.
The second argument, either known as the argument from knowledge or from recollection, states that everything we learn was already stored in our soul and that all we are doing when we "learn" new things is recollecting them. He proves this by saying that without being taught, we already understand concepts such as equality. For example if someone was to hold up a long stick and a shorter stick then we would have an innate understanding that the sticks were not of an equal size; therefore our understanding of such an abstract concept must have come from an intelligent form of immortal knowledge that we already inherited at birth. This theory again infers that the soul existed before birth; this also infers that it exists after death; therefore it makes logical sense that a soul that could survive death must have a high level of intellect. This theory explains why scientists claim to "discover" new knowledge of medicines and space, rather than "making," as they already have prior knowledge of the subject. A common criticism of this theory is that all people have varying levels of intellect; therefore if God is omnibenevolent and treats all people equally it would seem to defy the definition of God to suggest that he would give one person a more intelligent soul than another person. On the other hand Plato would most likely say that those that are more intelligent are the ones that are more in touch with their soul and this can be achieved through the study of philosophy. .
Plato's third argument appears to be the weakest of all three and is often referred to as the argument from affinity. The theory differentiates between what is immaterial, invisible, and immortal and what is material, visible, and perishable; with the soul being immaterial and the body being material. He believed that the soul, once the body has died, will go to the world of forms. However if the soul had been unpurified by bodily influences then it would remain in the world of senses.
