Plato's Argument On Equality

The argument therefore follows that there must be “Equality” in order for two objects to be compared; we can say two objects are equal but they do not possess true “Equality”. “Equality” in its true form cannot be experienced because it is a conception of what it means for two things to be perfectly equal. Even though we can conceive the idea of equality, we can not experience it, and neither can we do so whilst in the body, (iep.com). Since equality cannot be experienced through the body, it must be able to be experienced by the soul. This would therefore mean that knowledge could only be accessible through reason and is therefore a priori in its existence within the body, (iep.com). Plato therefore argues that the soul is the means to which
one can be connected to thoughts and therefore claims that it is the “soul that has possession of this priori knowledge, and that knowledge of Equality and other forms exists before we are born”, (iep.com). Seeing that we can understand these things in the present life, it would imply that we must have obtained knowledge of them previously, hence, supporting the argument of recollection.
The weaknesses within the argument however, are obvious.
Why is it the case that a soul is alive before birth, obtains knowledge, then enters a body and loses its knowledge. He claims that we must have acquired the knowledge of the Forms before we were born but then lost it at birth. After this, the knowledge was recovered due to our sense and therefore we begin to recollect, (iep.com). However, Socrates is not certain that when he dies, he will gain access to the realm of Forms, he mentions his dream-state and states that he will remember what happened. What is the point of having dreams or memories if you can not remember them
consciously. In Plato's Affinity Argument for the Immortality of the Soul, Socrates attempts to answer Simmias' fear that, even if the soul has existed eternally before birth, it might be dispersed and this would be the end of its existence, (Phaedo,77). His response is an argument which aims to show that the soul is complex because it is similar to the Forms and dissimilar to physical objects, (iep.com). This argument does not seem to be very substantial. The argument states that the soul, is similar to the Invisible, meaning the Forms, which are always the same, as compared to bodies “which are visible ,constantly changing, and are more similar to the Visible than is the soul,” (Phaedo, 77). Whereas when the soul considers by itself, it goes to the realm of the Forms, and ceases its wandering. Therefore the soul is more like the Always the Same than the Never the Same (Phaedo,79). So interpreted, the main thrust of this chain of arguments is clearly very weak. That the soul is more similar to the Forms than it is to bodies does not establish how it is similar. Secondly, it falls short of showing that it is similar in that both the soul and the Forms are immortal or indestructible. Also when one puts into consideration the other arguments the weakness of this argument become more clear. So even if the soul is truly invisible this still does not support the fact that it is unchanging or invisible. Neither does does it show that the soul is parallel to what is always the same just because it stops changing when it contemplates "the pure, that which always is both immortal and the same." Also the supposed fact that the soul rules the body does not make it similar to the Divine to the extent that the soul would be indestructible as the Divine is said to be. Therefore once again the argument appears to have faults.
In the final argument of the Phaedo, Plato aims to show that the soul is immortal.
Plato presupposes that there exist two kinds of things: Forms and particulars (Phaedo,103). To explain, Plato’s Forms are comparable to for example, hot things, cold things, beautiful things, amongst others. What every hot, cold, or beautiful thing has in common with other hot, cold,beautiful things, are that they share in the Forms of Hotness, Coldness, or Beauty, (iep.com). One difference between Plato’s theory of Forms and the common theories of universals is that Plato does not introduce a Form for every kind of thing. It is not necessary to assume that there is a Form for every predicate; however, in the Phaedo, Plato introduces Forms that are shared in by particulars in several specific ways. Particulars are referred to as the things that are hot, cold or beautiful. A stove, a fork, and a tree for example are particulars. All these particulars share in a Form. For example, we might have a hot stove, sharing in the Form of Hotness; a cold fork, sharing in the Form of Coldness, and a beautiful tree, sharing in the Form of Beauty. When you define something like beauty, you define what the Form is. Forms are the objects of definitions. So this means you can define beauty, justice, tallness, hotness, amongst the rest. And, whatever these definitions are, the objects of the definitions are the Forms of Beauty, Justice, Tallness, and Hotness just to name a few. Particulars do not necessarily
have a definition, (iep.com) .So, when you say things about particulars, for example that a tree is beautiful, you are pointing to the specific Form the particular displays, in this case it would be the Form of Beauty.
The Final Argument in Phaedo says that the soul can be called the cause of life, (Phaedo14), and therefore cannot admit death, (Phaedo,15). This is not substantial, because although the soul may be the source of life and cannot therefore exist and be dead, it may cease to exist. Further, part of Plato’s definition of cause is that for it be both necessary and sufficient for all of its effects which is problematic because it would follow that everything that is alive i.e. plants as well as humans, must have rational souls, which is implausible and does not cohere with the rest of his theory, (Phaedo,16).
In conclusion after a thorough analysis of the Phaedo, one would say that these arguments are not plausible and are ultimately insufficient because of the presupposed existence of the soul. Most of the arguments namely the cyclical and recollection argument are weak due to their irrelevant arguments.