In Phaedo, Socrates presents the premises of his resemblance argument for the soul’s immortality. First, anything that is composite by nature is liable to be split up into its components, and only those that are not composite are not likely to be split up (78c1-2). Second, anything that is invisible is not composite, and anything that is visible is composite (79a5). This is due to the fact that whatever is invisible often remains the same, and whatever remains constant or in the same state are not composite while things that vary from time to time, including visible objects, are likely to be composite (78c5-7). Third, the body is visible, thus composite; while the soul is invisible, thus non-composite (79c1-2). Fourth, only when the soul investigates by itself does it acquire knowledge by coming into contact with forms that are unchanging and immortal, such as the Beautiful or the Equal (79d1-5). When the soul uses the body to try and gain wisdom, it will only become confused (79c6-7). The soul is only about to fully grasp what is of a similar nature (e.g. not of the body). Therefore, the conclusion is that the soul rules over the body, like the divine, and is immortal whereas the body is mortal.…show more content… However, he disproves Simmias’ objection by demonstrating why the soul cannot be likened to a harmony. The first two arguments and the respective propositions put forward by Socrates are valid, in my opinion. For example, if you have a soul, then you have one – there is nothing more or less to it than that. The proposition that some souls are virtuous while others are evil is also aligned with natural observations. Mother Teresa would be an example of a good soul, as she dedicated her life to assisting those in need. Adolf Hitler is widely acknowledged as an example of a wicked, corrupt soul, having maliciously murdered millions. However, these premises would not work if the soul is a
