1. Argument 1: The Argument from Opposites (70b-72d)
(2) By example, all things which come to be and which have an opposite "must necessarily come to be from their opposite and nowhere else."
(3) If opposites come to be from their opposites, then there must be two processes of coming to be.
(4) The process of going from living to being dead is called dying; the process of going from being dead to being alive is called "coming to life again."
So, (5) The souls of the living come only from the dead.
So, (6) The souls of men who have died must exist in the underworld.
Note: This introduces the notions of coming to be (or "change") and opposites.
B. Sub-Argument 2 (73b-76e): Argument from "Forms"
(2) We know the Equal.
(3) Seeing two equal things reminds us of the Equal.
(4) Equal things are not the Equal.
(5) Knowledge of the Equal is not based on bodily sensations.
(6) We have bodily sensations from birth.
So, (7) Knowledge of the Equal must precede birth.
So, (8) Learning is recollection.
So, (9) The soul must preexist its embodiment.
Note: This introduces the notion of the Equal, etc. (the Forms). Also note the combination of arguments 1 and 2 at 77c,d.
1. Simmias' argument--harmony:lyre::soul:body (85e-86d)
(2) A harmony is invisible, without body and like the divine.
(5) If the body is like the lyre and the soul is a harmony (a mixture of bodily elements, then the soul predeceases the body.
(2) The weaver outlasts many cloaks.
(3) The weaver doesn't outlast all cloaks; viz., he doesn't outlast the one being worn at the time of death.
(4) Even if the soul survives the deaths of some bodies, this doesn't mean that it survives the deaths of all bodies.
1. Reply 1: Inconsistent hypotheses (91e-92e)
(2) The soul is a kind of harmony. [Hypothesis]
(3) A harmony is a composite.
(4) A composite can't preexist its components. (92b)
(5) The soul can't preexist its components. (Note: This implies that the soul is a composite, but we had already agreed that the soul is in the class of non-composite things.)
(6) But (premise 1), the soul does preexist its components (i.e., the body).
(7) The soul both preexists and doesn't preexist its components.
(8) Either learning is not recollection or the soul is not a composite harmony. (Note: Since Simmias accepts that learning is recollection, he also accepts that the soul is not a harmony.)
3. Reply 3: Soul _ Harmony (94b-95a)
(2) The soul rules by opposing the body.
(3) A harmony cannot oppose its elements. (93e)
(4) Soul _ Harmony.
2. Investigate by means of words (99d-100a)
3. Two hypotheses: (1) If the soul admits death then the soul may perish. (2) If the soul doesn't admit death, then the soul is deathless (and, if the soul is deathless, then the soul is indestructible).
4. An example: The Beautiful as cause (100c,d; 101c)
6. Opposites (102d-103a): Flee or perish
8. Form-bearers (105b,c)
9. Application to soul/body (105d-e)
1. Aristotle points out that causes answer "why?" questions. He identifies four causes--material, efficient, formal and final. One can see how Aristotle distinguishes these causes by looking at an artifact like a statue, a chair or a desk. How do these causes apply to natural objects like oak trees and human beings?
2. Aristotle also distinguishes between causes as actuality and potentiality. A material cause is potentiality and a formal cause is actuality. How does this apply to natural objects in general and human beings in particular? For human beings, the soul is the form of the body.
3. Are all souls the same? For Aristotle, the answer must be "No," because different souls have different functionalities.
4. In what way does Plato's discussion of causes anticipate but differ from Aristotle's discussion of the four causes?
Back to PHIL 201 Philosophy of Human Nature (summer sections)
Back to David H. Calhoun's Home Page
Copyright 1998 by David H. Calhoun and Brian B. Clayton. This page last updated on May 28, 1998.