1

Edgar Luna Rojano

Professor A. Novakovic

PHIL 001

16 November 2017

Learning: A Collection or Recollection

The ​Phaedo​ is a conversation within a conversation that is occurring between Phaedo,

who was present during the final meeting with Socrates, and Echecrates, who wants to know

what happened during the final meetings. The final meetings occurred right before Socrates

drank the poison meant to execute him. Before Socrates drank the poison, he first had to give his

disciples one last lesson and one last reflection on the soul to prove that dying was not a bad

event happening to him, but rather a good one. Socrates wanted to assure his followers that he

would be moving on to better things in death.

Within the ​Phaedo​, Socrates talks to his disciples about the acceptance that a philosopher

should have when it comes to death. Socrates even says that a philosopher should look forward

to death as if it were a big event that will change everything one knows. Socrates also tries to

teach his followers that the soul is a part of the human being that is separate from the body in

each lifetime that it lives. With all this, the greater lesson Socrates explains is that we as human

beings have the innate knowledge of laws of the world around us that allow us to grasp their

concepts.​ Socrates argues that learning is in fact just the recalling of information that you forgot

from past lives rather than the indulgence of brand new information. However, I do not believe
 2

that this argument for learning is completely accurate for the basis of learning nor does it prove

the immortality of the soul as Socrates would like to prove.

When Socrates argues his idea of recollection, his idea refers to the existence of the soul

before the body did. In other words, the soul had to exist before it was born into the world with a

body to use. Socrates argues this in order to justify our ability to understand complex yet simple

concepts of how the world works. For example, we are able to understand that two objects may

be similar in shape, but different in length. Or that two objects may be the same in their size, but

not in their length. With this information, Socrates explains that we have this internal

understanding of what it means for two things to be similar to each other, but not equal. Yet we

have this idea of what equality, or as Socrates would say, “The Equal” is. This argument is

explained by Socrates as working as having this idea of The Equal because we had to have had

seen it before, as in before our birth, when the soul existed before being born into the world.

According to this argument, when we see objects in the world that are not perfectly equal, rather

similar, we are remembered of true Equality which we saw before our birth. To expand, in order

to even understand The Equal, we have to have some prior knowledge of The Equal, and since

this cannot happen through sense-experience as Socrates argues, than it had to happen before our

birth, thus proving that the soul existed before we were born. Which in turn is used by Socrates

in proving the immortality of the soul because his earlier argument proved that we come back to

life after we die, and just proved that the soul existed before birth, thus giving proof for the

immortality of the soul if it continues to exist in a new body after the death of one and existed

before the birth of the body. But this does not fully prove the immortality of the soul because

recollection relies on those arguments, the idea cannot stand on its own. What if the soul died
 3

after it is born, or what if the soul died before it was even born, we then would not be able to

prove that the soul knew anything or that it even existed.

I do not fully agree with this argument that Socrates gives for recollection. To begin, this

argument relies on the idea that the perfect form of every concept we understand must have been

seen before. That would mean that everything in the world that can be simplified into a simple

concept must have been shown to us before. Socrates states, “If those realities we are always

talking about exist, the Beautiful and the Good and all that kind of reality, and we refer all the

things we perceive to that reality, discovering that it existed before and is ours, and we compare

these things with it, then, just as they exist, so our soul must exist before we are born” (76d/ p.

115). This argument is flawed in which it implies that the soul has seen these perfect concepts,

but in order for that to happen, the soul would need to be able to sense and perceive them as the

perfect forms. However, we know that is not possible because it is the body that allows the soul

to sense and perceive. So could the soul really have an understanding of those perfect forms if it

cannot sense or perceive without a body. Where exactly and how exactly was this information

gathered, the soul could have existed, but how was the information acquired by the soul. To add

on, if learning was merely recollection, than why must our understanding be first explained to us

before we can grasp a concept. We can observe the world, but we do not understand it without it

first being explained to us. All discoveries had first gone long spans of time before being

formally introduced to us. Why are there “discoveries” if they are just recollections. This

argument would brush off all ideas we have as mere reiterations of what is argued that we

already know. Learning cannot be just a remembrance of past knowledge for then we would

eventually figure it all out again faster and sooner in our lives as we grow and move into new
 4

lives as time goes on. This also is why Socrates does not say that we can gain knowledge from

anywhere else because it would disprove his idea of recollection. He would give us another

output from which to gain information, thus meaning we can learn from another place that isn’t

wherever souls come from and see those ideal forms of concepts we grasp.

The idea of recollection is one that is flawed by Socrates for it subtly discredits

discoveries man as mere “memories.” Learning is an act that all humans, body and soul together,

go through as they live their lives. If recollection was a valid idea, then we would advance

through life faster for it would be recorded and used to remind us and help us more forward. This

basis for learning is not possible, but furthermore, it only proves that the soul could have existed

before birth, not that it will continue to exist after death.