Analysis of Plato's Argument in His Work Phaedo

Philosophical arguments from the ancient philosophers such as Plato, Socrates, and Cebes among others created a foundation to the present society. Most beliefs on religion are traced from the arguments of Socrates and Plato. Their arguments and discussions evoked different opinions which some they agreed to while other they disagreed. Among the many discussions from the two philosophers are the Crito, the Meno, and the Phaedo. This paper will reconstruct Plato’s argument in the three dialogues and analyze how philosophical systems; metaphysics, ethics, ontology, and epistemology are evidenced in the discussions.

The “Phaedo” is Plato’s eulogy to his teacher Socrates. From their discussion, the two wants to convince individuals that they should care about their souls and the best way achieve this is by living philosophically. Based on his series of arguments; argument from Recollection and its prelude, the affinity for argument, and the final argument, the soul is immortal. Plato based his argument on unchanging forms and material particulars that change.

Many individuals can think of forms as things that are around us such as mountains, trees, and people among others but according to him there is a universal form that exists beyond the space and time. Forms are described as auto kath auto beings, whereby they are beings that are in virtue of themselves. From his argument, forms exist solely on their own while particulates are tied to other types of form. Based on the idea of forms and particulate, the soul is immortal because it is form while our body is mortal because it participates to form.

The arguments of Plato on theory of form are based on an ontological approach. According to his arguments, forms are the perfect entitles or foundations to the material objects across the world1. Besides, forms are the blueprints to world objects and the true composition of things apart from their corporeal composition. On the other hand, delineates the material world to the world we live in through republic. Based on Plato, there is a dichotomy between the world of ideas and the material world. Individuals within the society can only derive the essence of material objects because these objects don’t inherently have essence in them.

Though our senses may give us immediate perceptions of the materials within the proximity of our conscious, we are limited to our senses to the extent that we cannot grasp what these objects have in them. From the allegory of the cave, the primacy of forms and the convention failure set by our senses, individuals cannot get the true knowledge on the essence of things. We cannot see reality because we merely perceive objects as shadows. Our fixed state chains us into a cave to ascend into the outside world.

Knowledge is a critical sphere within society because it helps us understand different concepts. There are different arguments on the concept of knowledge if it is taught or acquired. The Meno had earlier proposed that individuals can never find anything knew because if you already know something, you know it therefore no need of question further. On the other hand, if you don’t know something you cannot search it because you do not know what it is.

According to Plato, knowledge cannot be acquired or taught but it can be learned. Based on epistemology, Plato argues that knowledge is tied to reasoning and not opinions because opinions can escape from the mind without justification. Knowledge is based on three main tenets; truth, justification, and belief. According to him, opinions can be knowledge if they are right or true. Based on these three tenets, it can be affirmed that we need to reason to explain why our idea is correct.

Further from the Meno, Socrates argues that, virtue can be attained through teaching. Plato refutes this statement and argues that virtue cannot be taught. Virtue can be learned through different processes such as reflection, experience, and explanation2. Individuals practices are a reflection of if we are virtuous or not. Socrates argues that virtue can be taught while Plato claims it cannot be taught. Individuals can be preached on how to become virtuous but this can fail to reflect on their way of life. Along individual’s life cycle, they can recycle their understanding on virtue which can reflect of their practices. Virtue is based on ethical evaluation of individuals’ practices. If individuals’ practices don’t have a reflection of virtues, then if they would be taught they would not exercise it.

Justice has always been a critical issue of concern within the society within our daily practices. The frameworks of law define to us what is just or unjust and the punishment to different levels of unjust practices. The Crito a discussion between Socrates and Crito, Crito argues that it is not acceptable to accept unjust punishment while Socrates puts it that if the laws are just and the people unjust and they both give the same decision, then he must obey the law even if it not humanly justified. Socrates thinks of justice as something that is absolute and intrinsic. According to Plato, the laws of the state and society strive to achieve citizen well-being and citizens to achieve social and state goals. Plato personifies law by giving it human-like qualities whereby he suggests that law can be hurt and become angry. It exemplifies as a character that has feelings therefore their need to be ethical considerations when exercising the law.

Conclusion

The arguments from Plato are based on three frameworks; epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. The Meno raise concepts on acquisition of knowledge which is based on epistemology. Besides, it raises concerns on ethical considerations especially on virtues. On the other hand, the Phaedo give insights on metaphysics whereby questioning of elements of nature brings out to an understanding of knowledge.