Socrates On Philosophy and Death

[Aegon]

I think holding that death is the end is the most dangerous, for what to prepare for if death is the end? Especially if rationally the immateriality of the human soul can be demonstrated?

The problem is thinking of life as something to prepare you for something greater, instead of accepting that life is the great gift you've been given.

[theologian]

I think holding that death is the end is the most dangerous, for what to prepare for if death is the end? Especially if rationally the immateriality of the human soul can be demonstrated?

Truth doesn't need to conform to our insecurities.  Nor should we allow our insecurities to dictate what we are willing to accept as truth.


The truth is that death is a big mystery, and that nothing of the sort you are talking about can be demonstrated, rationally or otherwise.

You wanna try my demonstration?

[bennyboy]

Truth doesn't need to conform to our insecurities.  Nor should we allow our insecurities to dictate what we are willing to accept as truth.


The truth is that death is a big mystery, and that nothing of the sort you are talking about can be demonstrated, rationally or otherwise.

You wanna try my demonstration?

Go for it.

[theologian]

You wanna try my demonstration?

Go for it.

1. Concepts are Universals.

2. Matter are Particulars.

3. By 1 and 2, Concepts are not material.

4. Man can conceived concepts.

5. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

6. By 4 and 5, man has a non-material aspect in him.

[Mudhammam]

I am reluctant to project modern notions of existential angst back onto ancient cultures. At least one of the historical figures you quoted, Cicero, was an initiate of a Hellenistic mystery cult. It is also likely that ancient readers of the Platonic dialogues would have recognized some characters as representing beliefs derived from such rituals. Likewise, some New Testament scholars read St. Paul as heavily influenced by gnostic ideas if not tacitly a Gnostic himself (a controversial idea, but not one without merit). Taking these gnostic or mystery cult influences into account, it would be fair to interpret the Socratic statement as preparation of the soul for liberation from its bondage to the physical body --- uniting one’s self not with the fickle gods governing the earthly plane (a frequent target of Plato) – but with Abraxas, the “God above god” And what exactly is the Platonic realm if not those higher principles (the Good, the True, the All) that transcend even the pantheon of common worship. As such rational contemplation, as exemplified by Plato's Socrates, serves as either a supplement to mystery cult rituals or perhaps an alternate path for preparing the soul to permanently break away from material embodiment upon death.

Fair point.  I only briefly mention the Socratic concept (that certainly doesn't originate with him) of the body as a prison, which, as you stated, was tied up in Greek beliefs about the transmigration of souls and the myths -- with obvious ethical implications that proved influential on those groups I mentioned (perhaps even Christ himself and his willingness to die as a "blood sacrifice") -- regarding ultimate liberation from the body.  I guess I was more attempting to answer the question, "What can Socrates words mean for us today?" or "What does his statement suggest for me?" in the broader context of Philosophy.

---

I think holding that death is the end is the most dangerous, for what to prepare for if death is the end? Especially if rationally the immateriality of the human soul can be demonstrated?

Why not prepare to live the best life possible? Or to make the world a better place for your loved ones or your children? An object is not more white the longer it remains white. Why should time be assumed to have just that effect on the value of a finite existence (is the intensity of pleasures and pains judged on the basis of their duration? No. I see no reason to judge the value of something exclusively by that measure.)

---

1. Concepts are Universals.

2. Matter are Particulars.

3. By 1 and 2, Concepts are not material.

4. Man can conceived concepts.

5. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

6. By 4 and 5, man has a non-material aspect in him.

What does this demonstrate exactly?  Are you familiar with Cebes' argument about the lyre in Plato's Phaedo?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. Concepts are Universals.

Rubbish. If concepts were universals, then everyone would have the same ideas about everything. This board is sufficient evidence that this is not the case.

2. Matter are Particulars.

Unclear.

3. By 1 and 2, Concepts are not material.

Not established (also demonstrably wrong, but that's beside the point).

4. Man can conceived concepts.

Grammar aside, no argument.

5. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

Rubbish. The cause of the destruction of Hiroshima was 14 pounds. The effect of the detonation was 46 297 075 059 pounds.

6. By 4 and 5, man has a non-material aspect in him.

Not established. Epic fail.

Boru

[bennyboy]

Go for it.

1. Concepts are Universals.

2. Matter are Particulars.

3. By 1 and 2, Concepts are not material.

4. Man can conceived concepts.

5. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

6. By 4 and 5, man has a non-material aspect in him.

What do you mean that concepts are Univserals?  Could you give an example?

[Mudhammam]

What do you mean that concepts are Univserals?  Could you give an example?

I took him to be referring to the classical distinctions, for example, "chair" as a concept which applies to a variety of objects which partake in the properties of "chair-ness," as opposed to this or that chair. It goes back to the reported exchange between Diogenes of Sinope and Plato:

As Plato was conversing about Ideas and using the nouns "tablehood" and "cuphood," [Diogenes] said, "Table and cup I see; but your tablehood and cuphood, Plato, I can nowise see." "That's readily accounted for," said Plato, "for you have the eyes to see the visible table and cup ; but not the understanding by which ideal tablehood and cuphood are discerned."

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...hapter%3D2

Even granting dualism, which is what his argument contends, it doesn't establish that personal identity is a property of "souls" and which survives bodily decay, and empirical evidence would suggest that it doesn't.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Even granting dualism, which is what his argument contends, it doesn't establish that personal identity is a property of "souls" and which survives bodily decay, and empirical evidence would suggest that it doesn't.

The argument applies to both substance dualism and aspect dualism. In aspect dualism the "quiddity" of a thing would be equally dependent on both material and formal cause. One could not survive without the other and remain the same substance. Human life is based entirely on the hylomorphic union of a formal cause and a material cause. That is why the resurrection of the dead is such a key Christian doctrine. Until glorification, personal identity remains incomplete.

[henryp]

Go for it.

1. Concepts are Universals.

This seems intuitive, but I don't think its true.  Ideas exist in our brains.  If nobody knows the Pythagorean theorem, there is no longer a Pythagorean theorem.