Lucretius and Plato on the Mortality of the Soul
Patrick McCleery
Essay I: Lucretius and Plato on the Mortality of the Soul
In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’ position is the more reasonable of the two. The first argument put forward by Lucretius is the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul.” This argument states that the soul is a “fine material substance,” akin to an invisible gas (Lucretius 3.425-44). When the vessel that contains a gas shatters, the gas escapes and dissipates. Therefore, when the vessel (body) containing the soul shatters (dies), the soul dissipates. Plato argues that the soul partakes of the Form of Life, and that Forms are eternal and unchanging. Therefore, the soul cannot die. Plato’s argument lacks validity because there is no compelling reason to believe that the soul partakes of the form of life. It is simply taken for granted that “the soul (mind) is what brings life so the soul (mind) partakes of the form of life.” Plato could be accused of “begging the question,” or assuming the existence of that which he should be proving. This is also called “arguing in a circle” (Earle 262). It is also worth noting that many of the problems of the ancient arguments regarding the soul result from equivocating “mind” with “soul.” The existence of the soul is presupposed as a result of this equivocation. Since people think, they must have souls. For now, we will
Essay I: Lucretius and Plato on the Mortality of the Soul
In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’ position is the more reasonable of the two. The first argument put forward by Lucretius is the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul.” This argument states that the soul is a “fine material substance,” akin to an invisible gas (Lucretius 3.425-44). When the vessel that contains a gas shatters, the gas escapes and dissipates. Therefore, when the vessel (body) containing the soul shatters (dies), the soul dissipates. Plato argues that the soul partakes of the Form of Life, and that Forms are eternal and unchanging. Therefore, the soul cannot die. Plato’s argument lacks validity because there is no compelling reason to believe that the soul partakes of the form of life. It is simply taken for granted that “the soul (mind) is what brings life so the soul (mind) partakes of the form of life.” Plato could be accused of “begging the question,” or assuming the existence of that which he should be proving. This is also called “arguing in a circle” (Earle 262). It is also worth noting that many of the problems of the ancient arguments regarding the soul result from equivocating “mind” with “soul.” The existence of the soul is presupposed as a result of this equivocation. Since people think, they must have souls. For now, we will
Cited: Earle, William James. Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1992. Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. Other reference material used “Phaedo.” Wikipedia, 2010. Web. Oct. 2010.