常人都是向往生存的，对于大多数人而言，生命是美好的，而死亡却是噩耗。然而，一位著名的希腊哲学家，苏格打底，却宣称自己并不惧怕死亡，与此同时，他说“用恰当的方式练习哲学就是练习死亡” （64a）。苏格拉底在《斐多篇》当中提供了他的论证，并被他的学生柏拉图所记载了下来。这里有两个主要的论证能够支持他的观点：（1）哲学家应当接受身体与灵魂分离；（2）灵魂在与肉体分离之时并不会消失（灵魂不朽说）。在这两条主要的纲领之下，存在着许多微小的细节需要弥补。我将会在本论文当中对此进行重构，并且将会尝试去展现他们是如何可以彼此进行弥合。

我们首先应当搞清楚一句令人困惑的话，那就是为什么哲学家应当欢迎死亡。在他的论证之初，苏格拉底对于死亡已经做过定义，那就是肉体与灵魂的分离（64 c）。他的对话者也认同这个定义，并且这是这样一个二元论式的假设预设了灵魂与肉体是两种不同的实体。灵魂这个词在希腊语当中有着与基督教灵魂截然不同之意。在古希腊，灵魂（psuchē）意味着可以使某物运动的东西，同时，在这个意义上，亚里士多德还认为动物与植物同样拥有灵魂。亚里士多德的灵魂三分论（2.2, 413a32; 2.3, 415a9）被记载在《论灵魂》当中。当我们能够在正确的语境当中理解灵魂之后，我们就可以踏上这场死亡之旅。

根据死亡即是灵魂与肉体的分离这一定义，苏格拉底提供了一些理由来支撑他的论证。他指出灵魂与肉体的两个区别用于表明灵魂才是哲学家的唯一追求。

第一区别：

a） 身体上的愉悦诸如食物，酒精，和性并不是真正的哲学家之追求（64 d）。

b） 如果一个人并不关心他的身体，那么“他就会把他的注意从身体转向灵魂”（64 d）。

c） 因此，“哲学家相比于其他人更加能够把灵魂从身体哪里尽可能的解放出来” （65 a）。

第二区别：

a) “身体是阻碍一个人去追寻知识的障碍”（65 b）。

b) 身体感官是不清楚和准确的，当我们追寻知识的时候 （65 b）。

c) “灵魂掌握真理”，但是它常常被身体所欺骗 （65 c）。

d) 因此，“灵魂拥有最高的理性当没有这些感官给它制造麻烦” （65 c）。

现在，灵魂与肉体之间的区别已经对我们清晰可见。身体通常伴随着感官快乐，诸如食物，饮酒，和性，但这些并不是一个哲学家所追求的。那么，什么才是哲学家苦苦追寻的呢？知识与真理看起来是一个可以相互替换的术语，在这个语境当中，这恰恰就是哲学家所真正追求的。除此之外，感觉器官与身体相连接，但他们却会阻碍灵魂去抓住知识，因为身体感官是不清晰与不准确的。因此，为了使哲学家能够成功的获取知识，身体与灵魂的分离就是一个必要条件。换言之，爱智慧者如哲学家应当迎接死亡，因为它会帮助他们从身体那里得自由，从而能够更加准确和清晰的把握真理，在没有身体干扰的情况下。

然而，这看起来并不能完全说服他的对手，那人问他你如何能够知道灵魂死后依然会存在？

我认为你在这里所说的都是非常精彩的，但是人们发现你所说的关于灵魂的事物是很难相信的。他们会认为，在灵魂离开身体之后，它将不会存在，并且会随着人的死亡一同消失，在离开身体之时。当灵魂离开身体之后，他就会像一口气或烟雾一样散去，遁入无何有之乡。（70 a）

这段引用表现了当时人们对于灵魂的一种通常看法。即便他们同意灵魂与身体是有区别的，但是大多数的人并不相信灵魂在死后依然会存在。这就是关于灵魂不朽的论证为何十分重要。让我们开始展开苏格拉底的第二个主要论证。

