Phaedo by Plato
This post is part of my journey through the classic texts of Western civilization.
Plato's Phaedo details the final moments of Socrates, culminating in his death by poison. Even in his final seconds, though, Socrates wastes no time, engaging with his friends in a lively discussion on the soul and its immortality.
We see Plato's strong dualism of body and soul in this dialogue, and along the way of discussing the soul, Plato makes sure there are no questions regarding his thoughts on the body and its value/worth. Early on, Socrates remarks on what marks the true philosopher:
"... [the true philosopher] is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body... He would like, as far as he can, to get away from the body and to turn to the soul."
To Plato, the body is "a source of endless trouble," constantly needing food, full of loves and lusts, liable to disease, and ultimately interfering with the soul and its pursuit of truth. Whereas a Christian is certainly inclined to agree with Plato's emphasis on the denial of worldly lusts, Plato goes so far as to seemingly disparage any bodily pleasures at all, characterizing the "rest of the world... [having] the opinion that to him who has no sense of pleasure and no part in bodily pleasure, life is not worth having." We also see an important epistemological point here when Socrates remarks how the bodily senses (e.g. sight and hearing) are "inaccurate witnesses" and can therefore not aid in the pursuit of truth. Rather, the pursuit of truth is by the soul via thought. In other words, Plato seems to completely reject a posteriori knowledge and completely embraces a priori knowledge. One can see why many accusations of Gnosticism have been hurled against Plato throughout history.
Seeing how Plato is no fan of the body, it is no surprise to see Socrates state that there is great reason to rejoice in death, for it is the releasing/separation of the soul from the body. In fact, one who does not fear death is probably a lover of the body and also probably a lover of money and/or power; it is only the true lover of wisdom who will die and depart the body with joy (Socrates can be commended for staying true to his philosophy, as evident by his joyful death at the end). It is here we notice that Socrates relies on one key premise to be true, and that is the premise that the soul remains when the body dies. Socrates' companions as well notice this and bring it up, hence initiating the discussion on the soul's immortality.
The arguments for the immortality of the soul given by Socrates can be summarized as these four:
- Argument from opposites: All things that have opposites are generated out of their opposites. For instance, good is generated from evil and evil from good. Death and life are opposites, hence life is generated from death.
- Argument from recollection: Based on Plato's Theory of Recollection (detailed in Meno), the observation that men know some things without somebody having taught it to them implies that the soul existed before birth with said knowledge.
- Argument from likeness: The body is like the seen and changing; the soul is like the unseen and unchanging. The soul is like the divine and pure. So though the body does die, the soul does not.
- Argument from Form: Based on Plato's Theory of Forms (detailed in Meno). Something is only _____ if it participates in the Form of _____. The soul participates in the Form of life, and in the same way that the number three participates in the Form of oddness and does not admit its opposite (the Form of evenness), the soul does not admit the opposite of life which is death.
Socrates' companions raise up a few objections along the way, and Socrates offers his rebuttals. He ends off with a sort of exhortation on how much one should care for the soul if it be immortal. Soon after, Socrates takes the poison given to him as part of his death penalty, and he breathes his last.
Remarking once more upon Plato's disparaging of the body, one can see why it was the resurrection of Christ that was the aspect of Christianity that most scandalized Platonists. Whether the charge of Gnosticism is accurate or not, it is clear that Plato has an insufficient view of the body. God has given us bodies not to disparage and seek release from, but to enjoy. One day, our own bodies will be resurrected, just like the body of Christ.
Lest I leave on a dissonant note, though, there is great harmony that can be pointed out between Plato and the Christian faith, and it is that part of this dialogue that most intrigues me personally. Plato uses the language of participation, specifically when discussing the argument from Form and how something beautiful participates in the Form of Beauty. This language of participation is used in Scripture, notably in 2 Peter 1:4.
"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
- 2 Peter 1:3-4 (KJV)
Plato's use of "participatory" language helps us understand Peter's use of the language of "partaking." In the same way that something that partakes in the Form of Beauty is beautiful itself though not absolute Beauty itself, we are who in Christ share the qualities of the divine nature, though not actually divine ourselves. We have a new heart and nature; we are no longer primarily defined by our flesh.
Christians should not be afraid to say that the biblical writers took concepts from pagan philosophers that they found true and helpful to describe the realities of God and the Christian vision. Asserting that we should not take anything from Plato in the field of metaphysics because the Bible is sufficient is as silly as saying we should not take anything from Aristotle in the field of logic because the Bible is sufficient. We are free to plunder the gold of the Egyptians.