Phaedo, Plato Relates Socrates\' Final

Phaedo, Plato relates Socrates' final teachings before he goes to his death, including Socrates' arguments for the existence of an eternal, immortal human soul. While all of Socrates' arguments for the existence of an eternal soul are faulty, Socrates so-called recollection theory, which looks to the supposedly prenatal knowledge all humans have, is the most interesting because it is actually tied to a genuine phenomenon, rather than existing strictly in the realm of religious fantasy. While the rest of Socrates' arguments rest on one already buying into his faulty notion of eternal Forms, his recollection theory instead takes something actually observable in nature and simply draws the wrong conclusion from it by looking to what would be the most convenient, rather than the most accurate. By examining Socrates' recollection theory in detail, it will become clear that Socrates fails to provide evidence for the existence of the soul, and furthermore, that his failure demonstrates the likelihood that there is no such thing as a soul, except for those imagined by people afraid of death.

Before addressing the theory of recollection in detail, it is necessary to point out that Socrates begins Phaedo with a faulty assumption already in place, namely, that there exists something which can be called a soul, and furthermore, that this soul is somehow separate from the physical body (Plato 45-46). It is necessary to point this out because Socrates' discussion about the eternal nature of the soul rests entirely on one agreeing that the notion of the soul is a useful or intelligible category, when in fact it does refer to anything real except for those characteristics of consciousness that can be most easily discussed separately from their physical, biological, basis. In other words, the term "soul" is merely a word used to describe consciousness, which is undeniably a result of the human body, while willfully disregarding this biological origin.

Granted, for much of human history "soul" was a useful concept and term, because lacking a more robust understanding of human biology and neuroscience, people needed a way of discussing all the complex facets of human cognition, including personality, morality, and memory, all the while lacking the kind of in-depth biological study that would later connect these facets to the human body and brain. However, because the notion of a soul flatters human beings' sense of self-worth and specialness in the face of an impersonal and meaningless universe by suggesting that there is something eternal and magical about human consciousness, this concept has stuck around far longer than other magical and alchemical assumptions about reality. As a result, Socrates is able to discuss a soul without having to really explain what he means by it, and even contemporary philosophers are continually forced to return to these outdated, ignorant concepts if only to refute them to exhaustion.

Pointing out that the concept of a soul is not a useful or genuinely intelligible concept is necessary not simply as a means of more accurately contextualizing this analysis of Socrates' recollection theory. Instead, attempting to dismiss the use of the soul as a term and concept by analyzing the arguments in favor of it represents a kind of ethical imperative due to the breadth and depth of cruelty and violence that necessarily emerges from a belief in the soul, because the "peace" that the idea of a soul offers someone can be used to justify nearly anything; if there is an eternal, immortal soul that gives someone hope or peace in the knowledge that death does not truly matter, then that person will have little trouble justifying their own actions or the actions of others because those actions may be considered finite, or else in the service of some greater good, such as speeding people off to the afterlife (Plato 32). Obviously, not everyone who believes in a soul uses that mistaken belief to justify murder, conquest, or terrorism, but any belief in a soul offers further legitimacy to those who would use it to justify harm. Thus, the question of the soul cuts straight to center of philosophical investigation, demonstrating the point at which contemplation and real-world action meet.

Socrates begins his teachings about the soul by first claiming that he is not afraid to die due to his belief in the soul, as the event of death of merely the moment when the philosopher can leave the body behind and experience the soul without distraction. As the philosopher has supposedly spent his or her life on (biological) activities most commonly associated with the soul, such as thinking, the notion of death should be seen as a positive, because it will simply be the purification of these activities (Plato 32-33). Here it is worthwhile to point out that although Socrates is claiming that he, and the idealized philosopher, does not fer death, in reality he demonstrates an obvious fear of death, if one views death in the scientific, verifiable sense, meaning the cessation of bodily functions (including higher functions like cognition). Instead, Socrates does not fear death simply because he has redefined death to be something that he is not afraid of as a result of the imaginary concept of the soul. Thus, Socrates' belief gives him comfort, but it does do anything to demonstrate that this belief is actually accurate.

