Idea Versus Physical

Plato was one of the great philosophers of the ancient world. He wrote many dialogues that examined the frontiers of philosophical thought. In part of one of his works, Phaedo, Plato presents an argument or proof for the immortality of the soul. He presents a definition for a specific idea and tries to apply this definition to the soul. He develops this definition during the first half of his argument, and, during the second half, he apples it to the soul. Through this connection, Plato concludes that the soul is immortal. However, his argument is weak, and, I believe, invalid.

The first part of his argument is spent trying to prove and make the reader understand that there are things which are always accompanied by some kind of form that has an opposite. The thing, then, will not admit the opposite of the form. For his example, Plato uses the number three. Three is accompanied by the form of odd. In other words, oddness is part of three. Three will never become the opposite of odd, which is even. This makes perfect sense. The things Plato is talking about are ideas that, as part of their definition, have an opposite associated with them. Three, by definition, is odd. If three ever became even, it would no longer be three because it would no longer match the definition of three.

During the second part of his argument, Plato ties the logic presented above to the soul. He says the soul is what causes life. Since the soul causes life, it cannot admit death, and things that do not admit death are immortal, so, therefore, the soul is immortal.

I see two weaknesses in Plato's argument. First of all, he makes two assumptions, upon which his argument is based, that cannot be, or are not, proved. He assumes (1) that the soul exists and (2) that the soul is what causes life. Maybe the soul exists, maybe it does not; there is no way to prove its existence since we cannot see or detect it. Even if it does exist, how do we know that it is what causes life? Maybe it just gives humans the ability to reason and does nothing else. There is no way to prove either claim.

I believe his second flaw is that his connection between mathematics and the soul is very weak. He tries to define the soul as a thing that is accompanied by a form that has an opposite and, thus, does not admit the form's opposite. I believe that this is true of ideas because ideas are given definition by humans and humans define things very narrowly. In Plato's example, odd is a label we have given to three which is another label we have given to a certain quantity of objects. However, it very rarely applies to physical reality. Physical objects are the way they are no matter what we define them as, and very few of them always contain specific opposites. If the soul does exist, it must be a physical entity. As a physical entity, the soul is above the confinement of human definition.

There are other analogies that seem better suited for a comparison to the physical reality of the soul than the mathematical analogies Plato uses. Here are two examples. Take a flashlight. At first, it is "dead." However, if a battery (or "soul") is put into it, it will become "alive." After a while, the flashlight's "soul" will be drained and it will "die." Another analogy is a car. A car needs two "souls" to be "alive": a battery and gasoline. Without either, the car is "dead." This analogy seems to connect better with the physical body and soul. The soul could act as a kind of battery from which the body draws its energy. When the soul's energy is depleted, the body dies.

I believe that Plato's argument is not valid because he cannot (or does not) effectively prove his two assumptions and because he cannot effectively make the connection between the ideas of mathematics and the physical reality of the soul. Mathematics is human definition of the ordering they see around themselves, and humans defined the ideas very narrowly, associating them with opposites. If the soul exists, it is not an idea but a physical reality, and, thus, transcends being confined by human definition. We can give the soul a definition, and we try, but we cannot be guaranteed that what we call the soul is correct or that it is all encompassing. This is where Plato fails. He tries to carry human definition of ideas to the physical world. His attempt, logical or not, is not correct and destroys the validity of his argument.