Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to UCR - PHI 001 - Class Notes - Week 3
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to UCR - PHI 001 - Class Notes - Week 3

Already have an account? Login here
Reset your password

UCR / Philosophy / Phil 1 / What is the definition of Socrates Daimon?

What is the definition of Socrates Daimon?

What is the definition of Socrates Daimon?


School: University of California Riverside
Department: Philosophy
Course: Introduction to Philosophy
Professor: Mark wrathall
Term: Spring 2016
Tags: philosophy, Socrates, Plato, and Phaedo
Cost: 25
Name: Philosophy notes week three
Description: These notes discuss Socrates argument for why the soul is immortal and his four major arguments in the phaedo
Uploaded: 02/07/2017
6 Pages 205 Views 0 Unlocks

What if the soul dies with the body?

Why is the body an obstacle?

Why should we not fear death?

Philosophy Lecture January 23rd, 2017 Phaedo Part I Socrates Daimon ● Socrates frequently refers to his “daimon” or spiritual sign ● This is a voice that only he can hear ● It warns him whenever he is about to make a mistake. It never offers positive guidance ● Since Meletus admitted that socrates believes in his daimon, socrates can use it to show he isn’t an atheistWe also discuss several other topics like What is a direction field?
We also discuss several other topics like gmcs sdsu
If you want to learn more check out To what extent did this signify a break within the past?
Don't forget about the age old question of csc 220
If you want to learn more check out What is a judicial notice?
We also discuss several other topics like b) What is seepage rate par now?
Why should we not fear death? ● Socrates is condemned to death. The penalty he himself suggested is free meals at the prytaneum ● He ends his speech w/ some reflections on death: I. It is better to sacrifice life for virtue, then to remain alive and be vicious II. To fear death is to pretend to know something that you don’t; that death is a bad thing to be avoided III. His daimon remained silent throughout his trial which means that death must not be evil Philosopher as Social Critic ● In questioning people, socrates is trying to get them to care about living well ● They are too content to have the appearance for knowledge, virtue, or piety ● Socrates is trying to get them to care about the questions in phaedo ● Socrates becomes more of a mouthpiece for plato’s own views (plato was not present) ● Conversation w/ socrates is embedded w/in another conversation, which is between phaedo and echecrates ● His students gather in his cell I. Philosophy is the art of dying “I am afraid that other people do not realize that the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the manner is to practice for dying and death.” II. Immortality of the soul ● Socrates gives 4 arguments for this Practicing the arts ● In the apology, we saw that socrates believed that the gods had ordered him to practice philosophy ● In the opening of phaedo, we get a different picture Socrates has been having dreams having dreams=poetry Suicide ● Socrates tells his pupils they should pass on his farewell to euneus (a sophist teacher)and that euenus should follow him to death as soon as possible (though not commit suicide) Socrates Answer● We belong to the gods and so cannot take our lives into our own hands w/out offending them ● Cebes challenge: but wouldn’t this imply that he should try to stay alive in order to remain in the service of the gods ● Socrates proposes to make a defense of his of his views hoping his defense will be more persuasive than the apology ● The philosopher should rejoice when he dies, b/c he’s been preparing for this moment his whole life ● Death is separation of body and soul ● Philosophy teaches us to devalue the body (value suol higher) ● Plus, the body is an obstacle to philosophical insight ● This is to assume that body and soul are 2 distinct things ● Soul meant something broader than now, the soul is the principle of life ● The body is a prison for the soul ● Death is liberation Why is the body an obstacle? I. The needs of the body are distracting to the pursuit of knowledge Pursuit of knowledge ● Hunger, thirst, etc ● Pleasure, pain, etc ○ The philosopher seeks to lessen the influence of these and that is to get close to death II. The knowledge we get by our bodies is not real knowledge ● Sense perceptions are inaccurate and they don’t give us access to the things we want to know ● So the attainment of knowledge requires the purification of the soul from the body ● This purification is nothing other than preparing for death, because then he will attain this knowledge “Forms” vs. particulars ● What philosopher wants to know is the form of things ● But particulars (beautiful people, virtuous actions) are always imperfect manifestations of these forms. They are less than ideal ● And yet the body only gives us access to these particular things ● So the philosopher strives to rid himself of the body or to lessen its influence, so he can know these ideal “forms” Cebe’s Response What if the soul dies with the body? What good did the purification do us then? ● Socrates must be able to prove that the soul is immortal● If the soul is not immortal then the philosopher has no reason to think that death will allow him to achieve what he’s been striving for his whole life Immortality of the soul ● Socrates then proceeds to give 4 arguments for immortality of the soul Plato is speaking through socrates I. Cyclical Argument In this argument, socrates wants to show that just as the dead come the living, the living come from the dead ● Everything that can change