However, following his pronouncement that philosophers should seek death (but not commit suicide, because the imaginary characters ruling the universe forbade it), Socrates goes on in attempt to prove that the soul is actually eternal. So, having failed to demonstrate that the soul is a thing worth talking about, or a thing somehow distinct from the body through which it is maintained and expressed, Socrates moves on in attempt to further define the parameters of the thing he has made up, or else assumed to be true without evidence. It is necessary to point out the movements of Socrates' arguments, because although there is no evidence for any of the magical claims that Socrates makes, there is a kind of robust logical chain at work, except for those moment where magic is used to cover up the gaps in logic. So, Socrates begins with the magical assumption of a soul, and then proceeds in attempt to define that magical assumption through logic.

Of the different arguments given in favor of the (non-existent) soul's eternal status, the only one that has any bearing to observable or intelligible reality is the theory of recollection, which argues that the soul is proven to be immortal and eternal due to the fact that human beings seem to have some kind of per-linguistic and pre-educational knowledge (Plato 45-46). This argument is notable precisely because it actually includes an observable fact, namely, that human beings have some kind of "pre-existing knowledge." "Pre-existing knowledge" is in quotes here because in reality this knowledge is "pre-existing" only in that it seems to have been "learned" prior to the expression of individual personality, when in reality what is being talked about are all those features of human personality and expression arise from genetics and biology rather than culture. Thus, while Socrates misnames the phenomenon under discussion, one can at least agree that he is talking about something observable and actual.

However, due to a lack of detailed scientific knowledge at the time of his writing, coupled with the faulty assumption that a soul exists in the first place, Socrates does not look to humans themselves as the source for this knowledge, but rather concludes that "our souls must have existed without bodies before they were in the form of man, and must have had intelligence" (Plato 46). This is a prime example of one's assumptions and biases irreparably coloring investigation, because Socrates, having bought into the notion of a soul, cannot see any other explanation for the supposedly prenatal knowledge than the existence of an eternal soul, or at least a soul that existed prior to birth; his arguments for the soul's existence after death are more varied. He is essentially guilty of an argument from ignorance here, because he cannot imagine a different explanation, but no one in the dialogue challenges him on this point so he is not forced to actually make an argument from ignorance; instead, because everyone with him agrees in the existence of a soul, he is only required to defend his argument for why the soul is the ways he says it is. In this realm the distinction between legitimate argument and logical fallacy becomes almost irrelevant, because the arguments all depend on something utterly fallacious.

Socrates' argument is utterly circular, because he ultimately always brings it back to the assumed eternity of ideas, such that one's critique of Socrates' arguments must always return to his initial assumption that there exist some kind of eternal Forms or inherent meanings, when in reality the universe is meaningless expect for that meaning created and maintained by humans. Thus, Socrates' argument that the soul exists prior to birth is really another way of saying that thoughts and ideas exist prior to birth, because "there is the same proof that these ideas must have existed before we were born, as that our souls existed before we were born; and if not the ideas, then not the souls" (Plato 46). Socrates is actually right in the last clause, because neither the ideas nor the souls existed before birth, partially because birth is an arbitrary limit.

The use of birth as a delineation is entirely arbitrary and is rooted in the same kind of inaccurate conception of identity and consciousness that underpins Socrates' entire worldview. The prenatal knowledge Socrates imagines he has observed exists before birth in that it is encoded into a human's DNA well before any given baby passes through a birth canal, but there is no evidence for that baby somehow being filled with knowledge or consciousness at a certain point such that one can talk about before birth and after birth as useful time designations. Again, Socrates' argumentative and logical failures are largely born out of scientific ignorance, but this does not lessen the fact that he is not so much making a genuine argument as much as making things up.

However, what makes Socrates so effective is that after he makes up his initial assumptions (regarding the existence of a soul and gods, for example), he attempts to discuss those made-up things in straightforward, logically cohesive ways, so that his explanation for the eternal nature of the soul appears reasonable when compared to the responses of the straw men around him. In other words, Socrates appears convincing in Phaedo because he knows the rules of his imaginary mythos better than the other characters, and thus can outline those rules in a way that has the appearance of critical investigation and logical progression. Thus, his conversation partners end up reiterating Socrates' most problematic assumptions, such as when Simmias says "there is nothing which to my mind is so patent as that beauty, goodness, and the other notions of which you were just now speaking, have a most real and absolute existence" (Plato 46).