1. Ye
1
Philosophy 100A
Paper #2
Tianqian (Kelly) Ye
Socrates’ Argument against the Soul being a Harmony
In Phaedo, a Socrates’ dialogue written by Plato, Socrates addresses a significant
theme throughout the dialogue that the soul, unlike the body, is immortal. One of
Socrates’ students Simmias gives an objection to Socrates by arguing that the soul can be
destroyed instead of being immortal. To persuade Simmias to believe in the immortality
of the soul, Socrates states an argument (94b – 95a) that I will discuss in this paper. First,
I will situate relevant context to explain why Socrates makes this argument. Then, I will
explain what Socrates concerns by reconstructing the argument. Finally, to evaluate this
argument, I will show the weakest premise and provide my own argument against it.
When establishing the argument about the immortality of the soul, Socrates
believes that invisible things cannot be destroyed. Unlike the body, which is visible and
earthly, the soul is invisible to human eyes. Thus, the soul cannot be destroyed due to its
invisibility.1
However, Simmias makes a counterexample against this premise by saying
that the invisible soul can be destroyed. According to Simmias’ example, the harmony of
a lyre is created as a result of its proper performance. For instance, if someone knows
how to play a lyre and makes the music beautiful, then she will produce the harmony.
However, if someone breaks a string, the harmony will no longer exist, but the lyre still
exists before the wood rots. By making an analogy, Simmias thinks that the soul of a
person is akin to the harmony, which is invisible, immaterial, and a composite of its
composing elements (the lyre and its strings). On the other hand, the body is akin to a
lyre and its strings, which are visible and physical. Hence, since the harmony does not
1
79c – 81d

2. Ye
2
exist when a string of a lyre is broken, the soul, which is “a mixture of bodily elements”
as Simmias argues, will also be destroyed “in the process we call death.”2
The analogy
reveals that the soul is mortal and perishable although it is invisible and distinct from the
physical body. Thus, Simmias rejects Socrates’ belief of the immortality of the soul by
asserting that the soul, which is a composite and a harmony of bodily elements, will not
exist after death.
However, according to Plato’s record, Socrates does not seem to be satisfied with
his student’s objection. The relationship between the soul and the body cannot be
analogized to the relationship between a harmony and a lyre. The reasoning is that the
physical harmony produced by the lyre and its strings is unlike the divine soul, which on
the other hand, is not a harmony of the body. In response to Simmias’ objection, Socrates
gives a reply, which can be formulized as following:
P1: The soul rules the body.
P2: The soul rules the body by opposing bodily inclinations.
P3: If the soul were a harmony, it would follow bodily inclinations.
C: Therefore, the soul is not a harmony. (P1, P2 & P3)
Suppose the body inclines to water and food. According to premise 1 – the soul
rules the body, and premise 2 – the soul rules the body by opposition, the soul in this case
would not allow the body to have drinks and food. The soul, as Socrates argues, rules the
body by “opposing nearly all of them throughout life, directing all their ways, inflicting
harsh and painful punishment on them…holding converse with desires and passions and
fears…”3
When the body tends to indulge in desires and bodily inclinations, the soul has
2
86b-d
3
94d

3. Ye
3
the power to direct the body and not vice versa. Thus, the soul is sometimes the opposite
of the body. This explains the first two premises. The third premise can be derived from
our intuition of the property of a harmony: being in tune with its composing elements.
Simmias’ previous argument (86d) tells that the soul is a composite of bodily elements
such as desires, affections, and feelings. Thus, if Socrates and Simmias both agreed that
the soul was a harmony, the soul would be in tune with these bodily inclinations.
However, since Socrates believes that the soul is the opposite of its composing elements,
he deduces the conclusion that the soul is not a harmony.
In a further step to understand Socrates’ argument explicitly, we need to explain
the reason that Socrates thinks the soul should oppose bodily inclinations to rule the body
(premise 2). This explanation requires us to examine Socrates’s attitude towards the
practice of philosophy in the beginning of the dialogue. While facing his own death,
Socrates says to his students with great composure, “One aim of those who practice
philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death.”4
Death is not a dread
for Socrates since he believes that death is the “freedom and separation of the soul from
the body”.5
The body and the soul are completely different and separated. The body is
associated with bodily inclinations such as desires, pleasures, and passions. The soul, on
the other hand, is pure and divine before it enters the body. To ensure that the soul is not
imprisoned by desires, which is “the greatest and most extreme evil”, Socrates thinks that
men should practice philosophy in the right way to oppose all bodily inclinations and let
the soul rule over the body.6
Thus, according to Socrates, a good philosopher should
purify her/his soul by being in training for a complete separation of the soul from the
4
64a
5
67d-e
6
82c – 83b

