If you accept Socrates’ theory of the soul, chances are that you might be limiting your potential. In the case of Socrates, his theory of the soul ended up limiting his lifespan because it led to a criminal prosecution and a death sentence.
I can only guess how many more years Socrates would have lived if his theory of the soul had been different. Maybe just a few more years, but those might have enabled Socrates to keep advancing philosophy and improving civilisation as a whole.
Plato’s dialogue “Phaedo” chronicles a conversation held by Socrates a few hours before committing suicide. He explained to his friends that was facing death calmly because he believed in his soul’s immortality because he possessed a pure soul.
Section 80 of “Phaedo” presents the conversation between Socrates and his friends Cebes and Simmias on immortality, in which Socrates portends that a pure soul, one uncorrupted by dishonesty and evil, will easily leave the corpse after death and go on to live forever.
In contrast, Socrates argues, an impure soul, one corrupted by dishonesty and evil, will not succeed at leaving the corpse, and perish when the corpse dissolves after death.
On this basis, Socrates recommends his friends to take care of their souls each day because moral goodness will eventually benefit them; if they cultivate their soul and keep it in a state of moral purity, their soul may likely live forever.
The context of “Phaedo”
Socrates’ and Plato’s theory of the soul are similar to the one held by Christianity, and both deserve the same warning: Let’s not forget about today’s practical problems by focusing on life after death.
“Phaedo” conveys the philosophical ideas of a man who has been sentenced to death and has already decided to commit suicide. When Socrates held the conversation about the soul’s immortality recorded in “Phaedo,” he did not have long to live.
For this reason, I would not assume that he would have held the same philosophical position in other circumstances. In the last hours of life, Socrates had no other choice than endorsing the decision that he already made.
In view of the context, I don’t think that Cebes and Simmias would have contradicted Socrates. Imagine if they had replied: “Socrates, your theories are very speculative. Is it not better to seize the opportunity to flee and go into exile instead of killing yourself?”
Socrates’ characterisation of the soul as divine, unperishable and eternal matches the Christian views on the soul, views that would only be fully formulated in the Middle Ages, more than seven hundred years after Socrates’ death.
The soul after death
For medieval Christians, good deeds will lead to eternal life in heaven for the concerned individual, while evil people will go to hell and suffer forever. To a great extent, those doctrines are still endorsed today by Christianity.
Socrates had not expected evil individuals to go to hell, but simply to dissolve, physically and spiritually, after death. Their evil acts had polluted their soul, rendering it too heavy, unable to leave the corpse after death.
My warning about those conceptions is that they can distort our present decisions by making options excessively black-or-white. Imagine if, for today’s business and private decisions, we had to spend time considering whether they will facilitate our soul’s immortality.
Socrates talked a great deal about “caring for one’s soul” but his actions are not always consistent. Sometimes, he liked self-made, hard-working individuals, but other times, he portrayed the pursuit of wealth as soulless. Sometimes, he praised critical thinking and self-determination, but other times, he called for blind allegiance to established institutions.
The more I study Plato’s dialogues, the more inconsistencies I find in Socrates’ theory of the soul. That’s why I am sceptical about Socrates’ final statements about the soul’s immortality. It seems to me that the argument provided Socrates a blanket to cover his moral meanderings and declare his own soul as pure.
Socrates’ courage
In “Phaedo,” section 67, Socrates takes his own argument to the extreme when he claims that only after death can we attain pure knowledge, and that for that reason, a philosopher is not afraid of death, since it will free his soul from the limitations of his body.
My warning refers exactly to this kind of attitude, one that undermines the importance of today’s decisions by saying that, after death, our soul will keep advancing towards perfect truth and wisdom anyway.
I regard this attitude as counterproductive. I don’t think that sensible decisions can be made today by adopting a medieval mentality, where the soul’s immortality needs to be pondered before getting a new job, moving to another city, making new friends, getting married, watching a movie or reading a book.
Socrates’ views on the soul’s immortality cannot be held as an ethical standard. Plato’s “Phaedo” records the philosophical theories of a man who is about to die by his own hand. Before granting Socrates’ theories the status of infallibility, I call for a pause to place things in perspective, assess the alternatives, and ponder the consequences.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all kinds of situations, I recommend my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”