Plato's Phaedrus: The Myth Of The Soul
The Myth of the Soul
Plato’s Phaedrus centers around the concept of the soul and its division. Plato uses the soul to describe physiological thinking and justification of all aspects of philosophy as the most noble of all ventures because of its relationship to the soul. The first speeches are on love and how best to love. The central arguments are whether or not it is best in a Paederastic to be in a relationship with someone who does or does not love you. Initially, Socrates seemed fairly skeptical of myths. However this view changed by the end of the Phaedrus. At the end he seemed willing to employ the use of any myth as long has it has some sort of truth. His change can be justified because philosophy itself contains some sort of madness or a requirement of something other than direct reasoning. Myths are meant to describe common experiences shared by a culture, whether or not they can be backed up by fact.
In the Phaedrus, Plato’s most commonly employed myths are those in relation to the soul. Plato implies that he believed that the soul has no beginning and has no end- that it simply is. Every aspect of the soul is simply built onto the already established soul. Our souls define how we interpret new and old things and how we decide to live our lives. Our souls are composed of multiple different parts, all pertaining to past events. The different myths mentioned involving the soul help his audience to gain further access into his own …show more content…
definition of the soul. He describes the soul as immortal and that is because:
“… Whatever is always in motion is immortal, while what moves, and is moved by, something else stops living when it stops moving. So it is only what moves itself that never desists from motion, since it does not leave off being itself. In fact, this self-mover is also the source and spring of motion in everything else that moves; and a source has no beginning. That is because anything that has a beginning comes from some source, but there is no source for this, since a source that got its start from something else would no longer be the source. And since it cannot have a beginning, then necessarily it cannot be destroyed. That is because if a source were destroyed it could never get started again from anything else and nothing else could get started from it- that is, if everything gets started from a source” (Phaedrus, p. 29, lines 250C-252D).
Since the soul is a self-mover, it is the source of everything else that moves. The souls of everything spread out and make up that thing, whatever it may be. In Plato’s discussion on rhetoric he states that: “since the nature of speech is in fact to direct the soul, whoever intends to be a rhetorician must know how many kinds of soul there are” (Phaedrus page 73, lines 271-272D). He then says that the speaker “must learn all of this [the souls of the audience] well, then put his theory into practice and develop the ability to discern each kind clearly as it occurs in the actions of real life” (p. 73, lines 283D- 271E). The understanding of the individual souls of the audience can mean the difference between a good and bad speech. This relates back to the discussion about love because every soul’s understanding comes from its knowledge of love in one way or another. The way that a soul loves dictates how easily it is persuaded by an orator.
Burke states that “much that we take as observations about “reality” may be but the spinning out of possibilities implicit in our particular choice of terms” (p 116 On Symbols and Society). Which can be understood that even as we accept reality, it is just the sum of the choices we made out of our ideas that got us to our understanding. Our own perception of “truth” leads us to our ultimate perception of reality. Burke also discusses “symbolic action” and the “reflection… selection… and deflection of reality” (p. 115). He means that how we phrase what we intend to say can say to an audience.
The myth of the soul is one of the most commonly used ones in society. There are people who devote themselves to finding a “soul-mate”. For these people, the identification of a soul similar to theirs is an once-in-a-lifetime experience- they also believe that souls wander and are meant to be found. Wittgenstein offers the idea that “We may derive it [how we judge something] from experience, but experience does not direct us to derive anything from experience” (On Certainty p. 19e, section 130). Even though we use our experiences to make future decisions, past events in our lives tell us not to judge based on those experiences. Our perception of past events mark our souls to spread them out and alter our realities. A past bad experience may positively influence our souls in one aspect of our lives and mar another and they build on top of each other and make up a living thing. It is because of our past experiences building up that we cannot find a true beginning of an end to our souls, since they are forever changing from one form to another. The myth of a soul is important to our culture because people think that it gives their life a greater meaning than who they are. They allow people to believe that when they die they don’t just die. The myth of the wandering soul gives some the hope that there is one true mate for them somewhere. Myths allow people to share common beliefs with each other throughout our culture and connect on more personal levels, they also give explanations for common questions- such as what happens after death. Barthes claims that “it is human history which converts reality into speech” (Myth Today, p. 110). Meaning that how we interpret our past collective events as a culture define what gets turned into myths and the explanations behind them. Without our histories- if we forget or do not make a note to remember them, we would not have our own personal myths, meaning that we could not share them as a culture.
Every culture has its own set of common beliefs and myths in order to keep them together as a whole.
Plato’s myths of the soul are still accessible to contemporary audiences, because we (as an audience) are still seeking answers to whether or not there is a soul. Plato explains that there are different fragments to a whole, and our other authors reassemble those fragments to justify our realities. Myths unify cultures and individuals because of their seemingly universal nature and common
understanding.
Works Cited
Barthes, Ronald. Myth Today.
