Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Plato begins Phaedo with the question, "You yourself, Phaedo -- were you present with Socrates on that day he drank the poison in the prison, or did you hear it from another?"

Frequently Plato begins his dialogues with a word that sets the theme for the piece. In this case the word is literally "self." It quickly becomes apparent why this word is so important. Who is this man, Socrates, who is about to die? Is it the body of the man that dies, or is the man in reality the soul, which lives on? Or does it?

Phaedo is a more sophisticated dialogue than Meno. More than one scholar has called it a "labyrinth." If this is your first time through the piece, don't be alarmed if parts of it seem a bit thorny.

It may be helpful to examine it in sections, which are roughly as follows:

1. Introduction: Phaedo and Echecrates, the "frame" of the conversation, 57 - 59

2. The Friends enter Socrates' cell. The separateness of the body and soul; Death as freedom of the soul from the tyranny of the body. 59-69

3. Immortality of the soul: the argument from contraries 69-72

4. Immortality of the soul: the argument from recollection 72-77

5. Immortality of the soul: the argument from simplicity/invisibility 78-84

6. Simmias and Cebes offer metaphors : the lyre and the weaver 84-88

7. Misology -- the hatred of accounts/arguments 88-91

8. Socrates' critique of the lyre metaphor 91-95

9. Socrates pauses. His intellectual autobiography and his "second sailing" 95-102

10. Immortality; the argument from cause/participation in 'the forms" 102-107

11. Myth of the True Earth 107-115

12. The death of Socrates 115-118

These division are not in the dialogue explicitly. There are important transitions between the arguments that we may want to discuss, and of course the arguments refer back to each other. If it is helpful to look at the dialogue in sections, we can; if it not helpful, feel free to ignore.

Bring it on.

Socrates spends almost all his final hourse talking with two Boeotians, Simmias and Cebes, not with his Athenian friends. Boeotians had the reputation of being country bumpkins. What's up with that?

Phaedo tells Echecrates, a pythagorean from Phlia, about the conversation that Socrates had with Simmias and Cebes, Thebans who had studied with Philolaus, a Pythagorean teacher. None of them (aside from Socrates) are Athenians, but there seems to be a Pythagorean connection here.

It is interesting that Socrates, who never left Athens except on campaign, has so many "foreign" friends.

Does anyone else think that it is interesting that Socrates bends his leg and then seemingly randomly launches into a philosophical aside on pain and pleasure?

"Socrates sat up on his bed, and bent back his leg and rubbed it with his hand, and said while he rubbed it, "How strange a thing it is, my friends, that which people call pleasure! And how wonderful is its relation to pain, which they suppose to be its opposite....That's just what it seems like to me; first came the pain in my leg from the irons, and here seems to come following after it, pleasure."
(Forgive me for being lazy about typing the whole paragraph)

I have not finished the dialogue, so if I need to be quiet and keep reading to find out how this relates to the rest then make free to tell me so. :-)

Patrice wrote: "I thought the point of the question was to make us think about the transmission of the story. He was a witness but we're hearing about it second hand. How much faith do we put into someone else's account? ..."

Good points. Are you suggesting that Plato, who admits he wasn't there, is sowing the seeds of doubt about the authenticity of his account?

And why the need for the narrative frame? Why doesn't Plato just start out with the dialogue between Socrates and his interlocutors the way he does in Meno?

Genni wrote: "Does anyone else think that it is interesting that Socrates bends his leg and then seemingly randomly launches into a philosophical aside on pain and pleasure?

"Socrates sat up on his bed, and ben..."

Excellent observation -- as you read the rest of the dialogue I think you'll find that the theme of contraries (pain/pleasure, body/soul, life/death) runs all the way through.

Genni wrote: "Does anyone else think that it is interesting that Socrates bends his leg and then seemingly randomly launches into a philosophical aside on pain and pleasure?"

It seems random, but it is actually an obsession. It's like what you said about parenting your two small boys, everything is viewed in that light, and every thought turned in that direction. :)

"If you have only one day to live, what would you do?" For Socrates, it's philosophy.

Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I thought the point of the question was to make us think about the transmission of the story. He was a witness but we're hearing about it second hand. How much faith do we put into ..."

Plato needs a narrator to describe the action: The unshackling of Socrates, rubbing his leg, drinking, etc. There was no action in Meno.

