In response to Socrates' assertions that the soul is immortal, Simmias and Cebes raise serious objections to the idea that the soul is immortal or can even survive the death of the body. Simmias presents his objection uses the analogy of the harmony of a lyre [85e-86d], while Cebes using the image of a weaver and a cloak[87c-88c].
Can you explain ONE of these objections? Does Socrates have a valid response -- or can you construct one for him?
Simmias raises the objection to Socrates' assertions that the soul is immortal, by using an analogy of the harmony of a lyre and how without the lyre, the harmony would disappear. He states that the lyre is like the human body and soul in the way that the visible part of the human body is the body itself and the visible part of the lyre is the instrument itself. Therefore, the invisible part of the human body is the soul, according to Socrates, and the invisible part of the lyre would be the harmony it creates. Yet Socrates states that the invisible part of the body, the soul, is immortal and can exist without the body, yet Simmias challenges this statement by saying that the harmony created by the strings of the lyre disappear when the lyre is broken and is no longer able to create the sound. I think that Socrates can make the objection that with a lyre, even though it has both invisible and visible parts, the reason why the lyre isn't exactly a good analogy to the human body is that the soul isn't created by the body, or at least Socrates doesn't state that the soul is created by the body. With the lyre, the lyre can also create multiple harmonies at different points in time whenever it is played, yet with the human body, a new soul isn’t created whenever the body does something. Therefore, the harmony being created by the lyre shouldn't be compared to the human body just because it has both a visible and invisible parts as the visible and invisible parts have a completely different relationship to each other.
ReplyDeleteOne objection that Simmias makes in response to Socrates’ assertion that the soul is immortal is that the soul cannot be without the body. He argues that in order for the soul to exist it needs to have a host or vessel to carry it. When that host or vessel is destroyed or dies, the soul cannot continue to exist. Simmias uses the metaphor of an instrument and its harmony to argue his point to Socrates. In Simmias’ metaphor, the instrument acts as the body. The two are tangible objects that carry intangible things. The intangible thing that the body carries is the soul. The intangible thing that an instrument carries is a harmony. After establishing this idea, Simmias poses the question “if someone breaks the lyre, cuts or breaks the strings and then insists, using the same argument as you, that the harmony must still exist and is not destroyed…[you] would say that the harmony itself must still exist” (36). Simmias is asking Socrates to now think about this idea in terms of the body and the soul. If the body is destroyed as the instrument was, then how can the soul continue on if the harmony of a lyre does not. The most valid response to this argument could be that the soul is not comparable to an instrument. One could say the soul is more nuanced and intricate, and it is unfair to compare it to such a simple object. Unfortunately, due to Socrates’ loose definition of what a soul is, it is difficult to say whether Simmias’ metaphor is accurate.
ReplyDeleteSimmias says that the soul and the body is like the harmony and the lyre. The lyre is the body and the harmony of the soul. Both the soul and the harmony are invisible, and the body and the lyre are both physical. If the body is held by desire then the soul becomes tainted by the physical world, but if the body remains free from desire then the soul is more pure. This is similar to the harmony and lyre because if the lyre is maintained well then the harmony is beautiful, but if the lyre is not maintained then the harmony is bad. Without the lyre, the harmony cannot exist so that means without the body the soul cannot exist, thus the soul is not immortal.
ReplyDeleteSocrates’s response is that since Simmias believes in the Theory of Recollection then his analogy does not make sense. In the theory of recollection the soul must come before the body because we are able to recollect the forms which is impossible to do in our physical bodies. A harmony cannot exist before a lyre so the soul cannot exist before the body. I think that Socrates has a valid response, but I would add another thing. Even though the harmony of the lyre stops actively playing once the lyre is gone, the idea of the harmony still exists. If heard, we could all still imagine the harmony and be able to replicate it. Its like how the soul is invisible and can exist as a form even if its vessel to the material world-the body-is gone.