4. Ye
4
body, namely death. Now it can be seen clearly that the soul should rule the body and
oppose bodily inclinations rather than surrender to the body and be a harmony of its
composing elements.
Although Socrates’ argument seems valid in its logic form, it is unconvincing to
me that the soul rules the body. In my opinion, premise 1 is the weakest premise. I will
offer two reasons based on my understanding of consciousness to reject premise 1. First, I
think that the body can instead rule the soul through consciousness. Consciousness builds
a bridge that correlates the immaterial soul and the material body to let the body direct
the soul. For instance, suppose someone is kidnapped and experiencing physical
suffering. The pain in his body, or the C-fibers firing in the philosophical sense,
stimulates the nerve system in his brain and enables him to have an internal feeling of
pain in his mind/soul. The observable pain in his body leads him to be aware of or
experience the unobservable pain, namely, the intensity of the pain in this mind/soul.
Consciousness in this case transmits the stimulus from the body to the mind/soul. Thus,
through this bridge element, the body can rule the soul, or at least, the body can cause a
very subjective feeling in the soul.
Moreover, I think it is consciousness, rather than the soul, that rules the body. I
will argue that consciousness leads people to behave with rationality, whereas the soul in
Plato’s testimony of Socrates somehow lacks the function of consciousness. For instance,
suppose I see it is raining and I want to go out. In response to the environment, a
conscious signal in my mind tells me to take an umbrella. Therefore, followed this signal,
I will take an umbrella and will not get wet in the rain. As a production of my brain
functions, my consciousness transmits the signal of raining from my brain to my body,

5. Ye
5
thereby enabling me to behave rationally. On the other hand, Plato does not mention that
the soul has the function of consciousness, namely, the ability to enable people to behave
with rationality. In Socratic time, the soul is believed as a single divinity separated from
the body. The ancient Greeks had very little scientific knowledge of brain functions,
neuroscience, and cognitive science compared to what we have today. The soul that
Socrates argues is somehow superstitious to me because the explanation of the soul does
not depend on any scientific analysis. We probably cannot use our contemporary research
on consciousness and brain functions to explain what Socrates means the soul is.
Therefore, my argument against premise 1 would be promising: since the soul lacks the
function of consciousness to lead people to behave rationally, it cannot rule the body.
In response to my criticisms, Plato might say that consciousness is more akin to
the soul than to the body because both consciousness and the soul are immaterial and
invisible. Thus, he might argue that if the soul is akin to consciousness and that
consciousness rules the body, the soul can also rule the body. However, Plato’s response
would seem implausible to me. In the dialogue, the argument about the immortality of the
soul would provide sufficient reason to refute Plato’s response. A person loses her/his
consciousness when she/he dies, but her/his soul is eternal after death. Thus,
consciousness is mortal and unlike the soul. Therefore, since the soul is not identical to
consciousness, we cannot deduce Socrates’ premise that the soul rules the body from my
proposition that consciousness rules the body.

6. Philosophy 177A
Paper 1
Tianqian (Kelly) Ye
Comparing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche on the Highest State of Being
In Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments and Thus Spake
Zarathustra, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche offer two distinctive views on the highest state
of being to which a human being can attain. Kierkegaard argues that in order to achieve
the highest state of being, one has to have faith by living in accordance with a paradox.
However, Nietzsche believes that the highest self-development is to achieve the ultimate
overcoming, as presented in the character of the “overman”. In this paper, I will first state
several Kierkegaard’s premises on the highest development of oneself. Then, after
explaining Nietzsche’s argument, I will compare his argument with Kierkegaard’s.
Finally, from my comparison, I will conclude that Nietzsche seems to go beyond
Kierkegaard and shows more liberation and determination than Kierkegaard in his
argument of the highest state of being. Let us examine Kierkegaard’s argument firstly.
Kierkegaard believes that after undergoing immediacy, aesthetics, ethics, and
religious, the highest development of oneself is to have faith. We might think that faith is
anything that one believes. For example, a football lover would think that football is his
faith. However, for Kierkegaard, faith means the maximum amount of commitment to
one’s existence, and faith’s content is a paradox. In an explanatory way, Kierkegaard’s
main points of the highest being to which a human being can attain can be formulized as
following:
Statement: The highest state of being to which humans can attain is to have faith.
Supporting premises:

7. 1) In order to have faith, one must commit to living according to a paradox.
2) In order to commit to living according to a paradox, one must overcome anxiety,
despair, suffering, and guilt.
3) In order to overcome anxiety, despair, suffering, and guilt, one must become a
subject in full by extending subjectivity to the highest degree, namely, the
“passion of the infinite”.
4) In order to achieve the “passion of the infinite”, one has to maximize his/her
rational thinking.
5) In order to maximize his/her rational thinking, one must be ethical.1
Whereas this argument is not strictly formulized as a premise-conclusion
argument, for the purpose of being understandable in a logic sequence, let us start
analyzing from the first premise to the last one and then go back to the first premise to
explain the conclusion. In the first premise, Kierkegaard argues that paradox is a main
content of faith. By saying living in accordance with a paradox, Kierkegaard means that
committing oneself to something that you are knowable and something that is impossible
the case, for example, commitment to something that requires some amount of
uncertainties, risks, danger, and etc. These characteristics can be seen from anxiety,
despair, suffering, and guilt as Kierkegaard discusses in his essay “Selection from The
Concept of Anxiety”. He argues, as in premise 2, that overcoming anxiety, despair,
suffering, and guilt is to commit to living in accordance to a paradox. By saying
overcoming, Kierkegaard means that one must not escape these negative emotions;
instead, one is willing to affirm or even to accept them as being part of his/her existence.
1
Being ethical is the third stage of self-development, which I will not discuss in this paper.

8. In other words, when encountering some pathos, one has to face directly to it, act in spite
of it, and relates it to the meaning of one’s life. In order to do so, Kierkegaard believes
that the process of overcoming must involve the increasingly maximum extent of
subjectivity, namely, treating one’s existence as a project throughout one’s whole life.
This gives premise 3, extending subjectivity to the “passion of the infinite”.
The process of maximizing subjectivity requires one to incorporate the
characteristics of an ideal into one’s first-personal existence. As Kierkegaard suggests in
particular, an authentic Christian should live literally the whole of his/her existence in
relation to the characteristics of Christianity and think that it is his/her decision to do so.
However, this kind of commitment is different from an irrational commitment or a blind
worship. Rather, as premise 4 states, the maximum amount of subjectivity is built upon
the maximum amount of rationality. Upon this point, Kierkegaard claims that one should
combine the subjective and the rational in order to understand what a paradox is. This
brings us back to premise 1. By integrating what I previously discuss, premise 1 can now
be explained in the following way: true faith is committing the whole existence to
something even though one knows it is impossible but still overcomes it and devotes
one’s whole life to it. When having the true faith, according to Kierkegaard, one can be
said to attain the highest state being to which a human being can attain. This deduces the
conclusion and explains the whole argument.
Also known as an existentialist philosopher, Nietzsche, like Kierkegaard, also
highlights the importance of the individual existence, namely, to ask oneself how to live,
what is the value of living, and etc. However, unlike Kierkegaard, Nietzsche believes that
the highest state of being to which humans can achieve is to attain the ultimate

9. overcoming. In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche gives a name to such individual
human being who attains the highest potential, the “overman”. In order to examine the
similarities and differences between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard’s thoughts, I shall first
explain Nietzsche’s argument:
Statement: The highest state of being to which human beings can attain is to achieve the
ultimate overcoming.
Supporting premises:
1) In order to achieve the ultimate overcoming, one will have to affirm all being.
2) In order to affirm all being, one will have to overcome for the sake of his/her own
freely chosen values.
3) In order to overcome for the sake of his/her own freely chosen values, one will
have to set out goals/values/meanings.
We need to define what is the ultimate overcoming in order to understand what
Nietzsche is meant by the highest potential of human beings. Nietzsche believes that the
most fundamental drive of human beings to flourish and develop themselves is the will to
power. By exerting the will to power, one can overcome obstacles, be responsible for
oneself, and become stronger. The ultimate overcoming, in this sense, is to exert the will
to power to one’s whole existence. In other words, in order to attain the highest
development of human beings, one has to be absolutely responsible for oneself, pushing
oneself to become stronger, and even in the process to become the strongest human being
against one’s weakness. However, the ultimate overcoming also requires one to affirm all
being in the world.2
Whether one sees and experiences the world as good or evil, one has
to accept everything in his/her life. As Nietzsche argues in Beyond Good and Evil, the
2
As in premise 1