Patrice wrote: "3. Socrates is a Theseus figure, saving the youth of Athens."

It's interesting that the mission to Delos is responsible for the delay. There are some additional points of comparison between the mission to Delos and the course of the dialogue that might be worth considering.

Minos demands fourteen young Athenians to feed to his minotaur. Phaedo names fourteen people who attended Socrates in his jail cell on that final day.

To defeat the minotaur, Theseus has to enter the labyrinth created by Daedalus. (Remember the statues of Daedalus from Meno?) Socrates also has to enter a labyrinth of sorts, one made of arguments. And he has a monster to slay. What is Socrates's minotaur?

When Theseus returns from Crete after successfully defeating the minotaur he stops on Delos to offer thanks and a dance of celebration to Apollo. While awaiting execution, Socrates has been writing poetry, including a hymn to Apollo. Socrates, who inveighs against poetry and poets so extensively in the Republic -- he's now writing poetry?

Patrice wrote: "Do you think the Minotaur is death?"

That sounds right to me. Each of Socrates' arguments is a blow against the idea of mortality. Just as Theseus destroyed the Minotaur to release Athens from the obligation to sacrifice fourteen of its citizens every nine years, Socrates releases his fourteen friends from the fear of death. (If they are convinced by his arguments, that is.)

His first argument seems the simplest: death is the freedom of the soul from the bonds of the body. The philosopher should welcome death as a liberation, not a loss, and in life the philosopher should devote himself "to nothing else but dying and being dead." 64a Simmias finds this thought amusing and laughs, but it appears Socrates is quite serious about this.

Is this argument convincing? Is the life of the body something so easily disregarded?

Suppose you have accounts with two different banks. If you know for certain that one of them is going bankrupt soon, it is logical to empty your account with that bank and deposit it into the other. In a way, "dying and being dead" is like the transition of funds from the mortal body to the immortal soul,

If the immortality of the soul is a certainty, this is the only logical choice; If not, there is Pascal's Wager.

Thomas wrote: "Phaedo tells Echecrates, a pythagorean from Phlia, about the conversation that Socrates had with Simmias and Cebes, Thebans who had studied with Philolaus, a Pythagorean teacher. None of them (asid..."

PHAEDO: Of native Athenians there were, besides Apollodorus, Critobulus and his father Crito, Hermogenes, Epigenes, Aeschines, Antisthenes; likewise Ctesippus of the deme of Paeania, Menexenus, and some others; Plato, if I am not mistaken, was ill. ECHECRATES: Were there any strangers? PHAEDO: Yes, there were; Simmias the Theban, and Cebes, and Phaedondes; Euclid and Terpison, who came from Megara.

Plato (2012-03-19). The Complete Works of Plato [Annotated] (Kindle Locations 21942-21945). Latus ePublishing. Kindle Edition.

It seems to me that there were seven Athenians present!?

Can anyone fill me in on "the Eleven"?

'For the Eleven,' he said, 'are now with Socrates; they are taking off his chains, and giving orders that he is to die to-day.'

Plato (2012-03-19). The Complete Works of Plato [Annotated] (Kindle Locations 21953-21954). Latus ePublishing. Kindle Edition.

Genni wrote: "Does anyone else think that it is interesting that Socrates bends his leg and then seemingly randomly launches into a philosophical aside on pain and pleasure?

"Socrates sat up on his bed, and ben..."

The text focuses on the pain of the chains and the pleasure of what? Lack of pain?

I find it extremely strange that the pain and pleasure conversation related to inanimate objects when he has just held his small child for the last time and had Crito take the child and his wife home. No mention of the pain or pleasure associated with these relationships and the immediate end of them. Is it possible that Socrates was being a "tough guy" and masking the real pain and pleasure associated with his life with the reference to chains?

Elizabeth wrote: "Can anyone fill me in on "the Eleven"?"

the Eleven; Gk. hoi hendeka · A board of public officials responsible for the state prison of Athens, and in charge of all executions (A Glossary of Athenian Legal Terms)

Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Do you think the Minotaur is death?"

That sounds right to me. Each of Socrates' arguments is a blow against the idea of mortality. Just as Theseus destroyed the Minotaur to release..."

"Is this argument convincing? Is the life of the body something so easily disregarded?"