苏格拉底关于灵魂不朽的论证可以分为三个小论证：

周期性论证（69 e - 72 e）

亲和力论证（78 b - 84 b）

生命形式的争论（102 a - 107 b）

我将在下面的段落中详细说明每一个。所有这三个论点都继续对比身体和灵魂，其次是他以前的惯例。他的推理变得更具哲学性，并引入了理念论。

交替论证

对立面来自对立面（71 a）。

a）当对立面来自对立时，就会发生一个过程（71b）。

b）死亡与生命相反。“生物和事物来自死者”（71 d）。

c）生命的过程与死亡相反（72 a）。

d）“死者的灵魂必须在某个地方，他们才能再次回来”。（72 a）

e）如果这个过程不是周期性的，那些重生的东西已经死了，那么所有的东西都会死掉。（72 b）

f）因此，事物的灵魂必须在不活着的时候存在，并经历生命的过程。

在第一次尝试使用交替论证时，苏格拉底指出死亡与生命是对立的，而对立则来自对立面。如果有一个死亡的过程，那么必须有一个复活的过程。请记住，灵魂或psuchē的功能是运动。因此，死亡和出生表现为交替。例如，我们可以使用变成棕褐色和变得苍白的类比来理解它。变得苍白的东西可能永远不会变成棕褐色，但它继续存在。

亲和力论证

a）世界上的事物可以分为两类：事物保持在同一状态，事物永远不会处于同一状态。（78 e）

b）“灵魂最像神圣的，不死的，可理解的，统一的，不可分割的，永远与它本身一样。”（80 b）

c）“身体最像人类，凡人，多种形式，难以理解，可溶，永远不会一样。”（80 b）

d）因此，灵魂永远处于同一状态，存在。

这个论证告诉我们灵魂与身体之间的主要区别。它们中的每一个都属于不同类别的东西。一个人总是保持相同的状态，而另一个人永远不会保持相同的状态。灵魂属于前者，身体属于后者。我们总是使用我们所知道的来猜测我们不知道的东西。大多数人认为身体会在死后丧生，灵魂也会死亡。然而，他们将两种不同类型的东西误解为一种。因为灵魂归于不死的类别，它将继续存在

生命形式的争论

a）“对立的事物或成为它的对立面将会一直存在，是其所是；无论消失或毁灭“（103 a）例如，对立的形式本身从不承认与自身相反的事物，但会消失或消亡。（冷不承认热;奇数不承认偶数。）

b）“不仅形式本身一直都应该是其所是，但是除了形式之外还有其他的东西，但是只要它存在，它就具有它的特征。”（103 e）（雪和火;两个和三个。）

c）“这些对立面不仅不相互承认，而且对于那些虽然彼此不相反但总是包含对立面的东西也是如此，似乎这些并不承认与之相反的形式在他们里面;当它接近它们时，它们要么灭亡，要么让路。“（104 b）（雪从不承认热;数字二从不承认奇数。）

d）如果某些东西将形式带入它所占用的形式，它将不承认形式的对立面。（105 a）（五不承认偶的形式）

e）存在于身体中的灵魂使其活着。（105 c）

f）灵魂永远不会承认死亡。（105天）

g）如果灵魂不承认死亡，那么灵魂就是不死的。（105 e）

h）“如果不死的人也是坚不可摧的，那么灵魂就不可能被摧毁，然后就会有死亡”（106 b）

i）“不死的人是坚不可摧的。”（106 c）

j）因此，灵魂是坚不可摧的。（106 c）

生命形式的论证是最长的，也是最具形而上学色彩的论证。形式理论在这里被引入，并在《理想国》当中得到发展。首先，这个论证的主要前提是对立的形式本身从不承认自己的对立面，而是让步或消亡。除此之外，分有形式的东西也绝不会承认它的相反形式。通过从先前的论证中知道灵魂和身体彼此相反，他们所参与的形式也互不承认。如果灵魂永远不会承认死亡，那么它就是不死的。他们都认为不死是坚不可摧的。所以，灵魂是坚不可摧的，不朽的。