Simmas’ objection to Socrates’ assertion that the soul is immortal uses the image of a lyre and a melody, saying that if the lyre is destroyed, the melody no longer exists. Simmas compares the lyre and strings to the body and other things that are mortal, and the melody to the soul, as things that are divine and immortal. If the lyre is to be destroyed and the strings are cut, using the same argument as Socrates, the harmony has to still exist as the soul would still exist after the body's death. Simmas uses this image to object Socrates' argument by stating that if the melody is destroyed when the lyre is, if the body and soul are alike to the lyre and melody, then the soul must be destroyed when the body is, therefore the soul is not immortal. Socrates' response to this argument is saying that Simmas contradicts himself due to his belief in the theory of recollection. The theory states that the mind has knowledge of the forms which is impossible to obtain with the body so the soul must have recollected it from the past, before it was tied to the body. This argument contradicts the image of the lyre and harmony because the harmony cannot exist if the lyre was never created, so simmas contradicts his beliefs with the image of the lyre. I think that Socrates could argue that everyone still has the memory of the harmony, so the harmony has not perished. This same concept could be put onto the idea of immortality of souls. If people still remember you after you die, and that knowledge gets passed through generations, then in some form you are still immortal. Even if what Socrates believes about the afterlife isn't true.
ReplyDeleteCebes uses the analogy of the weaver to suggest that the soul may no be immortal but last a really long time. See this accepts the notion that the soul is an independent part of the individual, and a long-lasting part at that. He rightly points out that something long lasting does not have to be perishable. The weaver will, most likely create cloaks that outlast him, but the man is obviously of higher divine value. He states this applies to the soul in that it might wear out multiple bodies. It raises the crucial issue at the same body may not alter a man’s lifetime since parts are constantly expanded and replaced, so that the more enduring soul can last longer without lasting beyond death. Both immortality and longevity can be attributed to soul that doesn’t change, but the soul’s role in destruction demines the value of the body. Cebes argues that the soul, given that it may be programmed to kill and replace parts of the body, is like a disease. To this, Socrates doesn’t really have a response and goes on to discuss intelligence as a governing object.
ReplyDeleteIt could’ve been argued that the soul must be immortal because there would be no other way for it to acquire the properties bestowed to it. If the soul were to exclusively last for a short time, then the mechanism must exist for the recreation of the soul. The recreation of the soul implies that a meta-soul exists that allots for the great similarity seen in all of us yet creates us with such similarity. The unchanging nature of this this soul implies that all of our souls are immortal.
After Simmias’s argument, it is Cebes that follows with an equally compelling objection through drawing an analogy of a weaver and a cloak. Cebes says that though he follows the argument that the soul existed before birth, he is still not convinced that it the soul is actually immortal. Unlike Simmias, Cebes does believe that the soul survives the death of the body, but he does not think that that alone provides substantial evidence that the soul is eternal. A cloak is far frailer and more short-lived than a man, and so a tailor will make and wear out many cloaks over the course of his lifetime. But the tailor will eventually die, therefore his last cloak will outlive him. And so Cebes suggests that the same idea could be used to describe the soul and the body. Essentially, Cebes says the body is constantly changing, and so we could say it is constantly being remade by the soul. But when the soul dies, the body can no longer be remade, and quickly deteriorates and rots. Even though the soul may outlive several bodies, we cannot be truly certain that it is immortal unless we could somehow show that it suffers no damage or deterioration at each death and rebirth.
ReplyDeleteSocrates’ response to the objections made by both Simmias and Cebes is quite like we discussed in class where the philosopher, Socrates, actually takes the objections very seriously. Socrates is very welcoming and encouraging of objections and only views them as fuel to further and strengthen his point. It is only through a proper and consistent questioning that this true knowledge can be brought out. If Socrates were to simply explain his theories, then he would not truly teach anything. Only through a dialectic method with counter-arguments and objections, can we be forced to consider the topics in a new light and actually gain true knowledge of it.
