# The Cyclical Argument



## pnome (Jan 7, 2011)

First off, this is not an argument for or against the existence of God.  Only for the existence of an immortal soul.  It is an "a priori" argument of course but humor me.

It is an argument presented in Plato's Phaedo.  A dialog between Socrates and one of his mourners named Cebes,  before he drinks hemlock for his death sentence by the Athenians.

 Blatant copy and paste from:
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rickless/Rickless/PHIL100_files/Phaedo.pdf



> Cyclical Argument (70b-72a)
> 1. Those that have an opposite come to be from their opposite.
> 2. Being alive is the opposite of being dead.
> So, 3. Living creatures come to be from the dead. (1,2)
> ...



This is just a summary of course.  You can read the whole section here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0170:text=Phaedo:section=70b

Starts on section 70b goes to 72a

What do you think?  (believers are welcome to give their thoughts as well)


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

Dang pnome that makes my noggin hurt. The first questions that came to mind for me are, how are we defining soul, and what creatures does this apply to?

If the soul is the the information and processes housed in our brain, our thoughts, emotions, memories, personality, etc and those are dependent on the underlying physical medium of the brain then that information is permanently lost when that physical medium stops working and breaks down. The physical elements that made you might be integrated into a new life and in that sense brought back to life but the information that made you "you" isn't somewhere, it's destroyed. It's like the RAM in a computer. As long as it is maintains power and is running the information it houses in a physical medium is maintained. Shut it off and those states are no longer maintained so the information dissipates into nothingness.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 7, 2011)

I think it leaves out the nil case.


----------



## pnome (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Dang pnome that makes my noggin hurt. The first questions that came to mind for me are, how are we defining soul, and what creatures does this apply to?



"living" creatures.  I don't think he makes a distinction.



> If the soul is the the information and processes housed in our brain, our thoughts, emotions, memories, personality, etc and those are dependent on the underlying physical medium of the brain then that information is permanently lost when that physical medium stops working and breaks down. The physical elements that made you might be integrated into a new life and in that sense brought back to life but the information that made you "you" isn't somewhere, it's destroyed. It's like the RAM in a computer. As long as it is maintains power and is running the information it houses in a physical medium is maintained. Shut it off and those states are no longer maintained so the information dissipates into nothingness.



This leads into Socrates' very next argument...


> Argument from Recollection (73c-76d)
> 1. If X recollects Y at time T, then X knew Y before T.
> 2. If X senses Y at T and X knows Y at T and X thinks of Z at T and Y is not
> identical to Z and knowledge of Y is not identical to knowledge of Z, then X
> ...




This is a little more complex, but basically his point is that because we have knowledge of things we were not taught (like instincts) that information must come from somewhere and thus our souls must have existed before we were born in order for us to learn that information.


----------

