Chris Craven PHL 200 (101) Dr. Jeremy Barris December 10, 2012 Death: to Welcome or Fear?

I disagree with Socrates when he says that a good philosopher should embrace death. Socrates belief that a philosopher should embrace death begins when Simmias questions him on his acceptance of the Athenian pronounced death sentencing. Socrates begins by pointing out that being serious about bodily pleasures such as food, drink, material possessions, and love-making does not coincide with being a philosophical man, but rather contradicts such being. In fact, being a philosophical man consists of just the opposite- standing apart from bodily desires and rather staying focused on the soul. In this way a philosopher spends his life preparing for death, and subsequently being dead. Socrates continues by specifically giving examples of how bodily needs and desires act as distractions from philosophy. Our senses often distort reality causing truth more difficult to acquire. Hunger and thirst make need for money and wealth, and the need for money and wealth results in war, factions, and battles- which leaves little leisure time to philosophize. Old age and the onset of disease bring further distortions of truth and inhibit thoughtfulness. All examples of how bodily desires and needs distract a philosopher from their true business, matters of the soul, such as searching for truth and wisdom. Hence, because a good philosopher places value on separating themselves from bodily desires, so as

to reason and think best, and death is the ultimate separation of soul and body, death should be a welcoming event. Socrates offers further support from the idea of concepts existing as nothing other than themselves. For example, it is claimed that there is some Just Itself, some Beautiful, and some Good, all of which cannot be found with senses but must be thought through. As senses hinder the thought process, the man who uses nothing other than pure thought would be most successful at finding what is. Socrates specifically points out that the need for food, disease, erotic loves, desires, and terrors halt the search for what is. More so, our souls are enslaved by the needs of the bodyoften resulting in wars, battles, and factions- leaving little to no time for philosophy. Therefore, being that a philosopher desires acquiring truth beyond all else, truth can only be found through thought, and since the freedom to explore thought endlessly can only result from completely separating the soul from the body, death is necessary to achieve success. Conclusively, it only stands to reason that a philosopher welcome death as a means to fulfill their inner most desire- the acquisition of what is. Socrates most convincing argument for embracing death, results from his assumption that the soul continues to exist after death. Socrates first gives an explanation based off contraries and the idea that souls return to animate another body. The explanation begins with how all things come to be, if they are contraries, from nothing other than their contrary. For example, contrary to what is beautiful is ugly, contrary to just is unjust, contrary to bigger is smaller, and so on. Further, in order for bigger to be bigger, it must come to be as such from some state of littler before. The same logic can be applied to all things that come to be from contraries.

Being that there is a contrary to being alive, being dead, and since contraries must come to be from contraries, being alive must come from being dead. Thus souls must continue to exist after death. Socrates gives further substantiation to his theory that the soul continues to exist after death with his theory of forms. As mentioned earlier, Socrates theorizes that certain things exist as nothing other than themselves. So, things may be beautiful, but they are only beautiful because they participate in what is Beautiful itself. For example, something is not beautiful because of a specific color or shape; it is merely beautiful because it participates in that Beautiful itself. This example expands by considering hot, cold, fire, and ice. Certain things are closely connected with forms. For example, ice will always be found with cold. Additionally, it can be derived that when there is a close connection with a form, the thing with the connection cannot exist with the opposite of the closely connected form present. For example, when ice is heated it melts and no longer exists as ice. Drawing from this example, life can be closely connected to the soul because when the soul is present in a body so is life. Coming from the earlier theory of contraries, one cannot exist without the other, so if the opposite of life is death, and death is always present- the soul must always exist in some place. All of this leads Socrates to believe that death should be embraced. Contrary to Socrates belief that the soul must go on to exist after death, many disagree with compelling arguments. For example, if the opposite to living were to be considered the lack of death, and the opposite of death considered the lack life, the entire argument of contraries would be void. Further, when a persons brain is no longer whole, it can eliminate characteristics and emotions previously found in that

person. For example, when a persons occipital lobe is damaged or destroyed they can no longer see. Moving beyond human senses, certain parts of the brain have been identified with empathy and remorse, along with other very fundamental emotions. Many argue that certain brain functions are damaged in nearly all serial killers, which gives further proof that intellect and consciousness coincide closely with biological function, and cannot exist without an operating brain. On a more basic level, many people question the fundamental problems with a soul existing after death. How is the human conscious transferred after the brain ceases to function? If it is transferred somewhere, where is this place, and why can it not be found? Additionally, those who believe in evolution argue that it is natural to have an instinctual urge to survive, even after death, so we are compelled to believe that it is possible, whether it is or isnt. Both opinions of what happens after death are compelling, and a certain amount of validity (and flaw) can be found in either discussion. From the theory that there is life after death, people can believe death to be an escape from the terrors that our body can endure. Whereas those who believe that after death one decomposes and loses all intellect, may fear ceasing to exist. My opinion is that emotion should not be spent on the idea of death, but rather a sense of indifference should be present, and focus should be placed on being the best one can be while on the earth- intellectually present in the body. If life exists after death, then you have done what is good to the best of your ability and you will be rewarded. If life does not exist after death, then you will have lived as best possible during your worldly existence and you have lost nothing, but gained the respect and love of the people you care about. With a sense of

indifference, both sides when, so long as focus is placed on finding and being what is good while life is undoubtedly present in the human body.