Burke, Kenneth. "On Symbols and Society." The Heritage of Sociology. Ed. Joseph R. Gusfield. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, n.d. N. pag. The Heritage of Sociology. Rpt. in The University of Chicago Press. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
Plato. Phaedrus. Indianapolis/Cambridgge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1995. Print
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York, Grand Rapids, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, London, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto: Harper & Row, Publishers
Plato’s Phaedrus centers around the concept of the soul and its division. Plato uses the soul to describe physiological thinking and justification of all aspects of philosophy as the most noble of all ventures because of its relationship to the soul. The first speeches are on love and how best to love. The central arguments are whether or not it is best in a Paederastic to be in a relationship with someone who does or does not love you. Initially, Socrates seemed fairly skeptical of myths. However this view changed by the end of the Phaedrus. At the end he seemed willing to employ the use of any myth as long has it has some sort of truth. His change can be justified because philosophy itself contains some sort of madness or a requirement of something other than direct reasoning. Myths are meant to describe common experiences shared by a culture, whether or not they can be backed up by fact.
In the Phaedrus, Plato’s most commonly employed myths are those in relation to the soul. Plato implies that he believed that the soul has no beginning and has no end- that it simply is. Every aspect of the soul is simply built onto the already established soul. Our souls define how we interpret new and old things and how we decide to live our lives. Our souls are composed of multiple different parts, all pertaining to past events. The different myths mentioned involving the soul help his audience to gain further access into his own …show more content…
definition of the soul. He describes the soul as immortal and that is because:
“… Whatever is always in motion is immortal, while what moves, and is moved by, something else stops living when it stops moving. So it is only what moves itself that never desists from motion, since it does not leave off being itself. In fact, this self-mover is also the source and spring of motion in everything else that moves; and a source has no beginning. That is because anything that has a beginning comes from some source, but there is no source for this, since a source that got its start from something else would no longer be the source. And since it cannot have a beginning, then necessarily it cannot be destroyed. That is because if a source were destroyed it could never get started again from anything else and nothing else could get started from it- that is, if everything gets started from a source” (Phaedrus, p. 29, lines 250C-252D).
Since the soul is a self-mover, it is the source of everything else that moves. The souls of everything spread out and make up that thing, whatever it may be. In Plato’s discussion on rhetoric he states that: “since the nature of speech is in fact to direct the soul, whoever intends to be a rhetorician must know how many kinds of soul there are” (Phaedrus page 73, lines 271-272D). He then says that the speaker “must learn all of this [the souls of the audience] well, then put his theory into practice and develop the ability to discern each kind clearly as it occurs in the actions of real life” (p. 73, lines 283D- 271E). The understanding of the individual souls of the audience can mean the difference between a good and bad speech. This relates back to the discussion about love because every soul’s understanding comes from its knowledge of love in one way or another. The way that a soul loves dictates how easily it is persuaded by an orator.
Burke states that “much that we take as observations about “reality” may be but the spinning out of possibilities implicit in our particular choice of terms” (p 116 On Symbols and Society). Which can be understood that even as we accept reality, it is just the sum of the choices we made out of our ideas that got us to our understanding. Our own perception of “truth” leads us to our ultimate perception of reality. Burke also discusses “symbolic action” and the “reflection… selection… and deflection of reality” (p. 115). He means that how we phrase what we intend to say can say to an audience.
The myth of the soul is one of the most commonly used ones in society. There are people who devote themselves to finding a “soul-mate”. For these people, the identification of a soul similar to theirs is an once-in-a-lifetime experience- they also believe that souls wander and are meant to be found. Wittgenstein offers the idea that “We may derive it [how we judge something] from experience, but experience does not direct us to derive anything from experience” (On Certainty p. 19e, section 130). Even though we use our experiences to make future decisions, past events in our lives tell us not to judge based on those experiences. Our perception of past events mark our souls to spread them out and alter our realities. A past bad experience may positively influence our souls in one aspect of our lives and mar another and they build on top of each other and make up a living thing. It is because of our past experiences building up that we cannot find a true beginning of an end to our souls, since they are forever changing from one form to another. The myth of a soul is important to our culture because people think that it gives their life a greater meaning than who they are. They allow people to believe that when they die they don’t just die. The myth of the wandering soul gives some the hope that there is one true mate for them somewhere. Myths allow people to share common beliefs with each other throughout our culture and connect on more personal levels, they also give explanations for common questions- such as what happens after death. Barthes claims that “it is human history which converts reality into speech” (Myth Today, p. 110). Meaning that how we interpret our past collective events as a culture define what gets turned into myths and the explanations behind them. Without our histories- if we forget or do not make a note to remember them, we would not have our own personal myths, meaning that we could not share them as a culture.
Every culture has its own set of common beliefs and myths in order to keep them together as a whole.
Plato’s myths of the soul are still accessible to contemporary audiences, because we (as an audience) are still seeking answers to whether or not there is a soul. Plato explains that there are different fragments to a whole, and our other authors reassemble those fragments to justify our realities. Myths unify cultures and individuals because of their seemingly universal nature and common
understanding.
Works Cited
Barthes, Ronald. Myth Today.
Burke, Kenneth. "On Symbols and Society." The Heritage of Sociology. Ed. Joseph R. Gusfield. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, n.d. N. pag. The Heritage of Sociology. Rpt. in The University of Chicago Press. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
Plato. Phaedrus. Indianapolis/Cambridgge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1995. Print
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York, Grand Rapids, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, London, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto: Harper & Row, Publishers