Obviously this is not the best place to ask for help on a philosophy problem, but, I just received this terrible grade and having no one to turn to for advice, I am losing my ****ing mind!
Here is the question and my paper that answers the question:
Q:
Please select one of Socrates’ arguments that “learning is recollection” and explain [a] what you think the argument is, what you think is the strongest objection that can be made to the argument, [c] what you think is the strongest reply that can be made to that objection, and finally [d] what in turn you think is the strongest objection that can be made to that reply.
A:
[a]
Plato, in his work Phaedo, argues that Socrates postulated that “learning is recollection”. He begins to build his argument by giving background information on the soul/body relationship.
For Socrates, the body and a soul are a human being. The soul is capable of grasping truth (also called “reality”, the Equal, or forms). But the body, with its sense perceptions, and need for constant nurturing, obstructs the soul from attaining true knowledge (65-66). Therefore, the soul reasons better the more disconnected it is from the body (65-66). And it follows that the soul in death, in its existence in Hades, is free of the body and capable of knowing truth; which is why Socrates says that to love death is to love wisdom (66-68).
Socrates next argues about the opposites of the cycle of the life and death (70-72). He gives this argument by explaining that for every thing that exists there must be an opposite to it, “all things come to be in this way [from opposites](71a). Socrates gives an example of opposites, “when something comes to be larger it must necessarily become larger from having been smaller before”(70e). Therefore, the existence of opposites is cyclic and every thing also has a cycle; and in each cycle, as said by Socrates, “there are two processes: from one to the other and then again from the other to the first”(71b).
In this argument, the opposite of living is death. And a soul must come from its opposite, it must exist in death, Hades, in order for it to exist in life (71).
As already determined, the soul can know truth when detached from the body, that is, in death, and because man does not know truth, we must conclude that the soul loses its knowledge at some point. Also, a man must not know in order to know (as explained above, a cycle of opposites must exist for every thing to exist)(72e-73a).
Socrates next explains when and how knowing and not knowing takes place (73-74). He begins this part of the argument by discussing the process of recollection. Recollection is recalling something that was previously known; for example, I remember the sub-species name of a certain species of catfish. Recollection may be prompted by similar things as well as dissimilar things (74a). When recollection is prompted by similar things, one compares the item at hand with the memory closest to the item at hand(74a). For example, if I were to look at a ball, I would compare this perception of the ball to my closest memory or recollection of this ball.
But all comparisons fall short of the memory—the memory of the ball is better, the comparative is not as good; Socrates calls this “a deficiency”(74d-e). The memory we are recollecting is called the “the Equal” of the ball. This is not an equal as one might find in coming across another ball that looks identical, another ball which one may place next to the ball and see them as being equal (74b-c); “the Equal” is the perfect version of the ball; it does not exist in the physical world.
Everything we perceive is compared to its respective Equal; for example, for the ball there is it's Equal to be compared with for a tree there is it's Equal. Our knowledge of Equals must always be with us because one cannot perceive any thing without making a comparison to the Equal of the thing (75b). Because we begin to perceive things at the first moment of life, Equals must be with us before life (75b-c). Because when the body is free of the soul in death, it knows truth, the soul must know the Equals in death. Because we must forget in order to know, we must forget our knowledge of the Equal before birth and after death: at the moment of birth we forget all we know. In summary, the soul knows in death; the soul forgets at birth; and the soul recollects during life (75e).
There are numerous arguments that can be made against the idea that “learning is recollection”. One can explicate inconsistencies within Socrates's logic or one can choose to argue against the premises of the logic itself. I have chosen to argue against the idea of the existence of Equals by showing inconsistencies within Socrates's logic. In doing such I also touch on problems within Socrates's premises.
Socrates says, “all things come to be in this way, opposites from opposites (71a). If all things must have an opposite, then surely there must be a time when the soul does not know the Equal. But Socrates's argues that we always know the Equals—we always have knowledge of Equals within our souls; he says, “we must have acquired the knowledge of the Equal before this [birth] (75b). And he also says that we must have acquired knowledge of them before we were born and forgotten them at birth (75e).
The stage of forgetting the knowledge of Equals at birth would seem to satisfy the requirement of opposites, but I think there is a misuse of the meaning of the word “forget” in this case. The meaning of forget is to lose knowledge. But the knowledge lies in our souls. We forget our bodily immediate knowledge of something, but we do not lose our soul knowledge of the thing. For example, I forget the name of a certain type of fish; but the name is within my soul and can only ever be known by my soul so only my body forgot the name and may regain knowledge of the name, whereas, my soul never loses the name of the fish. So our souls never lose knowledge of Equals. Socrates suggests that our bodies gain and lose knowledge of Equals and he also says that bodies are incapable of knowing the truth, which we must call Equals (65).