I just read about the Minotaur on Wikipedia and am under the impression that the Minotaur is the threat. Taking that information, wouldn't the Minotaur in this discussion be life and particularly the senses?

I'm not sure that I find Socrates' argument convincing since we have just learned that he, in his 70's, has fairly recently fathered a child, so I guess he's not too opposed to pleasures. Seems a little hypocritical to me, as in he may think it's possible to find knowledge if it weren't for our senses, but he's not exactly practicing what he preaches. Maybe he's not as committed to philosophy as he's like to be!

Elizabeth wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Phaedo tells Echecrates, a pythagorean from Phlia, about the conversation that Socrates had with Simmias and Cebes, Thebans who had studied with Philolaus, a Pythagorean teacher. Non..."

Yes -- seven Athenians, and seven non-Athenians. (As there were seven men and seven women to be sacrificed to the Minotaur.)

ETA -- I see what you're responding to. You are correct. What I meant was that none of those taking part in the dialogue, aside from Socrates, were Athenians.

Elizabeth wrote: "Is it possible that Socrates was being a "tough guy" and masking the real pain and pleasure associated with his life with the reference to chains?"

I think Socrates is a tough guy, but I don't think he's masking anything. He genuinely does not think that his friends should grieve for him. He has no fear of death, and his mission here seems to be to convince his friends that death is not a bad thing. His first argument suggests that not only is death not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

Why he has no patience for his wife and child is something I do not understand. But as Patrice suggested earlier, there may be reason to believe that the events of the last day, as well as the entire dialogue, do not accurately reflect what actually happened. Plato wants to present a series of serious philosophical arguments, and perhaps there was no place for a grieving wife and child in the dialogue.

Thomas wrote: "Genni wrote: "Does anyone else think that it is interesting that Socrates bends his leg and then seemingly randomly launches into a philosophical aside on pain and pleasure?

"Socrates sat up on hi..."

Ha...yes, now that I've finished it I see that I spoke too soon. I was distracted because immediately afterwards they started talking about fables. :-)
And now to read it again....

Nemo wrote: "Suppose you have accounts with two different banks. If you know for certain that one of them is going bankrupt soon, it is logical to empty your account with that bank and deposit it into the other..."

Pascal's Wager basically says that it is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him, right? Are belief in God and immortality of the soul two different things? I mean, my understanding of this dialogue is completely limited, but it seems that Socrates is interested in the proving of one and not necessarily the other. I wonder this because as I was reading the link Thomas posted about Pythagoras, it said the some beliefs in the transmitting of souls included believing that the soul could transmit several times then expire (which I suppose wouldn't really make it immortal, but anyway...). Again, I am defnitely going to have to read the dialogue again to get a better understanding of Socrates's arguments, but in his belief in the immortality of the soul, is this what he was talking about? Any help is appreciated!

Patrice wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Do you think the Minotaur is death?"

That sounds right to me. Each of Socrates' arguments is a blow against the idea of mortality. Just as Theseus ..."

Is the absence of pain, or even relief from it, necessarily a pleasure?
And I begin to wonder if pleasure can lead to pain. People often think of vices as pleasures and they can often lead to pain (an alcoholic will initially feel the pleasure of alcohol and later the pain after indulgence in it). Am I off?

Elizabeth wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Do you think the Minotaur is death?"

That sounds right to me. Each of Socrates' arguments is a blow against the idea of mortality. Just as Theseus destroyed the Mino..."

Can he participate in pleasures without them being consuming forces in his life?

Genni wrote: "Pascal's Wager basically says that it is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him, right? Are belief in God and immortality of the soul two different things? ."

Belief in God and the immortality of the soul ARE two different things. However, the logic (based on probability) that Pascal used to argue "WHY" it is better to believe and act accordingly can be applied here.

Does that make sense?

Yes! I follow you now. :-)

Socrates uses his doctrine of recollection as a proof of the immortality of the soul--we are born with knowledge, so there must have had a previous existence in which to gain that knowledge. That previous existence would have to be unlike this existence, for we don't really learn things here, we only recollect them. So what kind of existence was it? Socrates gives no clue. It seems it cannot be a reincarnation in the usual sense, because those previous lives are more or less like this life.

Genni wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Do you think the Minotaur is death?"

That sounds right to me. Each of Socrates' arguments is a blow against the idea of mortality. Just as Theseus ...

