EQUAL STICKS AND STONES IN THE PHAEDO

Introduction

The recollection theory presents a significant explanation of knowledge to be innate. It is not obtained through knowledge but it is rather an important element of the person soul which cannot be misplaced. Its loss is founded on a false belief that is obtained in the experience. The theory explains why the when a soul enters the body due to a traumatic experience the soul itself and its interest. The traumatic experience takes control of the body and it is in this process it acquires the fake beliefs that hinder an individual from making the right decision in life[1]. The theory provides about the Socrates and their love for wisdom as it explains why the Socrates is viewed to be presupposed[2]. The theory explains why the questioning of removing the contradiction in the belief does not eliminate the knowledge. This elaborates why human beings are confused about the good belief and what hinders them from having a good life. The elimination of the false beliefs yields wisdom sufficient for the virtue and as a factor of living a good life.

According to the argument on the recollection theory as well as the Socrates’ example that demonstrates equality, it is quite clear that the use of the example of the equal sticks and stones fails to clearly demonstrate the theory of recollection. To start with, in order to make arguments on the equality of the sticks and the stones it is essential to understand the concept of equality itself[3]. Therefore in Socrates argument, he states that before birth in the prenatal existence, people must have had an encounter with the forms such as the equality concept and hence the soul is eternal.

In terms of clarity, accuracy, and certainty which are the surest elements in manifesting the equality concept, the example of the equal sticks and stones is not appropriate as it falls short of a demonstration of equality[4]. It is true that two sticks cannot be equal at any given time and thus they cannot be fully be viewed as equal though they may seem to be equal they are not fully equal in all dimensions. According to Socrates, the example does not apply to all instances but basing on his argument he perceives same to be a term that is used to differentiate between greater and lesser[5]. This is where he uses the example of the sticks and the stones to illustrate his equality concept. However, the concept does not fully apply to human beings since it fails to clearly explain how the humans are not fully equal just as the two sticks or stones. Therefore, Plato in his definition of the theory of recollection he relates the issue on similarity and equality. This is where things may seem similar and may be used to remind us of equality form[6]. It is arguably true to say that we are aware of stones or sticks do fall short of being completely identical. In order for the people to be aware that they fall short an idea of perfectly equal should be known in the Equality form.

In our senses, equal stones and sticks are equal similarly to their deficiency in regards to true Equality. In this sensible world, there are no examples of ideal equality which we had the notion of the time of existence[7]. Socrates deduces that individuals can learn through their senses about Equality but the knowledge should be obtained before birth takes place. During this time is when the true equality holds and its other forms as also true[8]. In this process, it is when the process of learning recollects them and becomes familiar with them once more.  This is the reason why Socrates argues that all knowledge is a recollection.

The metaphysics in the Phaedo lies on the common ground, methodology, and substance of Plato’s readers. The recollection theory is treated as a new development that shows some continuity of what existed before. This, therefore, qualifies the dual purpose of Phaedo as well as affirming the aim to defend immortality to the soul. A strong example that occurs at the close of Phaedo shows the Socrates taking up the role to discuss the association of immortality to the soul[9]. This is an important reason as it shows a strong evidence of Plato in the sense-transcendent theory that assumes the nature to be understood clearly by the audience.

The ground up approach is the evidence from the dialogue as it indicates that there are no clear Plato’s intentions at that particular moment. The ground up approach as a different strategy presents a clear supporting evidence due to metaphysical theory. The top down is an alternative approach that relies on establishing the Phaedo in the wider framework amongst the dialogue groups in the sticks and stones Plato’s development[10]. This approach is broad as it is able to draw chronological suggestions in philosophical reconstruction and dialogue in Plato’s thought. As a result of the hypothesis the sticks and stones of Phaedo fit in the middle period of the historical Socrates where direct influence receded and Plato’s mathematical and metaphysical interest began to assert themselves. This revelation leads to Phaedo overall reading which Plato’s conversation emerges in a top-down picture.

The Socrates presents a substitute explanation of the sticks and the stones. Socrates says that an individual who truly knows the subject should be able to elaborate to others yet they are not capable of explaining into details what the Socrates has been elucidating to the Simmias [11]. Socrates argues that recollection can be convey to them at that spot so that they may be able to give explanation to them as they ought to have gained the information in their previous life that they only came to forget in the moment of birth.

