Plato's Immortal Soul

[Gauracandra]

Kailasa wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If there is a material form, why there can not be a spiritual form?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Kailasa, just so you know Plato agrees with you. I posted the following under the heading about Atlantis and Vedic Civilization, showing the similarity between Greek philosophy and Vedantic Philosophy. But I figured it would be appropriate to create a separate posting for Kailasa's question. While not Vedantic philosophy, this is Plato's view of the eternal forms, of which this world is simply a reflection or a shadow. It is interesting to note that Plato views love or 'eros' as being the motivating factor that spurs the soul onwards towards the true reality - reality the beautiful.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>An Immortal Soul

 

As I explained, Plato believed that reality is divided into two regions.

 

One region is the world of the senses, about which we can only have approximate or incomplete knowledge by using our five (approximate or incomplete senses). In this sensory world, “everything flows” and nothing is permanent. Nothing in the sensory world is, there are only things that come to be and pass away.

 

The other region is the world of ideas, about which we can have true knowledge by using our reason. This world of ideas cannot be perceived by the senses, but the ideas (or forms) are eternal and immutable.

 

According to Plato, man is a dual creature. We have a body that “flows” is inseparably bound to the world of the senses, and is subject to the same fate as everything else in this world – a soap bubble, for example. All our senses are based in the body and are consequently unreliable. But we also have an immortal soul – and this soul is the realm of reason. And not being physical, the soul can survey the world of ideas.

 

Plato also believed that the soul existed before it inhabited the body. But as soon as the soul wakes up in a human body, it has forgotten all the perfect ideas. Then something starts to happen. In fact, a wondrous process begins. As the human being discovers the various forms in the natural world, a vague recollection stirs his soul. He sees a horse – but an imperfect horse. The sight of it is sufficient to awaken in the soul a faint recollection of the perfect “horse”, which the soul once saw in the world of ideas, and this stirs the soul with a yearning to return to its true realm. Plato calls this yearning eros – which means love. The soul, then, experiences a “longing to return to its true origin”. From now on, the body and the whole sensory world is experienced as imperfect and insignificant. The soul yearns to fly home on the wings of love to the world of ideas. It longs to be freed from the chains of the body.

 

Let me quickly emphasize that Plato is describing an ideal course of life, since by no means all humans set the soul free to begin its journey back to the world of ideas. Most people cling to the sensory world’s “reflections” of ideas. They see a horse – and another horse. But they never see that of which every horse is only a feeble imitation. What Plato describes is the philosopher’s way. His philosophy can be read as a description of philosophic practice.

 

When you see a shadow, you will assume that there must be something casting the shadow. You see the shadow of an animal. You think it may be a horse, but you are not quite sure. So you turn around and see the horse itself – which of course is infinitely more beautiful and sharper in outline than the blurred “horse-shadow”. Plato believed similarly that all natural phenomena are merely shadows of the eternal forms or ideas. But most people are content with a life among shadows. They give no thought to what is casting the shadows. They think shadows are all there are, never realizing even that they are, in fact, shadows. And thus they pay no heed to the immortality of their own soul. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Gauracandra

 

 

[animesh]

Whose thinking was accepted by people more - Plato or Aristotle? As I have read, Aristotle rejected lots of philosophies of Plato. As is written in the book Sophie's world itself, Aristotle said that Plato was just 'doubling up things' by his theory of ideas.

[Gauracandra]

Perhaps. I'm reminded of a psychology class I took in college. In it the professor said in effect "No psychologist takes Freud's theories seriously. They were interesting at the time, but have long been discarded". Then I took a second psyche class and I mentioned this to my other professor. His reaction was just the opposite. He thought Freud was brilliant. So who knows? One day Einsteins theory of relativity will be discarded for a new theory as well.

 

I haven't read the book 'Sophie's World' but it sounds like you have. I'd be curious what your take is on the book as a whole. Personally I hate reading fiction unless its good. I tend to like non-fiction (biographies etc...) just fine, but with fiction, unless it grabs my attention quickly I generally don't complete it. So what do you think of it? Is it worth a read?

 

Gauracandra

[animesh]

Hi Gauracandra ji,

I have read Sophie's world. Like you, I also do not like reading fiction. I like reading on different kinds of culture, biographies, history, and of course, science. But "Sophie's world" is quite different from usual kinds of fiction. In this you will not find things like 'murder', 'villain', 'romance', 'hero and heroine' etc. etc. In fact, it is more of a philosophy book than fiction. I really enjoyed reading the book. In this book, philosphies of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes are dealt with. It also talks about Galileo and Newton. Of course, one can not understand completely the works of these philosophers and scientists. But one will surely get a very nice introduction. So, even though I do not like fiction, I liked this book.