After all, his reasoning in the final passage and its conclusions do seem to conclusively prove the existence of the soul after death. However, I am not so convinced that Socrates gives sufficient argumentation to support his premise of the idea of Forms and of a few of the intermediary conclusions. Though Socrates does explain his theory of the Forms for a fair amount in the dialogue and despite it appearing to provide useful explanations to the conception of the ideas of addition and subtraction, which had previously troubled Socrates, argumentation for the foundational aspects of his theory are lacking. There is no explanation for why one ought to accept there being Forms to which any object must have characteristics of or what exactly the relation is between an object and its characteristic Form. This is rather
After all, his reasoning in the final passage and its conclusions do seem to conclusively prove the existence of the soul after death. However, I am not so convinced that Socrates gives sufficient argumentation to support his premise of the idea of Forms and of a few of the intermediary conclusions. Though Socrates does explain his theory of the Forms for a fair amount in the dialogue and despite it appearing to provide useful explanations to the conception of the ideas of addition and subtraction, which had previously troubled Socrates, argumentation for the foundational aspects of his theory are lacking. There is no explanation for why one ought to accept there being Forms to which any object must have characteristics of or what exactly the relation is between an object and its characteristic Form. This is rather