If this is true, then the idea of forgetting of Equals, that is supposed to happen at birth makes no sense because our souls never lose knowledge and the thing that can lose knowledge of the Equals, the body, never gains knowledge of them anyhow (the body is incapable of knowing truth)(65a-e).
In summary, the idea of Equals does not work with the idea of opposites because: Equals are never known by man during life; and Equals are never forgotten by the soul at any time. The argument for “learning is recollection” fails in that man is incapable of recollecting what the soul always knows.
[c]
One may rebut the ideas in”” that show inconsistencies within Socrates's logic for the theory that “learning is recollection”. The argument against they hypothesis is problematic in that the text states Socrates saying that the Equal must be know by the soul before birth. I have interpreted this idea of the Equal, along with the idea that the soul is eternal, and along with the idea that the soul must know the truth or the Equal in order for a human being to perceive, to mean that the soul must always know the Equals.
But it would be logically consistent to say that the soul didn't know the Equals at some point in its eternal existence. If the soul: must be eternal in order for the cycle to make sense; must know the Equals at all times; must know the Equals in order for a human to perceive; must know the Equals when in Hades; and must at some point not know the Equal; then the only possibly time for the soul not to know the Equals it at the moment or before its inception. This argument would also support the theory of opposites: the soul must at some point not exist in order to exist.
[d]
There is a problem with the idea of the soul at some point not existing and at the same time being eternal: can something not exist and then exist eternally?
According to Socrates's logic for every existence there must be a pair of opposites that work in a cycle. If a soul is to exist it must also not exist. But the soul is eternal, which means it exists forever. It could not begin in non-existence because it must have gone through existence before getting to non-existence. And visa-versa, the soul could not have begun in the stage of existence because in order for something to be in the stage of existence it must have come from non-existence. Therefore, the cycle of being and not-being must go infinitely into the future and infinitely into the past and there cannot be an inception.
It apparently does not not make sense for a soul to be in a cycle of existence and non-existence and yet be eternal in order for human life to exist. But one might postulate such. One might postulate that as human life is not eternal, the soul is eternal in the sense that the existence stage of the cycle of a soul spans the entirety of human existence, thus giving the appearance of being eternal. At some point after (or before) human beings cease to be, the soul goes through its non-existence phase. One could also say that the soul is eternal despite the fact that at times it does not exist. It is eternal because it always returns to the state of existence.
Here is the question and my paper that answers the question:
Q:
Please select one of Socrates’ arguments that “learning is recollection” and explain [a] what you think the argument is, what you think is the strongest objection that can be made to the argument, [c] what you think is the strongest reply that can be made to that objection, and finally [d] what in turn you think is the strongest objection that can be made to that reply.
A:
On Socrates's Argument that “Learning is Recollection”
[a]
Plato, in his work Phaedo, argues that Socrates postulated that “learning is recollection”. He begins to build his argument by giving background information on the soul/body relationship.
For Socrates, the body and a soul are a human being. The soul is capable of grasping truth (also called “reality”, the Equal, or forms). But the body, with its sense perceptions, and need for constant nurturing, obstructs the soul from attaining true knowledge (65-66). Therefore, the soul reasons better the more disconnected it is from the body (65-66). And it follows that the soul in death, in its existence in Hades, is free of the body and capable of knowing truth; which is why Socrates says that to love death is to love wisdom (66-68).
Socrates next argues about the opposites of the cycle of the life and death (70-72). He gives this argument by explaining that for every thing that exists there must be an opposite to it, “all things come to be in this way [from opposites](71a). Socrates gives an example of opposites, “when something comes to be larger it must necessarily become larger from having been smaller before”(70e). Therefore, the existence of opposites is cyclic and every thing also has a cycle; and in each cycle, as said by Socrates, “there are two processes: from one to the other and then again from the other to the first”(71b).
In this argument, the opposite of living is death. And a soul must come from its opposite, it must exist in death, Hades, in order for it to exist in life (71).
As already determined, the soul can know truth when detached from the body, that is, in death, and because man does not know truth, we must conclude that the soul loses its knowledge at some point. Also, a man must not know in order to know (as explained above, a cycle of opposites must exist for every thing to exist)(72e-73a).
Socrates next explains when and how knowing and not knowing takes place (73-74). He begins this part of the argument by discussing the process of recollection. Recollection is recalling something that was previously known; for example, I remember the sub-species name of a certain species of catfish. Recollection may be prompted by similar things as well as dissimilar things (74a). When recollection is prompted by similar things, one compares the item at hand with the memory closest to the item at hand(74a). For example, if I were to look at a ball, I would compare this perception of the ball to my closest memory or recollection of this ball.
