Socrates and Philosophical Courage in Death
Among the most well-known scholarly discussions on death is that of “Phaedo,” in which the philosopher Plato recounts the final moments in the life of Socrates and many of his philosophical beliefs regarding death. Among these credences is the connection between philosophy and mortality (Green 1:17-1:23). This is a relationship which continues to be explored to this day, but Socrates’ unique contribution to this question continues to have a lasting impact on such conversations. In order to thoroughly comprehend the relationship which Socrates proposes, one must first examine each of his central arguments surrounding the occurrence of death, as well as the introductory portion of his historical piece.
“Phaedo” begins in Phlius, Greece, where a group of individuals with connections to Socrates ask a man named Phaedo about what was said and done in Socrates’ last earthly moments. Phaedo describes how Socrates was visited by a group of his friends and associates, including his wife. Socrates asks that his wife be escorted from the premises, due to the grief she exhibits in considering her husband’s eventual demise (Plato 2). It is at this point that Scorates begins to describe how his recent dreams have led him to create music, explaining why he wrote a hymn and authored a series of poetry with inspiration from Aesop (Plato 2).
Understanding that he will soon die, Socrates expresses that Cebes should relay the message of his passing, and would encourage the wise man to follow him on this journey. Nevertheless, he states " ‘... he, who has the spirit of philosophy, will be willing to die; but he will not take his own life’ ” (Plato 3). In order to illustrate his point, Socrates notes that humans have no true ownership of themselves as they are property of the gods. While death is the preferred home of the soul, and considering that a philosopher wishes to free him or herself from the implications of the body as much as possible as to obtain truth, the body is also property of the gods. Thus, suicide is a measure which should not be undertaken by the philosopher in his or her search for truth (Plato 4).
Socrates finishes this portion of his discussion with a reference to how the realities of the body often interfere with the perception of truth. Bodily desires such as hunger, thirst and various passions prevent one from coming close to true knowledge (Plato 5). With the presence of death, this is no longer the case, and the philosopher is able to arrive more closely to the truth. According to Socrates, death is a state in which wiser gods and individuals dwell. As the universe that was created by such beings is good in nature, that of death will likely also be positive (Plato 5). Therefore, given that philosophers are well-accustomed to death, the experience should not come as a frightening one.
Socrates further rationalizes his courage in the face of death through conversation with a man named Cebes, who is concerned with the possibility that the soul will vanish upon death. It is during this section of “Phaedo” that Socrates introduces his concept of death cylindrically. He points out that, if the soul disappears after death, then it would be difficult for any existing human to have been born in the first place (Plato 4). Just as someone wakes from sleep, or an object goes from hot to cold, conditions are spawned from their opposite state. With life comes death, but it is very likely that with death comes life also. Death would have to proceed new life in every instance.
Socrates’ second defense of his certainty on one’s post-death experiences is demonstrated through his theory of recollection. This draws influence from some of his previous statements on memory, describing that someone who learns is only truly remembering information collected in the past (Plato 4). If this is the case, then the soul must have collected its information from experiences in a prior life. Without past events being remembered, one would be unable to learn throughout the life which he or she currently leads. From here, Socrates continues his conversation with Cebes, which leads to a reflection of his affinity argument.
In his affinity argument, Socrates explains his belief that the human body is representative of what it means to be mortal and visible. On the contrary, the soul is both invisible and, resultantly, representative of immortality. The human who lives a virtuous life while on Earth will, in turn, be able to exist as a soul in the underworld. Those who do not live a virtuous earthly life and are beholden to the desires and passions of the body are brought back to bodily life and eventually punished in the underworld (Plato 5). Socrates’ fourth major statement on the reality of death pertains to his argument of life’s form. As life is considered a form, as is absolute beauty, then anything which is animated by life participates in its form. A form, Socrates notes, will not become its opposite. The soul, which is living, will never inherently revert to death (Plato 6). This is the final argument that Socrates uses in his efforts to convince his associates of why death should not be feared by the philosopher.
In relation to Socrates’ beliefs on the relation between philosophy and death, I agree with most of this argument in theory. As it is true that human desires and bodily requirements often affect behavior and manners in which events are perceived, it is sensical that these bodily motivations would make it more difficult for one to view the truth surrounding reality and knowledge itself. Nonetheless, I do find Socrates’ second argument slightly self-contradicting in that he maintains that learning is simply remembering what occurred in a previous life. A significant question that comes to mind would pertain to how long this process of learning from past memories has occurred. Surely, when the first soul was newly-created, it did not have any prior knowledge of previous lives. Nevertheless, the person whom it inhabited was able to learn skills necessary for self-preservation and survival, or else humanity would be unsuccessful. This would signify that past lives are not needed for learning purposes, and shines a light on the potential that the souls of today did not exist in the past. If this is so, it makes it all the more possible, philosophically, that souls disappear upon death. With this being the case, there would not be the possibility for one to come closer to truth after death. Without an existing soul, it would be impossible for one’s search for knowledge to continue any further.
(Here are some videos that relate to Socrates’ views of death and philosophy’s connections to it):
Green, Hank. Plato and Aristotle: Crash Course History of Science #3 ... 2018, www.youtube.com/watch v=rh0fxJkvL44.
Plato. “The Internet Classics Archive: Phaedo by Plato.” The Internet Classics Archive | Phaedo by Plato,
Hi Drew,
ReplyDeleteThis was an excellent blog post. When you pointed out that "Bodily desires such as hunger, thirst and various passions prevent one from coming close to true knowledge (Plato 5). With the presence of death, this is no longer the case..." I immediately thought of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, and how according to this text, death would enable you to focus on the highest tier: "self-actualization." The idea that you no longer need to satisfy your basic needs and can focus on the "higher" ones of wisdom and truth is troubling to me, however. Does this not require cognition and consciousness? There have been many studies with EEG waves that demonstrate that this all terminates at death, and without concrete proof of the presence of a soul, as you pointed out, does his argument hold?