Plato

A. Introductory remarks

B. Moral prerequisites for being a true Philosopher rather than a Sophist

C. The Philosopher and death

D. From moral vision to metaphysics: arguments for immortality

1. Introductory remarks

2. The first argument

3. An interlude: the conditions for a good argument

4. The second and third arguments

5. Objections and replies

E. Two notes on explanation and understanding

• The Euthyphro as a typical "early-to-middle" dialogue.
• Some concepts discussed in these dialogues:

• Detachment from worldly goods (not tempted by wealth, reputation and fame, good connections, creature comforts, social standing, etc.) (pp. 100-101)
• Singleminded and singlehearted devotion to the truth (unity or integrity of life) (p. 44)
• Willingness to stand in opposition to the "common wisdom" (courage) (p. 33)
• Intellectual humility (docility but not gullibility) (p. 28)
• Sense of being called (vocation) (p. 41)

• The startling claim: Death is a blessing for the true Philosopher!!




• The argument:
(1) Death is the separation of the soul (life-principle) from the body

(2) The body is a hindrance to the the pursuit of wisdom in the following ways:

a. The body is the source of inclinations and desires that thwart the pursuit of wisdom (pp. 121,122)

b. The bodily senses do not help and can even hinder the pursuit of wisdom (p. 102)

c. To care for bodily needs takes time away from the pursuit of wisdom

d. The body becomes diseased and deteriorates with age, again detracting from the search for wisdom

Therefore, the philosophical life involves the attempt to free oneself (or soul) from the body, and so the philosophical life is a preparation for death.

• 1. Introductory remarks: Philosophy is a search for truth as well as for a challenging or inspiring vision




• 2. The first argument: The argument from opposites
(1) Change is continuously occurring in the world (premise)

(2) Every change involves a movement from one opposite to another [premise]

(2a) Coming to be alive involves a change from being dead to being alive [specification of (2)]

(2b) Dying involves a change from being alive to being dead

(3) So after dying there is a change from being dead to being alive [from (1) and (2a) and (2b)]

Therefore, we live again after dying. [from (3)]





• 3. An interlude: The conditions for a good philosophical argument
• An argument is a good (or sound) argument just in case:
(1) it is valid (i.e., the premises cannot be true unless the conclusion is true), and

(2) the premises are true; and

(3) the premises are better known to us than the conclusion; and

(4) the premises are relevant to the conclusion.




• Some representative bad arguments, each keyed to one of the above conditions:



Re: Condition 1 (1) Janet has blue eyes (2) Ed has brown hair Therefore, someone has both blue eyes and brown hair	Re: Condition 2 (1) Eating seven bags of potato chips a day is fun (2) Whatever is fun is conducive to good health Therefore, eating seven bags of potato chips a day is conducive to good health
Re: Condition 3 (1) God exists Therefore, God exists	Re: Condition 4 (1) 2 + 2 = 4 (2) 2 x 2 = 4 Therefore, the sum of the interior angles of a Euclidean triangle is 180 degrees





• 4. The second and third arguments
• The argument from recollection (pp. 110-115)
• Note: Simmias accepts this argument to the extent that he accepts the theory of Recollection.




• The argument from the likeness of the soul to the Forms (pp. 115-123)




• 5. Objections and replies
• Simmias: The soul is a harmony of the bodily elements and not an independent thing.
• Socrates: If so, then there is no recollection--but you have already accepted recollection. Also, if so, then there is no difference between wickedness and righteousness.




• Cebes: The soul may not outlast an indefinite number of bodies; it might wear out.
• Socrates: The soul is not the sort of thing that can have intrinsic principles of deterioration or corruption.

• The oration against misology (pp. 128-130)
• The most important explanation answers the question "why?" or "for what purpose?" and does not give causal mechanisms.