I really like Plato’s thought process about the soul not having a begining or an end because it kind of reflects what I have always been taught. It makes sense that our soul would exist previously because if they didn’t where would they come from? The Catholic view point would say that God creates our souls before we are born, and once we are conceived, the souls enter our body. Once we have died, our soul will leave our body and continue to exist. Plato's discussion on the psycological aspects of the soul however was really confusing I felt. Most likely it is because I have never thought of the soul as a psycological thing before.
I thought that the circularity of Plato’s theory is very interesting. I like the idea that the citizen is a small representation of the city of which they are a part. Just as the city is divided into castes, the individual is composed of “…three hierarchically structured physical elements” (Palmer 29). Both the individual and the city, when working properly, equal justice (or exceptional goodness). I find the flow of Plato’s theory to be easy to understand. I also find his beliefs about law to make quite a bit of sense – even though we may not be loyal to the “…imperfect embodiment of the Law, it is the Law that makes us what we are” (Palmer 35). Pluto’s point makes even more sense when he explains that we cannot disregard any law that we find to be inconvenient, because then there would be no law at all if this happened, “Law cannot exist if any individual has the privilege of ignoring it” (Palmer 35). In the class’s discussion of Plato and in my reading about him, I find his philosophical theory to be easy to relate to and understand.
I agree more with Plato’s views of the soul rather than Descartes’ view. Plato believes that the soul exists before and after our body itself was created or are destroyed by death. This belief goes along with what I have always been taught to think. Even after I grew up and was able to freely form ideas and opinions of my own, I still believe this. On the other hand, the fact that my father thinks evolution cannot possibly exist is a different story. To kind of tie into the belief that the soul is separate from the body, I must also believe that human nature is dualistic. Human nature is dualistic in my opinion because the body and soul are not the same thing. Dualism is a very interesting concept. Plato and Descartes’ views of dualism are slightly different but nonetheless interesting in both respects. I believe whole heartedly that the soul is separate from the body, therefore sharing Plato’s view. The body is a shell that the soul uses to protect it. The soul is a delicate item and needs as much protection as possible. I believe that our souls can communicate with one another and though we will never know it happened, I believe we can feel that something happened, we just do not know what or how. In the end, I believe that Plato’s views are the better of the two.
I think that the view of the soul that Plato came up with is very interesting and there are some parts of his theory that I agree with and there are some parts that I do not. I agree that human nature is dualistic and that there is a difference between the mind and body. I think that the mind is the essence of a person and that this is also their soul. I agree with Plato in saying that this soul is able to survive the physical body and continue a "life" after death. I disagree with Plato however when he says that the soul existed before the human physical body did thought. Maybe this is just something that I like to think or have developed from my religious upbringing, but I think that each soul is designed uniquely for each person or body. When that person is born the soul fills that body, and has never been in one before this event. I believe that this is true because if it were not then it would imply that the soul would simply go into another body once the old physical body no longer existed and I don't think that this happens. When the one body dies the soul leaves that body and, in my religious views, goes to heaven. If Plato were absolutely correct then the soul would venture around for a while and enter other physical bodies, and I think that when I die my body will go straight to heaven, and not become someone else. This means that it must have been created personally for me at the time that I was born, and only me.
While I cannot say exactly how I think the physically body interacts with the soul, I think that the soul certainly does interact with the body, and that if it did not the body could not live. I believe that the soul can live without the burden of a physical body, but the opposite cannot occur. I realize that this is the argument against dualism, but for me being religious explains it well. I think that the soul controls the body and impels it to do and feel certain ways. It is the essence of a person. It is what makes them "them".
I really like Plato’s thought process about the soul not having a begining or an end because it kind of reflects what I have always been taught. It makes sense that our soul would exist previously because if they didn’t where would they come from? The Catholic view point would say that God creates our souls before we are born, and once we are conceived, the souls enter our body. Once we have died, our soul will leave our body and continue to exist. Plato's discussion on the psycological aspects of the soul however was really confusing I felt. Most likely it is because I have never thought of the soul as a psycological thing before.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the circularity of Plato’s theory is very interesting. I like the idea that the citizen is a small representation of the city of which they are a part. Just as the city is divided into castes, the individual is composed of “…three hierarchically structured physical elements” (Palmer 29). Both the individual and the city, when working properly, equal justice (or exceptional goodness). I find the flow of Plato’s theory to be easy to understand. I also find his beliefs about law to make quite a bit of sense – even though we may not be loyal to the “…imperfect embodiment of the Law, it is the Law that makes us what we are” (Palmer 35). Pluto’s point makes even more sense when he explains that we cannot disregard any law that we find to be inconvenient, because then there would be no law at all if this happened, “Law cannot exist if any individual has the privilege of ignoring it” (Palmer 35). In the class’s discussion of Plato and in my reading about him, I find his philosophical theory to be easy to relate to and understand.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Plato’s views of the soul rather than Descartes’ view. Plato believes that the soul exists before and after our body itself was created or are destroyed by death. This belief goes along with what I have always been taught to think. Even after I grew up and was able to freely form ideas and opinions of my own, I still believe this. On the other hand, the fact that my father thinks evolution cannot possibly exist is a different story. To kind of tie into the belief that the soul is separate from the body, I must also believe that human nature is dualistic. Human nature is dualistic in my opinion because the body and soul are not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteDualism is a very interesting concept. Plato and Descartes’ views of dualism are slightly different but nonetheless interesting in both respects. I believe whole heartedly that the soul is separate from the body, therefore sharing Plato’s view. The body is a shell that the soul uses to protect it. The soul is a delicate item and needs as much protection as possible. I believe that our souls can communicate with one another and though we will never know it happened, I believe we can feel that something happened, we just do not know what or how. In the end, I believe that Plato’s views are the better of the two.
I think that the view of the soul that Plato came up with is very interesting and there are some parts of his theory that I agree with and there are some parts that I do not. I agree that human nature is dualistic and that there is a difference between the mind and body. I think that the mind is the essence of a person and that this is also their soul. I agree with Plato in saying that this soul is able to survive the physical body and continue a "life" after death. I disagree with Plato however when he says that the soul existed before the human physical body did thought. Maybe this is just something that I like to think or have developed from my religious upbringing, but I think that each soul is designed uniquely for each person or body. When that person is born the soul fills that body, and has never been in one before this event. I believe that this is true because if it were not then it would imply that the soul would simply go into another body once the old physical body no longer existed and I don't think that this happens. When the one body dies the soul leaves that body and, in my religious views, goes to heaven. If Plato were absolutely correct then the soul would venture around for a while and enter other physical bodies, and I think that when I die my body will go straight to heaven, and not become someone else. This means that it must have been created personally for me at the time that I was born, and only me.
ReplyDeleteWhile I cannot say exactly how I think the physically body interacts with the soul, I think that the soul certainly does interact with the body, and that if it did not the body could not live. I believe that the soul can live without the burden of a physical body, but the opposite cannot occur. I realize that this is the argument against dualism, but for me being religious explains it well. I think that the soul controls the body and impels it to do and feel certain ways. It is the essence of a person. It is what makes them "them".