Philosophy Discussion: Parmenides vs. Descartes and Plato’s Phaedo

Prompt A: Comparison of Parmenides’ “Esti Argument” and Descartes' Cogito Argument

Parmenides' "esti argument" and Descartes' cogito argument both emphasize the certainty of existence but approach it from different perspectives (Jowett, 2020). According to Parmenides, the only thing that exists is being, and there can be no non-being, since there is no way to think or to conceive non-being. In his opinion, nothingness cannot exist since it could not exist, as it would be a contradiction. It is an extreme position because it refutes change and the physical world's reality, and holds that only eternity and unchanging existence are absolute.

Quite on the contrary, the famous Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) is presented by Descartes in his Meditations. He concludes that he exists by questioning all things and even the existence of a physical world, but the fact that he is questioning anything confirms that he, as a thinking being, exists (Descartes, 1984). Though Descartes cannot deny the existence of thought and the mind, he does not say that non-being cannot exist, as Parmenides did. Instead, Descartes focuses on the confidence of his existence with his ability to think. The two philosophers have stressed the certainty of existence. However, Parmenides argues that non-being is impossible, and Descartes argues that existence is linked to the process of thinking, not existence as such.

Prompt B: Plato’s Phaedo (74b-76e) - The Immortality of the Soul

In this passage from Plato's Phaedo, Socrates argues for the soul's immortality by discussing the soul's nature and its relationship to the body (Jowett, 2020). According to him, the soul is immortal because it is related to the world of Forms, which is eternal and unchanging. Instead, the body is vulnerable to decay and destruction, meaning that the soul is separate from the body, so it must exist after death (Parmenides, circa 515 BCE). The rationale used by Plato is that, being attached to the intelligible world of Forms, the soul cannot perish with the body. To prove this point, he talks about how life and death are cyclic and that the soul can acquire eternal truths that cannot be acquired physically. The soul is, therefore, much more like the divine, unchanging reality.

I agree with Plato's reasoning, especially his differentiation between the body and the soul. I am attracted to the notion that our mental and spiritual experiences of our reasoning, love, and virtue go beyond the material world. Nonetheless, I do not believe in the soul's immortality as an absolute fact. Although his argument is quite plausible, Plato bases it on metaphysical assumptions that can hardly be proved or empirically observed. Indicatively, the conception of the soul living outside the body is a belief of belief, not evidence, and thus it becomes difficult to believe without any justification whatsoever.

Parmenides. (circa 515 BCE). On Nature. (Trans. D. A. Schreiber).

Jowett, B. (2020). Plato, Phaedo, trans. Jowett. The Center for Hellenic Studies. https://chs.harvard.edu/primary-source/plato-phaedo-sb/