Does Plato Successfully Explain The Relationship Between the Body And Soul?
Plato (428 BC- 348 BC) defines the soul as an eternal entity which exists separate from our
physical bodies. The success of the explanation of the relationship between these two can
be measured through the acknowledgement of the flaws and holes, or lack thereof, in his
argument. The relationship between the body and soul is a key point in Plato’s Theory of the
Forms seen in ‘The Republic (375 BC)’ , as the existence of the soul previous to the
existence of the physical body proves previous knowledge of the forms, and explains why
we recognize physical objects as imitations of them. Due to the many flaws in his line of
argument, I must say that while Plato explains the relationship between the body and the
soul partially, it is not truly successful.
Plato attempts to explain the relationship between the body and the soul through their
separation from each other, which is essential for the existence of the Theory of the Forms.
To explore this idea, one must first understand that Plato hypothesised that we recognise
physical objects as imitations of the Forms only because we have seen them before. For this
to occur, it must have been separate from our physical body and before the body's
existence. Plato argued that the entity which witnessed the forms, and allows later
knowledge of them, is called a soul. Therefore the relationship between the body and the
soul is a dependent one, as the body can only exist with the soul. In the context of Plato’s
Theory of the Forms, this explanation is successful and solid, but this requires a belief in that
theory. Without it, this explanation can seem weak and fallacious. Nevertheless, this has
been contested by atheists (such as Richard Dawkins), who see Plato as simply asserting
his beliefs that the body and soul are partially dependent, without providing any scientific
evidence to support it. Therefore due to the flaw in his argument, we cannot say that Plato
successfully explains the relationship between the body and the soul, and instead provides
only a tentative suggestion which can be seen as falsifiable.
It has been suggested by critics that Plato does not successfully explain the relationship
between the body and the soul, due to his dualism being taken into extremes later on. In
‘The Republic’, Plato states that the forms were ‘more real’ than ordinary physical objects.
From here we can assume that as the soul once lived in the realm of the forms, it is counted
as more real than the physical body. This assertion was clouded in ambiguity by Plato and
has been seen as unintelligible, leading to extreme forms of dualism developing from those
who came after him. It has led those to see bodily pleasures as bad and that those should
punish their bodies to make spiritual progress. This vagueness on Plato’s part has created
much evident discourse in later years, and so I would argue that this is a strong argument
against the question of Plato successfully explaining the difference between the body and
soul. However, a distinction should be made in the fact that this asceticism was not Plato’s
own position. He saw physical pleasures as unimportant in comparison to philosophy, but
not to be condemned completely, showing that it can be challenged that Plato actually did
successfully explain the relationship between the body and soul, but that it was faultlessly
misunderstood in later generations.
One plausible, but ultimately unsuccessful explanation for the relationship between the body
and soul, is that while the body is changeable and temporary, the soul is eternal. This
derives from the previously stated theory of Plato’s shown in the Republic, that people must
Plato (428 BC- 348 BC) defines the soul as an eternal entity which exists separate from our
physical bodies. The success of the explanation of the relationship between these two can
be measured through the acknowledgement of the flaws and holes, or lack thereof, in his
argument. The relationship between the body and soul is a key point in Plato’s Theory of the
Forms seen in ‘The Republic (375 BC)’ , as the existence of the soul previous to the
existence of the physical body proves previous knowledge of the forms, and explains why
we recognize physical objects as imitations of them. Due to the many flaws in his line of
argument, I must say that while Plato explains the relationship between the body and the
soul partially, it is not truly successful.
Plato attempts to explain the relationship between the body and the soul through their
separation from each other, which is essential for the existence of the Theory of the Forms.
To explore this idea, one must first understand that Plato hypothesised that we recognise
physical objects as imitations of the Forms only because we have seen them before. For this
to occur, it must have been separate from our physical body and before the body's
existence. Plato argued that the entity which witnessed the forms, and allows later
knowledge of them, is called a soul. Therefore the relationship between the body and the
soul is a dependent one, as the body can only exist with the soul. In the context of Plato’s
Theory of the Forms, this explanation is successful and solid, but this requires a belief in that
theory. Without it, this explanation can seem weak and fallacious. Nevertheless, this has
been contested by atheists (such as Richard Dawkins), who see Plato as simply asserting
his beliefs that the body and soul are partially dependent, without providing any scientific
evidence to support it. Therefore due to the flaw in his argument, we cannot say that Plato
successfully explains the relationship between the body and the soul, and instead provides
only a tentative suggestion which can be seen as falsifiable.
It has been suggested by critics that Plato does not successfully explain the relationship
between the body and the soul, due to his dualism being taken into extremes later on. In
‘The Republic’, Plato states that the forms were ‘more real’ than ordinary physical objects.
From here we can assume that as the soul once lived in the realm of the forms, it is counted
as more real than the physical body. This assertion was clouded in ambiguity by Plato and
has been seen as unintelligible, leading to extreme forms of dualism developing from those
who came after him. It has led those to see bodily pleasures as bad and that those should
punish their bodies to make spiritual progress. This vagueness on Plato’s part has created
much evident discourse in later years, and so I would argue that this is a strong argument
against the question of Plato successfully explaining the difference between the body and
soul. However, a distinction should be made in the fact that this asceticism was not Plato’s
own position. He saw physical pleasures as unimportant in comparison to philosophy, but
not to be condemned completely, showing that it can be challenged that Plato actually did
successfully explain the relationship between the body and soul, but that it was faultlessly
misunderstood in later generations.
One plausible, but ultimately unsuccessful explanation for the relationship between the body
and soul, is that while the body is changeable and temporary, the soul is eternal. This
derives from the previously stated theory of Plato’s shown in the Republic, that people must