在检验了苏格拉底提供的支持他的所有论证“那些以正确的方式实践哲学的人就是练习死亡”（64 a）这对我来说听起来很合理，因为我们知道死亡是身体的分离和灵魂。哲学家获取清醒知识的最佳方式是通过他们的灵魂来抓住它，这种灵魂是无死的，坚不可摧的。因此，死亡是一种净化过程，是哲学家在活着时能够做到的唯一方式，以获得真理。

原文

Ordinary people like to keep living, and most of us believe that life is good and death is bad. However, there is one famous Greek philosopher who says that he does not fear of death and “those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice of dying and death” (64 a). Socrates provides his arguments for this belief in Phaedo, recorded by his student Plato. Two main arguments are supporting his idea: (1) philosophers should welcome separation from their body and (2) the soul will not perish at that separation (immortality of the soul). Underlying each of those two main streams, many supporting details needs to be given. I will reconstruct each of them and show how they fit together.

We should figure out the most confusing words why philosophers should welcome death. At the beginning of his argument, Socrates defines death as the separation of body and soul (64 c). His interlocutors are also agreed with this definition and this a dualistic assumption that body and soul are two distinct entities. The word “soul” in Greek psuchē[1] has different meaning in Christian soul. In ancient Greece, psuchē means what makes something alive and Aristotle thinks non-human animals and plants as having souls in this sense. Aristotle’s three types of soul are stated in the De Anima (2.2, 413a32; 2.3, 415a9). After we understand the true meaning of ‘soul’ in the right context, we can continue our journey to death.

Based on the definition that death as the separation of body and soul, Socrates providing a number of reasons to support his arguments. He states out two distinctions between body and soul in order to convey that soul is the only sake for philosophers.

First distinction:

a) Bodily pleasures such as food, drink, and sex, are not what real philosophers’ sake (64 d).

b) If a man does not concern with the body, then “he turns away from the body towards the soul” (64 d).

c) Therefore, “the philosopher more than other men frees the soul from association with the body as much as possible” (65 a).

Second distinction:

a) “The body is an obstacle when one associates with it in the search for knowledge” (65 b).

b) Bodily senses are not clear and precise when we search for knowledge (65 b).

c) “Soul grasps the truth,” but it is always deceived by the body (65 c).

d) Therefore, “the soul reasons best when none of these senses troubles it” (65 c).

Now, it is clear for us that the distinction between body and soul. The body associates with pleasures such as food, drink, and sex, but all of these are not philosophers’ sake. What is the best thing that philosophers search for? Knowledge and truth are seemly interchangeable term in this context, and this is the sake of philosophers. Besides, sense perceptions link to the body, but they perplex soul to grasp knowledge since bodily sense are not clear and precise. Therefore, in order for philosophers to successfully acquire knowledge, the separation of body and soul is a necessary condition. In other words, people who love wisdom as philosophers should welcome the death, since it helps them free from body to grasp the truth without any disturbance such as bodily pleasure and sense, in the most precise and clear manner.

However, it seems that he has not fully persuaded his interlocutor who asks how you know the soul will still exist after death.

Everything else you said is excellent, I think, but men find it very hard to believewhat you said about the soul. They think that after it has left the body it noexists anywhere, but that it is destroyed and dissolved on the day the mandies, as soon as it leaves the body; and that, on leaving it, it is dispersed likebreath or smoke, has flown away and gone and it no longer anything anywhere.(70 a)

This quote indicates the common view of the soul in that time. Even they agree with the distinctions between body and soul, but most people don’t believe that the soul can still exist after death. That is why the argument of immortality of the soul is so significant. Let’s go through the second main argument Socrates elaborated.

Socrates’ argument of immortality of the soul can be separated as three minor arguments:

The Cyclical Argument (69 e - 72 e) [2]

The Affinity Argument (78 b - 84 b) [3]

The Argument from Form of Life (102 a - 107 b)[4]

I will elaborate each of them in the following passage. All of these three arguments continue to contrast body and soul, followed by his previous routine. His reasoning becomes more philosophical and the theory of forms is introduced.

