Plato’s Phaedo depicts a conversation between Phaedo and Echecrates about the final hours before Socrates death. Although Plato was not present that day, Phaedo was and he gives his account of the events that occured and the dialogue Socrates engaged in. Throughout the dialogue, Socrates presents four main arguments in regards to the immortality of the soul including The Theory of Opposites, the Theory of Recollection, the Affinity Argument and The Theory of Forms. Although all four are important to the dialogue as a whole, this paper will focus on the structure, premises and claims presented in the Affinity Argument. In this argument, Socrates distinguishes the immaterial, invisible and immortal from that which is material, visible, and mortal. The goal of these distinctions is to then determine to which category do the body and the soul belong. I disagree with Socrates’ Affinity Argument based on his premise that the humans are composed of only two parts, the body and the soul.
Socrates’ Affinity Argument is the third of four arguments presented to support his theory of the immortality of the soul The argument opens by looking into the two worlds that everything can be separated into including the physical world, which is composite, chaotic, always changing and temporary, and the world of forms, which is non-composite eternal and unchanging. He then questions what would be categorized into each world, and even further, to which category do the body and the soul belong.(78b) Socrates continues by stating that things that are composite and made up of many different parts would be the most likely to be split up, while items that are non-composite are unlikely to do so. In addition to this, items that remain the same and are unchanging are the most likely to be non-composite, while those objects that can undergo change and vary over time are composite. (78c) After clearly stating the basic overviews of what makes something composite or non-composite, Socrates presents examples of specific items and looks into which category they would fall into. In the dialogue Socrates asks Cebes “Can the Equal itself, the Beautiful itself, each thing itself, the real, ever be affected by any change whatever? Or does each of them that really is, being uniform by itself, remain the same and never in any way tolerate any change?”(78d) Cebes responds to this question by stating that these things remain in the same state. Socrates proceeds by looking at examples of particular items that would be classified as beautiful or equal such as men, horses and clothes. These objects that are tangible and can be seen with true physical forms never remain in the same state in contrast to the previously mentioned realities that can only truly be seen and grasped by the mind.(78e) Thus, Socrates is implying that the former would be categorized as non-composite while the latter would be composite.
After this statement, Socrates continues his argument by stating we can further assume there to be two kinds of existence, the invisible and visible. (79a) The invisible always remains the same compared to the visible which is always changing based on his earlier examinations of the beautiful and the equal contrasted to the particulars of these states. Now, with the statement of the two types of existence, Socrates enters into classifying which part of existence the body and soul would be classified. As the body can be seen with human eyes, it is visible. The soul which cannot be seen is invisible.(79b-c) The argument continues with Socrates examination of the soul and the body when they are together. When the soul occupies the body, one rules and the other is subjected to be ruled. It is then concluded that the soul is like the divine as it rules and leads the body, whereas the body is more like the mortal as it is subjected to be ruled.(80a) The body then is most like that which is human while the soul is more like the divine. From this, Socrates is saying that although his body will change and die like other composite and mortal beings, his soul will live on like the unchanging, non-composite state which it resembles. Socrates goes on to suggest that different souls have different fate depending on how much the soul has detached itself from bodily cares. The soul which dedicates itself most to the life and mind set of a philosopher and not attaching to the body and material things in life will be the most pure and will most easily leave the physical world behind. However, souls which are impure and have attached itself to physical desires and earthly, materialistic objects will will not escape as easily.
Now that I have presented the overall structure of Socrates’ argument, I will now look into why I disagree with the argument. In general, it seems as if Socrates is presenting a probabilistic argument in turn making it unconvincing and proving nothing. Throughout the argument, he simply links certain things like the body and the soul to these more general states and categories based on similar properties. Primarily, the premise that I disagree with the most is that humans are composed only of the body and the soul. I feel that humans are more than just a body and a soul. Our body is our shell which contains our soul, however it also contains our organs and organ systems. One of the most important and complex organs in the body is the brain as it controls just about everything that our body does. Our brain does not just control actions though, it also controls our emotions, our ability to choose right from wrong, as well as what we find pleasurable or desirable and what we do not. As seen in the Affinity Argument, Socrates asserts philosophy or philosophical ways of thinking to be the best thing for the soul as it is the best way to keep the soul separate from the distractions the body could bring to it. However, in order for one to follow a philosophical lifestyle and think in this way, we must have our brain to guide us in this right direction, use our higher sense of rationality to realize this is the best thing for our souls, and then execute this in our everyday lives. Our brain thus has control over our body and our soul. In the affinity argument, Socrates feels that those things which rule and lead are most like the divine, while those which are subjected to this ruling are most like the mortal. Is it right then to conclude that the brain is divine and the body and the soul are mortal? No it is not. The brain is simply an organ that has influence over our body and our subsequent actions, internal thoughts and psychological processes. At death, like the body, as the brain is a physical, tangible, visible item, it breaks down and decomposes into its composite parts. I feel that as the brain has control over the body and soul, it is an essential component of a human and serves to show that there are not simply two parts to every person.
In addition to this, as the brain has control over the functions of the body and the soul, once the brain dies and can no longer function, the body and the soul dies as well. The best instance in which this can be seen is in the case of being brain dead. Brain death can be defined as the complete loss of brain function that cannot be reversed. Although your heart may still be beating on its own or with the eventual help of a machine, you are not alive as your brain is no longer working. You cannot think or move and never will again. Thus, the person can be pronounced to be officially dead. If your brain is dead then there is no way for you to control the actions and functions of the soul or the body. With this said, when the brain dies the soul and body dies as well. It can also be said though that if the body dies then the brain and the soul die as well.
Therefore, I do not agree with Socrates’ Affinity Argument because I believe that humans can be composed of more than two parts. In addition to the body and the soul you have the brain which directs and guides the actions of the other two components. Throughout his argument, Socrates makes the separation and classification of the body and the soul seem very black and white by categorizing based on properties they share with other objects. However, there is a greater grey area that isn’t explored and leaves room for objections to and questioning of the argument.