comes from its opposite ● If something gets bigger it must have been smaller before ● b/w these two opposite states are two opposite processes ● If the opposite processes did not balance each other out, everything would eventually be in the same state ● Since being dead and being alive are two opposites states, dying and coming to life must balance each other out ● Therefore, everything that dies must come back to life ● Otherwise everyone would be in the same state What are opposites? ● Opposites that are different in degree ○ Growing and shrinking ○ Heating and cooling ● Opposites that are contraries ○ Falling asleep and waking up ○ Dying and coming back to life ● Is he shifting b/w these two senses of opposites? Is he changing in matters and degree the same as contrary states? ● Why not think that new beings are coming into the world? Old souls die and new souls are born into the world? He needs another argument ● Maybe one reason socrates goes on to give 3 more arguments is b/c none of them are enough to demonstrate immortality of the soul Philosophy Lecture January 25th, 2017 Plato Phaedo Part II Body is prison ● Socrates argues that philosophy is the art of dying ● Philosophers are trying to liberate themselves from the effects of the body ● The body is a burden b/c it prevents us from attaining philosophical insight● What philosophers want to know are the forms and get everything particular is less than ideal Isn’t the body what makes us human? Question: aren’t pleasure and pain what makes us human? Socrates answer: yes but the philosopher strives to be divine, to be as close as possible to the gods The “forms” ● The ideal exists ● It just does not exist in this visible world ● This means there are two worlds ○ World of body ○ The world only available to the soul Immortality of the soul ● Socrates must prove the soul is immortal ● Otherwise, it would not make sense that philosophy is the art of dying I. Cyclical Argument ● Everything that can change comes from its opposite ● b/w two opposites states are two opposite processes II. Argument for recollection ● The soul must’ve existed before it’s born ● We have forgotten this knowledge The argument ● Things in the world one never exactly the same as one another ● This means that these particular things are not to be confused w/ true equality, “the equal itself” ● When we see these deficiencies in equality, it helps us recollect the equal itself ● In order to do this we must have some prior knowledge Question: why think that “the equal” is not in this world? ● One thing appears equal to one, could appear unequal to another ● This is not a point about disagreement-perception Ideal vs. Particular ● Equality in the visible world is always relative ● And yet we have an idea of equality by which we measure the relative equality we see ● So we must’ve learned this ideal before birth, since we use it as a measurement, and yet we don’t see it anymore ● But we have forgotten this ideal Question: why think that we have forgotten the ideal? ● If we didn’t forget it at birth, we would always have access to it● But it is seeing beautiful things that reminds us of the ideal even though the ideal is not visible Question: why not think that the ideal is innate? ● They couldn’t be hardwire in us b/c we can;t use these concepts as soon as we are born Preview: Descartes’ innate ideas ● We could’ve have gotten the idea of perfection from experience so we must have gotten it from a perfect being, who imprinted this idea onto our minds ● This makes our idea of perfection a priori (independent of experience) ● But it does not mean that we would have had to “see” the form of perfection before we were born Problem ● The argument from recollection does not prove that the soul continues after death, only that it must have existed before birth ● Socrates- combine first and second argument III. The Affinity argument ● The soul is a lot like the “forms”, and since the “forms” cannot disintegrate then neither can the soul The Argument ● 2 worlds ○ Visible (body) and invisible (soul) ● If the soul is freed of bodily influenced, it is most likely to make its way back to the invisible world when the body dies ● But if the soul is polluted by bodily influence, it will likely stay bound to the visible world after death Conclusions ● This argument only establishes the likelihood that the soul is immortal ● The argument only establishes the philosopher’s soul is immortal Simmias objection ● Why not compare your soul to harmony of lyre? ● Although the harmony is invisible, it ceases to exist when the lyre is destroyed Cebes objection ● Even if the soul outlines the body, this does not yet prove that it is immortal ● Comparison: man and coat ● A man can die, and his coat will not cease to exist. That doesn’t make the coat (or soul) immortal, it just outlives the man IV. Fourth Argument ● Nothing can become its opposite while still being itself ● This is true not only of opposites, but also of things that can turn opposite The soul is immortal by definition● The soul is defined as “alive” b/c it is which makes the body the body alive ● Therefore the soul cannot become “dead” w/out ceasing to be a soul Problem ● Initially it looks like it contradicts cyclical argument ● Souls can change their qualities w/out ceasing to be themselves ● What cannot change is their soulness, or what makes souls into souls ● Fire cannot become cold and remain fire, though coldness can extinguish it ● Why not think this is true of souls as well? ○ A: deathlessness, which is the essence of “soulness”; is the same as indestructibility

Page Expired
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here