The Cyclical Argument

Opposites come to be from opposites (71 a).

a) There is a process occurred when opposites come to be from opposites (71 b).

b) Death is the opposite of life. “Living creatures and things come to be from the dead”(71 d).

c) A process of coming to life is opposite to dying (72 a).

d) “The souls of the dead must be somewhere whence they can come back again”. (72 a)

e) If the process is not cyclical, the same things being reborn as have died, then all things would end up dead. (72 b)

f) Therefore, the souls of things must have existed when not alive, and undergo the process of coming to life.

In the first attempt by using the cyclical argument, Socrates points out that death and life are opposites and opposites come from opposites. If there is a process of dying, then there must be a process of coming to life. Remember, the function of soul or psuchē is to animate. So, death and birth perform as alternation. For instance, we can use the analogy of becoming tan and becoming pale to understand it. The thing which becomes pale may never become tan again, but it continues to exist.

The Affinity Argument

a) Things in the world can be divided into two sorts: the things remain in the same state, and the things never stay in the same state. (78 e)

b) “The soul is most like the divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself.” (80 b)

c) “The body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble and never consistently the same.” (80 b)

d) Therefore, soul will always remain in the same state, existence.

This argument tells us the major distinctions between soul and body. Each of them belongs to a different category of things. One always remains in the same state, and the other is never remain in the same state. The soul is under the former, and the body belongs to the latter. We always use what we know to guess what we don't know. Most people think that body will perish after death and soul do so. However, they misrelate two different types of things into one. Because the soul is ascribed to the class which is deathless, it will continue to exist.

The Argument from Form of Life

a) “The opposites become or be its opposite will still being what it was; either it gives way or is destroyed.” (103 a) I.e., opposite Forms themselves never admit their own opposites, but go away or perish. (Cold never admits hot; even never admits odd.)

b) “Not only the Form itself deserves its own name for all time, but there is something else that is not the Form but has its character whenever it exists.” (103 e) (Snow and fire; two and three.)

c) “Not only do those opposites not admit each other, but this is also true of those things which, while not being opposite to each other yet always contain the opposites, and it seems that these do not admit that Form which is opposite to that which is in them; when it approaches them, they either perish or give way.” (104 b) (Sonw never admits hot; two never admits odd.)

d) If something brings the Form into that which it occupies, it will not admit the opposite of the form. (105 a) (Five does not admit the form of the Even)

e) A soul, present in a body, makes it living. (105 c)

f) The soul will never admit death. (105 d)

g) If soul does not admit death, then soul is deathless. (105 e)

h) “If the deathless is also indestructible, it is impossible for the soul to be destroyed then death comes upon it” (106 b)

i) “The deathless is indestructible.” (106 c)

j) Therefore, the soul is indestructible. (106 c)

The argument from form of life is the longest and the most metaphysical one. The theory of forms is introduced at here, and it gets developed in the Republic. First, this argument is guided by the primary premise that opposite Forms themselves never admit their own opposites, but give way or perish. In addition to that, things which partake a form will also never admit its opposite form. By knowing that soul and body are opposite from each other from previous arguments, the forms that they partake are also do not admit. If the soul will never admit death, then it is deathless. All of them agree that deathless is indestructible. So, soul is indestructible and immortal.

After the examining all argument that Socrates provided to supporting his wired words “those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice of dying and death.” (64 a) It sounds reasonable to me since we know that death is the separation of body and soul. The best way for philosophers to sake knowledge is to grasp it by their souls, which is deathless and indestructible. Thus, the death, a process of purification, is the only way that philosopher can do while they are alive, in order to acquire the truth.

参考文献

A., & Hicks, R. D. (1907). De anima. Cambridge University Press.

Plato (1977), Pheado, Complete works (P., Cooper, J. M., & Hutchinson, D. S., Trans).. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. (The original work published 347 BCE)

Plato (1977), Republic, Complete works (P., Cooper, J. M., & Hutchinson, D. S., Trans).. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. (The original work published 347 BCE)

Phaedo. (2017, March 23). Retrieved March 25, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedo

Psuche - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2017, from http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/psuche.html