The soul is, on the one hand, something that a human being risks in battle and loses in death. It has been suggested for instance, by Snell19 that what is referred to as soul in either case is in fact thought of as one and the same thing, something that a person can risk and lose and that, after death, endures as a shade in the underworld. The suggestion is plausible, but cannot be verified.
By analogy to his previous arguments, Socrates would have to argue that the harmony of a lyre—which harmony is also invisible, perfect, and divine—could survive the destruction of the instrument. However, the absurdity of this suggests the absurdity of the belief that the soul exists when the body is destroyed.
Cebes adds that while the soul may survive several deaths and reincarnations, it is possible that it finally wears out as does a body that has survived several coats.
However, Socrates warns his friends of the dangers of misology; just as one may become a misanthropist by overconfidence in people, followed by disillusionment, so may one learn to distrust all argument by accepting conclusions hastily and without sufficient attention to logic, only to discover their falsity later.
Harmony or attunement is not prior to the elements organized or tuned, but the soul has been shown to exist prior to the body. Simmias cannot hold, therefore, both that knowledge is recollection and that the soul is harmony.
Furthermore, harmony occurs in degrees; an instrument may be more or less in tune.
However, people do not think that souls are more or less souls either in themselves or relative to others. Again, if the soul were a harmony, it could contain no vice, which is inharmonious, and consequently all souls would be equally good, which of course is absurd.
Finally, if soul were a harmony of bodily elements, it would be dependent on them, but as a matter of fact, the soul, especially the wise one, acts as a governor of the body and hence is sometimes out of harmony with it.
The entire section is 1, words.-soul:body as harmony:instrument -eventually becomes harder and harder for soul to bring body back to life-Socrates should resent death since there is a chance his soul will not enter another body.
Socrates' Reply to Cebes. That Death is the separation of the body and the soul. The Phaedo took place in the morning that Socrates was to die and primarily deals with the immortality of the soul. Phaedo began the story with Echecrates a Pythagorean as he asks Phaedo to tell him what he knows of the death of Socrates.
punished by the gods after its separation from the body. Socrates believed death to be a state where. Socrates begins his defense of this thesis, which takes up the remainder of the present section, by defining death as the separation of body and soul.
This definition goes unchallenged by his interlocutors, as does its dualistic assumption that body and soul are two distinct entities.
Phaedo is Plato’s literary and philosophical monument to the death, and to the life, of his master, Socrates. An excellent way to begin the study of philosophy is with this account of the end of.
The soul of the Phaedo in fact seems to be precisely what in Republic 4 is identified as just one part of the soul, namely reason, whereas the functions of the lower parts, appetite and spirit, are assigned, in the psychological framework of the Phaedo, to the animate body.
And is this anything but the separation of soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation; when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul-that is death?
Exactly: that .