Logic of the Soul Immortal

Moralam: I have followed in the footsteps of Plato and considered his words, and those of the philosopher Socrates, in that great discussion of the soul, the Phaedo. I was surprised to note that neither man pursued a certain facet of his argument any farther than he deemed necessary.

Caiphus: What manner of logic is this, that ends before it has served all the meaning it can to the sophisticated palate?

Moralam: It is the argument for the immortality of the soul. I can agree with Socrates’ argument that, given the nature of magnitude and littleness, neither can exist within one another. In the same way heat and cold do not give to one another, but rather build upon themselves. With this in mind, it is obvious to me that indeed the soul must live on after the body, for in the soul is life, and there life remains.

Caiphus: This is the argument of the great philosopher?

Moralam: Indeed – but there is yet more that I feel should be considered!

Caiphus: Share with me, that I may understand that to which you refer.

Moralam: It is merely this: if heat and cold are relative to one another, as magnitude and littleness are polar, but only in regard to one another, are not life and death therefore relative? It seems then that it is equally possible for a soul to exist eternally in life as it may exist eternally in death. Not in death not existing, but in death, abstaining from that which is life.

Caiphus: Your words possess the façade of that which is logical, but I must consider them more before committing to your conclusion.