Harvard Classics Reading Club discussion

Does anybody else run into the problem in Socratic dialogues where they disagree with a part of the argument and then can't follow the rest of it seriously? Plato is trying to discuss a serious topic here, but for me, at least, when I read the last few lines I can't keep going in the current line of thought. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me as "obvious".

"Then let us consider this question, not in relation to man only, but in relation to animals generally, and to plants, and to everything of which there is generation, and the proof will be easier. Are not all things which have opposites generated out of their opposites? I mean such things as good and evil, just and unjust-and there are innumerable other opposites which are generated out of opposites. And I want to show that this holds universally of all opposites; I mean to say, for example, that anything which becomes greater must become greater after being less.

True.

And that which becomes less must have been once greater and then become less.

Yes.

And the weaker is generated from the stronger, and the swifter from the slower.

Very true.

And the worse is from the better, and the more just is from the more unjust.

Of course.

And is this true of all opposites? and are we convinced that all of them are generated out of opposites?

Yes.

And in this universal opposition of all things, are there not also two intermediate processes which are ever going on, from one to the other, and back again; where there is a greater and a less there is also an intermediate process of increase and diminution, and that which grows is said to wax, and that which decays to wane?

Yes, he said.

And there are many other processes, such as division and composition, cooling and heating, which equally involve a passage into and out of one another. And this holds of all opposites, even though not always expressed in words-they are generated out of one another, and there is a passing or process from one to the other of them?

Very true, he replied.

Well, and is there not an opposite of life, as sleep is the opposite of waking?

True, he said.

And what is that?

Death, he answered.

And these, then, are generated, if they are opposites, the one from the other, and have there their two intermediate processes also?

Of course.

Now, said Socrates, I will analyze one of the two pairs of opposites which I have mentioned to you, and also its intermediate processes, and you shall analyze the other to me. The state of sleep is opposed to the state of waking, and out of sleeping waking is generated, and out of waking, sleeping, and the process of generation is in the one case falling asleep, and in the other waking up. Are you agreed about that?

Quite agreed.

Then suppose that you analyze life and death to me in the same manner. Is not death opposed to life?

Yes.

And they are generated one from the other?

Yes.

What is generated from life?

Death.

And what from death?

I can only say in answer-life.

Then the living, whether things or persons, Cebes, are generated from the dead?

That is clear, he replied."

I had similar issues Matt. These are the great thinkers?

Well to be fair I believe they were, when placing them in the context of their times and the limited knowledge they had of science. But I did have issues with how they relied so heavily on analogy - applying knowledge they observed to be true of the relationships between observable phenomena to things that are completely of a different thing all together, such as comparing the relationship of odd/even numbers, hot/cold, etc. and applying it to form the basis of an understanding of the nature of souls?!?

I have not studied a lot of philosophy..is this the typical way in which conclusions are drawn?

"This is like this and has this relationship, therefore this other, totally unrelated thing necessarily works the same way"

I can understand if the comparisons are at least in the same ballpark, like inferring something about the color blue based on a knowledge of red or green, etc., but some of their comparisons in my mind are not relatable in the least, and furthermore, as you stated, even some of their first presumptions that they base their analogies on are not always agreeable to me and therefore I cannot follow it to the it's conclusion either. So I have problems with both the method and the conclusion.