socrates states, “ Come then, if we destroy that which becomes better by the healthful and is corrupted by the distasteful, because we don’t obey the opinion of the experts, is life worth living for us when it has been corrupted? Surely this is the body, isn’t it?”(47e) Socrates is explaining how in his mind life is not worth living unless it is lived appropriately in this case being, that the ethical life is more important than life itself. Socrates continues his justification on why he can’t escape prison because by committing this action he would be doing what he considers as the unjust thing because he would’ve been seen as a dishonorable…

    • 1240 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Let the event be as God wills: in obedience to the law I make my defence.” (p. 20). This statement is a clue as to what Socrates personal beliefs are on acting just and with piety. With his words, he shows the court that although he does not agree with the charges, he will act as the law has been written for all of the citizens of Athens. He does not expect special treatment and his acceptance of his fate through “God wills” is that of a pious nature. The “God wills” line is sort of a slap in the face to those accusing him because, for Socrates to put his fate in Gods’ hands, it goes against the very nature of the accusations of his atheist behavior.…

    • 2276 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Republic written by Plato is one of the early works of political philosophy. Using dialogue between students and Socrates, his teacher, Plato attempts to define justice and explain why being just is rewarding. Republic ends with the myth of Er, a story about a man who travels to the afterlife then returns to tell what he saw. The myth of Er fits into the rest of Republic because it supports the assertion that being just is beneficial and that being just or unjust is a choice; however, it appears different than the rest of the book because the myth introduces a different reason why justice is advantageous, and it has a non-dialectical style. These differences support the idea that Plato may have used the myth of Er to persuade those who…

    • 1302 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays