In the Phaedo when Socrates is faced with an imminent execution he is cheerful and confident that he has nothing to worry about. He believes that death is not a problem at all because the soul is immortal. But should have a reason to worry? In this post let's not consider the arguments for the immortality of the soul but rather the connection between the soul, personal identity and surviving death.
What theory of personal identity is he basing his confidence on? Putting aside the stronger claim that the soul is immortal, does he have any good reason to think he can (it is possible to) survive death on this theory?
Socrates’ theory of identity neither corresponds with the psychological nor physical theories, but rather is based around identity being based in the soul. Socrates does not subscribe to the physical theory of identity, as proven by the fact that he explicitly states multiple times that the body is in fact a blight on humanity, and it would be better to be rid of it. In addition, he doesn’t quite agree with the psychological theory of the mind, given that he doesn’t seem to have an explicitly stated issues with the idea of memory erasure. Rather, Socrates believes that what makes you you is the soul. Wherever the soul is, that is where you are, you are one in the same. While Socrates never explicitly states this, it is implied through his arguments, as if he did not believe that the soul was the center of identity he would have no comfort for his impending doom, as “he” would not truly be surviving, only the soul. There are a number of interesting parts of this argument to take note of. First of all, the argument is still somewhat hazy, as Socrates never defines what precisely the soul is, assuming that it is common knowledge and is an intuitive concept. In addition, this argument would seem to state that memory has nothing to do with identity. In fact, Socrates implies as much in the text when the metaphor of the weaver is brought up. The argument is that a soul may be able to “wear out” multiple bodies, meaning that after death, the soul could return to a new life, essentially describing the idea of reincarnation. The issue is that such returned forms would not have the memories of the old person, and yet Socrates would argue that they are the same person. This further proves that Socrates does not subscribe to the psychological theory of identity. I would argue, however, that this argument is somewhat problematic, or, at the very least, without base. Socrates never mounts a credible argument as to why your identity is in fact inherently linked to the soul. One might argue that, in fact, that is because that is precisely what the soul is: you. Of course, then the issue still remains that the very existence of such a “thing” as the soul is yet to be enunciated. What, precisely, is the soul? If it is both immaterial and imperceptible in every way, how could we possibly know it exists? To be sure, there are things that are invisible that we are certain exist, and there are things that we know exist based purely off inference and other related observations, especially in the realm of astronomy, but where are these related observations in relation to the soul? Surely the mere existence of consciousness is not a rigorous enough argument to prove such a shocking argument as the existence of an immaterial essence of every person which is also immortal. No, I will stand by the fact that Socrates’ argument could not possibly be proven true nor rigorous until we actually figure out what the soul is and whether or not it exists, else, how could we possibly be confident in our own deaths?
ReplyDeleteSocrates's idea of personal identity assumes that someone's self is their soul. It means that someone dying in their current body never leads to losing their personal identity. Socrates believes that he can survive death as his soul is immortal and will go on. He says that you should look forward to death as you can continue observing the world without the limits of the human body. He also believes that the soul is reborn but the soul being reborn and personal identities allow for many more questions. What gives someone their personal identity? I think the most reasonable argument would be recollective continuity of being able to remember your past self. This would mean that when Socrates is reborn, he will no longer be Socrates. Despite what Socrates says about observing the forms, we have no knowledge when we are born which means that we lose continuity. Socrates will no longer remember his life as a philosopher or the beliefs that he preached. Losing everything that made Socrates, Socrates would mean that Socrates would be dead. We should look toward death and other decisions based on how we will feel in the future. If we can't experience the pleasure or pain of the next body, our soul inhabits then that wouldn't be us. It would be a different human, just as I am not my brother, I am not the next person inhabiting my soul. Socrates should not rely on this point solely to argue that he will stay alive as it is fundamentally flawed in the understanding of self.
ReplyDelete