Cebes raises the argument that the soul lives longer than the body, because the body is weaker and short-lived. Cebes raises an analogy supporting Socrates’ point that he disagrees with. He claims that although it is thought that a person can last longer under a cloak, he doesn’t believe that to be true. He doesn’t think this is true because although it may protect the man under the cloak, the cloak will eventually wear out. Similarly, he claims that the soul lives longer than the body because the body can wear out and die, but the soul can’t. Cebes says, “He might say that each soul wears out many bodies, especially if it lives many years” (Plato 38). He also believes that the soul only perishes once the dead body starts decaying and disappearing. However, this will only happen after the soul lives through many bodies, and eventually becomes weaker. Cebes claims that, “We cannot trust this argument and be confident that our soul continues to exist somewhere after our death” (Plato 38). Cebes argument goes against Socrates initial claim that the soul is immortal because Cebes believes that although the soul can live longer than the body, it will not live forever. Although, Cebes believes that the soul can live through many bodies, he does not believe that the soul will maintain its strength throughout. Socrates did not have a clear response to Cebes argument, claiming that the soul is not in fact immortal. Cebes’ argument presents a very strong contradiction to Socrates’ argument because it brings up the idea that just because something may be long-living, doesn’t necessarily make it completely immortal.
ReplyDeleteWhen Socrates is sentenced to execution, he is nonchalant because he believes the soul is immortal and he will continue to live through his soul, however, his friends Simmias and Cebes are not convinced. Simmias presents his objections to this idea by using the analogy of a harmony and lyre. He explains that just like the soul, attunement/the harmony of an instrument is invisible whereas like the body, the instrument is a physical thing. He believes that the harmony exists due to the instrument being held together and when the strings on the lyre break, the harmony will no longer exist. Simmias states, “…the wood and the strings must rot before the harmony can suffer.”(Plato 36). Simmias believes that once the lyre breaks, then the harmony is affected, connecting back to the argument of the soul, he is certain that once the body dies, the soul dies with it. Socrates responds to this by explaining that since Simmias believes in the theory of recollection, the remembrance of ideas an individual possesses are way into the soul and a theory in which the soul has to exist before the body, he should believe that after the lyre breaks the harmony still exists in some way. Socrates reveals the inconsistencies in Simmias’s objection because if Simmias truly believes in recollection, he should believe that once the body dies the soul shall still exist in some form. Socrates has a valid response to Simmias’s objection as he exposes the inconsistencies within Simmias’s reasoning.
ReplyDeleteOne objection that Simmias makes in response to Socrates’ clear assertion that the soul is immortal and cannot exist without a body. Simmias argues with Socrates that the soul cannot exist without a living breathing host or a vessel to carry it. The lyre is an instrument that has strings, and from those strings a harmony can be played. A harmony is something that is invisible, partakes in no body, and is derived from the lyre. If we were to take away the strings and specifically look at the lyre by itself, we can see that the body and the strings are physical; the lyre holds a body, earthy materials, and the feeling of mortality. If one person where to destroy, break, or sever the strings of the lyre the harmony would no longer exist because the lyre and the strings are mortal and can be destroyed. Simmias’ classifications of whether a soul is immortal, and how he compares the body and soul to a lyre and a harmony is shut down by Plato as he reinforces the idea that yet even if the harmony is divine and immortal and cannot be destroyed; the lyre and strings from which the harmony is derived can be destroyed and is therefore mortal. The harmony itself must still exist and the wood, strings, and the body of the lyre must rot away, or be destroyed before the harmony can experience pain and suffering. As Plato decodes this argument, the simple solution would be to explain that the soul and the body could never be compared to an instrument of musical capabilities and fortune. Most would tend to agree that music is a complicated, and advanced way of communicating emotions through the notes of a vast variety. But no one else can compare to the immortality of the soul, and the body in which it is housed to some point in life.
ReplyDelete