1. ) True; Simmias uses the theory of recollection in his argument against Socrates about the soul and it having immortality, or not. He uses an analogy of an instrument to represent the body, and the instrument’s attunement to represent the soul. He makes a stand that if the body of an instrument can be destroyed, which will then cause the attunement to also be destroyed, then isn’t that saying the same for the relationship of the body and its soul? (72e-80c).
2. ) True; in order for the attunement or harmony within an instrument can work perfectly and in tune, the instrument must be put together correctly and in perfect harmonious measure.
3. ) False; Socrates states that there is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse, not hate mankind. However, those that do hate reasonable discourse, are objectionable and nonproductive, but by no mean the greatest evil. The greatest evil are those who hurt, torture, and destroy others for their own selfish reasons or for no reason at all, just because they can. Reasonable discourse is the refined and ideal way to resolve differences and problems. (89d-e) (… but first there is a certain experience we must be careful to avoid… That we must not become misologues, as people become misanthropes.
There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse. Misology and misanthropy arise in the same way. ) 4. ) False; how can something rule over another thing, if that thing is the making up of the thing that’s trying to rule it? For example, I cannot rule over my mother, when my mother is who made me; another example, a soul cannot rule over a body, if the body is what makes up the soul. 5. ) False; without such things as the good and the beautiful being non-existent, then how can the soul have existed, before we were born, without them?
How would we know whether or not if they did, unless the theory of recollection of course, was in play?
6. ) True; without the senses being intact, how can one hear or see accurately to know anything? To learn anything? Without just those two senses being intact, the other senses will also be inaccurate, as well. (65b) 7. ) True; he argues that when discussing opposites, that one thing comes from the opposite of another and nowhere else. (70e-72b) 8. ) False; you can’t know what you know with just your knowledge, because how can you have knowledge, if you do not know anything?
You need experience, along with trial and error, to be able to learn what you are and aren’t supposed to do. How is it that the first people came to know anything? They weren’t just born with their knowledge; they had to learn what they know that has formed into their present knowledge. (65a) 9. ) True; Socrates does accept the fact that maybe good and beautiful do not exist. That’s when, in question 5, he came to the conclusion that even without their existence, does that say that mean our soul does or doesn’t still exist before we are born?
Do we need such things as good, evil, beautiful, and ugly to have our soul be pre-existent? 10. ) False; Socrates has Simmias’ agreement that philosophers distance themselves as much as possible from bodily pleasures such as: food, drink, sex, fancy clothes, etc. Philosophers are only concerned with the comfort of their souls, and want to free the soul as much as possible from relations with the body. Socrates claims that our senses are vague and may deceive us, so the best kind of wisdom comes from basis, when distanced as far as possible from the distractions of the body. (64c-67b).