Phaedo Essay Examples

(A). Both Antigone by Sophocles and Apology by Plato reveal that although the concepts of the rule of law and civil disobedience seem to be completely different and opposite of each other, if we keep in mind that a higher authority exists, we may view the two ideas as compatible.
Sophocles very effectively depicts the apparently unsolvable conflict between the two concepts in his tragic drama Antigone. It becomes apparent that Antigone has absolutely no regard for the rule of men since she performs an illegal act of mercy and is condemned for it. Instead, she holds divine, unfailing and unwritten laws (Sophocles 123), which she believes to be a higher standard, over the rule of law written by mortal men. Antigone believed in the just of her own position, and as a result, she was firmly certain that she had chosen the right course.
It is also arguable that she made the best decision in her given situation. If Antigone had followed the law and had not buried her deceased brother, she would feel ashamed and guilty for the rest of her life for not try help her brother’s soul depart from this world to the next (Sophocles 123). It is obvious that Antigone was willing to die to bury her brother’s corpse. While it is true that her dedication to divine law motivated her to defy the law of men, however, it seems that her desire to be regarded as a noble person and die a glorious death strengths her to face the punishment that she knows awaits her if she proceeds with breaking the law.
While Antigone represents how the concepts of rule of law and civil disobedience opposed each other, however, Socrates embodies how these two concepts can be combined on the basis of the idea of higher authority. While defending himself in the Athenian court in Plato's Apology, Socrates reveals how dedicated he is to divine commission when he refuses to cease his philosophical efforts for a chance to be acquitted. Thus, Socrates also willing sacrificed his life and accepted death just so he could obey God rather than obeying men (Plato 153).
However, at the same time Socrates also regarded the rule of law as well and believed that the law was above all. In fact, he respected the due process of law so much that he did not appeal to the jurors’ emotions in his trial (Plato 156), and just accepted his sentence. Socrates accepted his execution because he was not willing to desert his convictions and he did not want to violate the established law. No doubt, Socrates chooses to obey God and his divine law, when it contradicts with the law of mortals, however, he still does violate the civil law just to escape the consequences of his convictions, even though he is given the chance to in Plato’s Crito.
Certainly, both Antigone and Socrates seem to be committed to divine law and they adhere to it even if it means sacrificing their own lives and facing death. However, the difference between the two is that Antigo has absolutely no regard for civil law and also accepts to die this way just to be glorified, even though it may have been unjust, while Socrates chose to break the law just to hold on to his convictions of divine law and shows his respect for civil law by choosing not to violate it by escaping.
(B). The basic shape of Socrates Argument from Recollection (72e-78b) can be stated in Standard Argument Form as follows:
1. Things in this world are actually not perfectly equal at all even though may seem to possess an equal measurement.
2. Since true equality is the Equal itself, therefore, these things are not truly equal.
3. When discover that the things that are touted as being equal actually lack true equality, it helps us to recollect, or think of, the Equal itself.
4. However, we cannot do this unless we already have some knowledge of the Equal itself.
5. Since we do not gain an understanding of this knowledge through the use of any of our senses, it means we must have acquired it before our birth, before we existed or had any sort of sense-perception.
6. Therefore, this means that even before our birth, our souls must have existed.
Premises: The premises of his second argument for the immortality of the soul, Socrates is suggesting that it is only because we inborn knowledge of the Form of Equality that we perceive certain things to be equal even though they are never truly equal. What he means is that our understanding of equality is based on our prior knowledge of the Form of Equality. Since we never really encounter this knowledge of the Form of Equality in experience but yet we understand it, this means that we are able to understand it because we tend to recall immortal knowledge we gained before birth and forgot after birth.
Conclusion: Thus, through these premises, Socrates reaches the conclusion if it was possible for us to acquire knowledge of the Form of Equality before we were even born, this is an implication that our soul is immortal and it existed prior to our birth.
Socrates’ Argument from Recollection may be the most plausible explanation of the immortality of the soul than the three other three, but I do not believe that his argument is a valid deduction. I assert that we can reflect on what information we receive from our senses and generate new knowledge from it. In the attempt to categorize perceptions, I shall give objects with similar traits a single name, let’s say rectangle. If the soul could perceive a book, a mental pattern of rectangularity could be generated by it and used to gain an understanding of other similar objects with a rectangular shape. Perhaps it would be possible for the soul to extend its understanding and reach a conclusion of the concept of a perfect rectangle by seeing a variety of rectangular objects, out of which some may be barely rectangular, some may be most rectangular and some may be rectangular to a great extent. Thus, going back to Socrates’ argument, even if we may not have encountered the Form of Equality in experience in this world, it is possible that we may have made an acquaintance with it in this world rather than Socrates’ claim that our immortal soul acquired knowledge of it before our birth.
Even if we accept Socrates’ conclusion, there is a second problem that makes Socrates’ argument invalid is the fact that he rejects the probability that we may have gained the knowledge of the Form of Equality at birth. The fact that Socrates does not even consider this probability makes it seem as if it is ridiculous. Socrates even admits that the idea is apparently nonsense. However, I believe more attention needs to be paid to this objection. If we did not gain the knowledge of the Form of Equality at birth, Socrates assumes that we acquired it when we were born and immediately forgot it, either right after birth or some time later. However, he himself is not satisfied with either of these options, so apparently, this is what leads him to his conclusion that we gained this knowledge prior to birth. However, this conclusion does not seem valid because Socrates does not present any argument as to why either or both of these probabilities may be unlikely or even impossible. It is possible that infants have complete knowledge of the Form of Equality but are just not able to express it, and forget it before they can. It is also possible that as soon as they exit the birth canal they tend to forget it. Whatever the case, there are many other similar possibilities, as a result of which Scorates’ argument does not seem valid, but plausible perhaps.
Since I do not believe that Socrates’ argument is not valid, therefore, I also do not agree with his argument as well. The fact that Socrates’ does not present an argument above the above probabilities is the basic element of his argument that leads to disagreement and its invalidity. If we argue that God already built the knowledge of the Form of Equality into our soul when we were born, even if it may have been hazy, and we forgot that knowledge, this would refute Socrates’ argument that the soul existed before birth. In fact, the argument that God may have built that knowledge into us seems to be a more valid explanation that what Socrates presents to us. In this world, there are many people who gain different knowledge or more knowledge than others. Yet, the knowledge of the Form of Equality seems to be consistent between all human beings. If our soul had gained this knowledge before birth, then this knowledge should have been inconsistently distributed amongst us. Given this particular premise of Socrates’ Argument from Recollection, I unfortunately do not agree with it.