The Simmias presume the equal itself is not different from the equal stones and sticks. This further gives a reason to think that they may be different which latter characteristics do not have. Simmias presents a non-identity as a conclusion as a result of the inference[12]. His brings up the question of the assumption of the equality itself that was understood at an onset of the distinct object that was of a special kind. The presumption by the Simmias and the Socrates is a tautology that tries to influence is superfluous hence no argument is needed.

The Socrates have laid out an argument instead of drawing a conclusion out of the end results of a difference as it draws Plato’s regards as an item that is controversial and requires to be established. The Simmias and the Cebes are shown to be great philosophers who are experienced and are familiar with the theory of form. However, the argument is unstated as it proposes rival context of equals[13]. The Socrates have founded their argument on assumption in order to have a successful definition of the sticks and the stones of Phaedo which implicates metaphysical without openly presumptuous them. The traditional interpretation is insightful due to the foundation of the platonic of the argument. The theory of justification supports Plato as it provides a more appealing exegetical approach to the disagreement.

Conclusion

Cebes and Simmias agree that the Socrates have been able to prove that the soul lived before origin but they are skeptical of the soul togetherness after demise. The comments of the Socrates are proved by the recollection theory that showed that the soul lived prior to birth and the disagreement from the opposites indicates that the soul ought to have been born out of demise. This comes in bearing in intellect that the soul is reborn after its death which forces Celebs and Simmias to recognize that there is the existence of life after death. Plato’s has advanced in the Equality for that suggests that it can hold objects in itself. Therefore, in this case, the two equal sticks participates the inequality independent of each other. However, it is true to say that individual would not normally think that a single stick can be able to be able to possess properties on its own. Equality can be said to be a property that is essential objects rather than holding them as Plato makes himself susceptible to the entire cycle of objection.

 

 

References

Lee, David C. 2013. "‘Drama, Dogmatism, and the “Equals” Argument in Plato’s Phaedo’." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44 (2013): 1-40.

Miller, Fred D., and Carrie-Ann Biondi. 2015. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Volume 6, Volume 6. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=2094668.

Plato, Eva Brann, and Peter Kalkavage. 2012. Phaedo. Newburyport: Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=998513.

Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and John M. Cooper. 2000. The trial and death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, death scene from Phaedo. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub.

 

 

[1] Lee, David C. 2013. "‘Drama, Dogmatism, and the “Equals” Argument in Plato’s Phaedo’." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44 (2013): 1-40.

 

[2] Plato, Eva Brann, and Peter Kalkavage. 2012. Phaedo. Newburyport: Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=998513.

 

[3] Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and John M. Cooper. 2000. The trial and death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, death scene from Phaedo. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub.

 

[4] Miller, Fred D., and Carrie-Ann Biondi. 2015. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Volume 6, Volume 6. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=2094668.

 

[5] Lee, David C. 2013. "‘Drama, Dogmatism, and the “Equals” Argument in Plato’s Phaedo’." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44 (2013): 1-40.

 

[6] Plato, Eva Brann, and Peter Kalkavage. 2012. Phaedo. Newburyport: Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=998513.

 

[7] Miller, Fred D., and Carrie-Ann Biondi. 2015. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Volume 6, Volume 6. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=2094668.

 

[8] Plato, Eva Brann, and Peter Kalkavage. 2012. Phaedo. Newburyport: Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=998513.

 

[9] Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and John M. Cooper. 2000. The trial and death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, death scene from Phaedo. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub.

 

[10] Lee, David C. 2013. "‘Drama, Dogmatism, and the “Equals” Argument in Plato’s Phaedo’." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44 (2013): 1-40.

 

[11] Miller, Fred D., and Carrie-Ann Biondi. 2015. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Volume 6, Volume 6. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=2094668.

 

[12] Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and John M. Cooper. 2000. The trial and death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, death scene from Phaedo. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub.

 

[13] Lee, David C. 2013. "‘Drama, Dogmatism, and the “Equals” Argument in Plato’s Phaedo’." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44 (2013): 1-40.