10. will to truth brings us into crisis to recognize the apparent world in which we everyday
live as fundamentally orderless and in chaos. Although this is a sad and an unbearable
reality to all human beings, by recognizing this reality and accepting, affirming, or even
overcoming it, one can achieve the ultimate self-overcoming of humanity.
In comparison to Kierkegaard, who believes that the highest state of being is the
attainment of faith, Nietzsche somehow shows a transcendent step to which human
beings can attain. Whereas faith as Kierkegaard believes can be attained through
maximizing one’s subjectivity, one still lives within oneself, that is, one still has to cope
with suffering and the weakness as part of one’s life. However, as for Nietzsche, by
transcending the totality of human condition, the overman is not only wholly capable of
enduring it but also living beyond oneself within it. In other words, besides accepting the
entire human condition and affirming the good and bad aspects of the world as a whole,
the overman self-overcomes all weaknesses in his humanity through the reconciliation of
all tragedies in his life, in order to fully appreciate all that he has gone through, including
horror and suffering. Transcending thus means that to accept and overcome the entire
negative condition of one’s being, to end revenge against others, and more importantly, to
be grateful to one’s enemies and obstacles. Therefore, the overman, the highest
development of human beings as Nietzsche thinks, surpasses the evil and appreciates
what is opposed to him, thus living beyond oneself. In this sense, Nietzsche seems to go
beyond Kierkegaard on his argument of the highest development of humans.
As we have discussed previously in Nietzsche’s premises, to achieve the ultimate
overcoming, one will have to affirm all being whether it is good or bad. However, an
important requisite to do this, as in premise 2, is to overcome for the sake of one’s freely

11. chosen values. One’s freely chosen values can be varied, but these values should depend
on what one loves and esteems. Overcoming for the sake of values that one freely
chooses for oneself and pursuing with which one loves, one is not restrained by his/her
decision and can bring joy into the process of becoming a developed person. While
Nietzsche tends to suggest that every individual has the freedom of choice that brings joy
and liberation to one’s overcoming, the freedom of choice is inhibited in Kierkegaard’s
view on faith. Although Kierkegaard also thinks that overcoming is to become the kind of
person one wants to be, faith is set to govern and restrain one’s being. In other words, one
has to discipline oneself according to faith. Thus, one cannot freely choose what he/she
loves and has to give it up when incorporating faith into one’s being. In this sense,
Nietzsche somehow liberates more freedom and choice for individuals than Kierkegaard
in an attempt to attain the highest potential of being.
Another difference between Kierkegaard and Nietzsche is shown in premise 3 of
Nietzsche’s argument: Nietzsche highlights the importance of goal and values in one’s
being. He suggests that one cannot overcome if one has no values for the sake of which to
overcome. That is, one should posit values to determine what kind of person he/she wants
to be. For example, if one posits his value to be a good person, he believes it is worth
overcoming for, and he is willing to overcome the evil aspect in his being for the sake of
being good. However, Kierkegaard seems less deterministic than Nietzsche. Even though
Kierkegaard claims that one needs to make a decision about the whole character of one’s
existence, he does not explain whether the decision is made for the sake of which to
overcome. This results that one still cannot see the point to overcome and does not
believe it is worth overcoming for. In this way, Nietzsche shows a more deterministic

12. attitude than Kierkegaard towards the goal of overcoming in one’s becoming to the
highest state of being.
To conclude, this paper compares Kierkegaard’s and Nietzsche’s thoughts on the
highest state of being to which humans can attain. I argue that Nietzsche seems to go
beyond Kierkegaard, showing more freedom of choice and more determination for the
goal of overcoming than Kierkegaard; however, I think whether a person can actually
attain the highest state of being, in either Kierkegaard’s or Nietzsche’s sense, remains a
question.