But all comparisons fall short of the memory—the memory of the ball is better, the comparative is not as good; Socrates calls this “a deficiency”(74d-e). The memory we are recollecting is called the “the Equal” of the ball. This is not an equal as one might find in coming across another ball that looks identical, another ball which one may place next to the ball and see them as being equal (74b-c); “the Equal” is the perfect version of the ball; it does not exist in the physical world.
Everything we perceive is compared to its respective Equal; for example, for the ball there is it's Equal to be compared with for a tree there is it's Equal. Our knowledge of Equals must always be with us because one cannot perceive any thing without making a comparison to the Equal of the thing (75b). Because we begin to perceive things at the first moment of life, Equals must be with us before life (75b-c). Because when the body is free of the soul in death, it knows truth, the soul must know the Equals in death. Because we must forget in order to know, we must forget our knowledge of the Equal before birth and after death: at the moment of birth we forget all we know. In summary, the soul knows in death; the soul forgets at birth; and the soul recollects during life (75e).
There are numerous arguments that can be made against the idea that “learning is recollection”. One can explicate inconsistencies within Socrates's logic or one can choose to argue against the premises of the logic itself. I have chosen to argue against the idea of the existence of Equals by showing inconsistencies within Socrates's logic. In doing such I also touch on problems within Socrates's premises.
Socrates says, “all things come to be in this way, opposites from opposites (71a). If all things must have an opposite, then surely there must be a time when the soul does not know the Equal. But Socrates's argues that we always know the Equals—we always have knowledge of Equals within our souls; he says, “we must have acquired the knowledge of the Equal before this [birth] (75b). And he also says that we must have acquired knowledge of them before we were born and forgotten them at birth (75e).
The stage of forgetting the knowledge of Equals at birth would seem to satisfy the requirement of opposites, but I think there is a misuse of the meaning of the word “forget” in this case. The meaning of forget is to lose knowledge. But the knowledge lies in our souls. We forget our bodily immediate knowledge of something, but we do not lose our soul knowledge of the thing. For example, I forget the name of a certain type of fish; but the name is within my soul and can only ever be known by my soul so only my body forgot the name and may regain knowledge of the name, whereas, my soul never loses the name of the fish. So our souls never lose knowledge of Equals. Socrates suggests that our bodies gain and lose knowledge of Equals and he also says that bodies are incapable of knowing the truth, which we must call Equals (65).
If this is true, then the idea of forgetting of Equals, that is supposed to happen at birth makes no sense because our souls never lose knowledge and the thing that can lose knowledge of the Equals, the body, never gains knowledge of them anyhow (the body is incapable of knowing truth)(65a-e).
In summary, the idea of Equals does not work with the idea of opposites because: Equals are never known by man during life; and Equals are never forgotten by the soul at any time. The argument for “learning is recollection” fails in that man is incapable of recollecting what the soul always knows.
[c]
One may rebut the ideas in”” that show inconsistencies within Socrates's logic for the theory that “learning is recollection”. The argument against they hypothesis is problematic in that the text states Socrates saying that the Equal must be know by the soul before birth. I have interpreted this idea of the Equal, along with the idea that the soul is eternal, and along with the idea that the soul must know the truth or the Equal in order for a human being to perceive, to mean that the soul must always know the Equals.
But it would be logically consistent to say that the soul didn't know the Equals at some point in its eternal existence. If the soul: must be eternal in order for the cycle to make sense; must know the Equals at all times; must know the Equals in order for a human to perceive; must know the Equals when in Hades; and must at some point not know the Equal; then the only possibly time for the soul not to know the Equals it at the moment or before its inception. This argument would also support the theory of opposites: the soul must at some point not exist in order to exist.
[d]
There is a problem with the idea of the soul at some point not existing and at the same time being eternal: can something not exist and then exist eternally?
According to Socrates's logic for every existence there must be a pair of opposites that work in a cycle. If a soul is to exist it must also not exist. But the soul is eternal, which means it exists forever. It could not begin in non-existence because it must have gone through existence before getting to non-existence. And visa-versa, the soul could not have begun in the stage of existence because in order for something to be in the stage of existence it must have come from non-existence. Therefore, the cycle of being and not-being must go infinitely into the future and infinitely into the past and there cannot be an inception.
It apparently does not not make sense for a soul to be in a cycle of existence and non-existence and yet be eternal in order for human life to exist. But one might postulate such. One might postulate that as human life is not eternal, the soul is eternal in the sense that the existence stage of the cycle of a soul spans the entirety of human existence, thus giving the appearance of being eternal. At some point after (or before) human beings cease to be, the soul goes through its non-existence phase. One could also say that the soul is eternal despite the fact that at times it does not exist. It is eternal because it always returns to the state of existence.
Your kidding right!!! 
