The dialogues of Plato in five volumes, Vol. 2 (of 5) : $b Translated into English with analyses and introductions
Plato · en
[Sidenote: We may now say, not life makes alive, but the soul makes
alive; and the soul has a life-giving power which does not admit of death
and is therefore immortal.]
The soul, he replied.
And is this always the case?
Yes, he said, of course.
Then whatever the soul possesses, to that she comes
bearing life?
Yes, certainly.
And is there any opposite to life?
There is, he said.
And what is that?
Death.
Then the soul, as has been acknowledged, will never
receive the opposite of what she brings.
Impossible, replied Cebes.
And now, he said, what did we just now call that principle
which repels the even?
The odd.
And that principle which repels the musical or the just?
The unmusical, he said, and the unjust.
And what do we call that principle which does not admit
of death?
The immortal, he said.
And does the soul admit of death?
No.
Then the soul is immortal?
Yes, he said.
And may we say that this has been proven?
Yes, abundantly proven, Socrates, he replied.
[Sidenote: Illustrations.]
Supposing that the odd were imperishable, must not three 106
be imperishable?
Of course.
And if that which is cold were imperishable, when the
warm principle came attacking the snow, must not the snow
have retired whole and unmelted—for it could never have
perished, nor could it have remained and admitted the heat?
True, he said.
Again, if the uncooling or warm principle were imperishable,
the fire when assailed by cold would not have perished
or have been extinguished, but would have gone away unaffected?
Certainly, he said.
[Sidenote: _The mortal and immortal principles._]
And the same may be said of the immortal: if the immortal
is also imperishable, the soul when attacked by death cannot
perish; for the preceding argument shows that the soul will
not admit of death, or ever be dead, any more than three or
the odd number will admit of the even, or fire, or the heat in
the fire, of the cold. Yet a person may say: ‘But although
the odd will not become even at the approach of the even,
why may not the odd perish and the even take the place of
the odd?’ Now to him who makes this objection, we cannot
answer that the odd principle is imperishable; for this has
not been acknowledged, but if this had been acknowledged,
there would have been no difficulty in contending that at the
approach of the even the odd principle and the number three
took their departure; and the same argument would have
held good of fire and heat and any other thing.
Very true.
[Sidenote: The immortal is imperishable, and therefore the soul is
imperishable.]