For this essay I will explain Plato’s Arguments about the immortality of the soul and why
I disagree with his theories. “Argument from Simplicity” is one of Plato’s arguments I will attempt to counter. There is certain weakness that undercut Plato’s argument about the soul’s immortality. I do agree with the thought that the soul is immortal. I do not agree, however, with how Plato debates for the immortality of the soul. In Phaedo, Plato argues for the soul’s immortality and attempts to provide proof and evidence to make the reader believe his statements. Plato is voiced through Socrates where the topic is brought up in his final hours before he is sentenced to death. I will work to provide examples that counter the thoughts and ideas Plato brings to …show more content…
Kagan states these as, “something that cannot be seen, something that cannot be sensed, or something that cannot be detected.”
The way Plato makes his arguments about invisibility makes it easy to disprove. An example that disproves his argument is from Simmias and how harmony can be destroyed. Harmony is something that cannot be seen but can indeed be destroyed. The idea of harmony is similar to invisibility. The term invisible means that it cannot be detected by any of the 5 senses. This definition of invisibility is what I believe Plato uses as his argument. Socrates says, “These latter you could touch and see and perceive with the other senses, but those that always remain the same can be grasped only by the reasoning power of the mind?” (79a). If you take what
Socrates says and relate it to invisibility, Simmias’ counter argues how harmony would not work because you can hear harmony which uses the sense of hearing. The counter-argument I would use are viruses from diseases. A virus cannot be seen or sensed but we feel how they affect us.
Viruses are invisible but can also be destroyed. A virus can be destroyed by other viruses
I disagree with his theories. “Argument from Simplicity” is one of Plato’s arguments I will attempt to counter. There is certain weakness that undercut Plato’s argument about the soul’s immortality. I do agree with the thought that the soul is immortal. I do not agree, however, with how Plato debates for the immortality of the soul. In Phaedo, Plato argues for the soul’s immortality and attempts to provide proof and evidence to make the reader believe his statements. Plato is voiced through Socrates where the topic is brought up in his final hours before he is sentenced to death. I will work to provide examples that counter the thoughts and ideas Plato brings to …show more content…
Kagan states these as, “something that cannot be seen, something that cannot be sensed, or something that cannot be detected.”
The way Plato makes his arguments about invisibility makes it easy to disprove. An example that disproves his argument is from Simmias and how harmony can be destroyed. Harmony is something that cannot be seen but can indeed be destroyed. The idea of harmony is similar to invisibility. The term invisible means that it cannot be detected by any of the 5 senses. This definition of invisibility is what I believe Plato uses as his argument. Socrates says, “These latter you could touch and see and perceive with the other senses, but those that always remain the same can be grasped only by the reasoning power of the mind?” (79a). If you take what
Socrates says and relate it to invisibility, Simmias’ counter argues how harmony would not work because you can hear harmony which uses the sense of hearing. The counter-argument I would use are viruses from diseases. A virus cannot be seen or sensed but we feel how they affect us.
Viruses are invisible but can also be destroyed. A virus can be destroyed by other viruses