Can he participate in pleasures without them being consuming forces in his life? "

Good point.

Roger wrote: "Socrates uses his doctrine of recollection as a proof of the immortality of the soul--we are born with knowledge, so there must have had a previous existence in which to gain that knowledge ..."

He also argues that the soul comprehends knowledge better without the body than with it, so it follows that the previous existence must be a disembodied one. The forgetfulness of the soul is caused by interference from the body, like the clouds blocking the sunlight.

Patrice wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Do you think the Minotaur is death?"

That sounds right to me. Each of Socrates' arguments is a blow against the idea of mortality. Just as Theseus ...

I can understand how the relief of pain can bring pleasure. It's so true, after we have suffered we appreciate the lack of suffering. But why should pleasure lead to pain? He says they are inextricably bound to each other.
"

I think of pleasure leading to pain this way: 1) you love your spouse and then lose him/her; 2) you love you child and then he/she disappoints you; 3) you find your work fulfilling, and then you lose your job. I'm sure there are many more examples.

Re: Separateness of body and soul.

I wonder if Socrates believes there are three elements to a human: body, soul, and mind? In the text I get the impression that he is using mind and soul interchangeably.

Cartesian Dualism (Rene Descartes) takes the position that the body and the mind are two separate entities, a position to which modern philosophers do not subscribe. It's interesting that Descartes go the credit for this line of thinking considering that Socrates makes the distinction. That said, I wonder where the word 'soul' comes from? I guess I thought it was a Christian belief, but maybe not if Socrates is using the word; although maybe the word belongs to the translator and not to Socrates?

Elizabeth wrote: "Re: Separateness of body and soul.

I wonder if Socrates believes there are three elements to a human: body, soul, and mind? In the text I get the impression that he is using mind and soul interchangeably..."

The simplest meaning of "soul" (psyche) in Greek is breath, or spirit, the principle of life. It is what is present in a body that makes it live. For Homer the body (soma) is just a corpse -- when soul is present there is a living human being. (So how can the soul possibly die? That would be a contradiction in terms, wouldn't it?)

Several centuries later, the concept of "soul" has gotten more complicated. Plato uses soul to mean something that we today might call "mind." For Plato the soul is capable of reason, thoughtfulness, and attaining the truth. In the Republic he says "mind" (nous) is the highest activity of the soul. Some translators prefer "insight" to "mind", because it is an activity, not an organ.

In this dialogue Anaxagoras thinks of mind as a cosmological idea: "it is Mind that puts the world in order and is responsible for all things." 97c So what Plato thinks of as "mind" might be peculiar to him. In any case, it is a part of the soul, but not exactly what we think of as mind. The soul seems to be a much broader part of our being that includes the heart and emotions as well as the mind.

The Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneumos have the root meaning of "breath," but when they are used to mean life they are usually translated as "spirit," which comes from the Latin word for breath. Hebrew "nephesh" and Greek "psyche" are usually translated "soul," an ancient English word.

Patrice wrote: "Interesting. Do you think that Anaxagoras is speaking for Plato? "

Not exactly -- sorry if I wasn't clear. The terminology is a bit confusing, and I'm probably not helping. Socrates refutes Anaxagoras's idea of Mind (around 97 to 99) as insufficient because it is material or physical in nature. Socrates' idea of "mind" does not occur in Phaedo, as far as I recall. Here Socrates seems to be concerned with a soul that is non-material but still causal. Socrates' soul is the reason why he is in the jail cell, the reason why he has chosen not to escape. This is quite different from soul as "principle of life" but Socrates uses it in both senses of the term, depending on the argument he wants to make. As life the soul is incompatible with death and therefore immortal. That is one argument. But as the faculty of reason, which includes mind, it participates in the forms and is immortal in another way. That is another argument.

I expect this is now clear as mud. But what is mud? :)

Patrice wrote: "Maybe my old profs were right, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist so don't use the word! "

Did the profs think they had intelligence?

Patrice, if you don't mind me asking, were your parents religious?

Patrice wrote: "It always surprises me when Socrates describes the gods as "good". He says that we are owned by them and so we have no right to commit suicide. We would be destroying the gods property. They wil..."

Perhaps he believes the gods are good because of his piety.

Patrice wrote: "It always surprises me when Socrates describes the gods as "good". He says that we are owned by them and so we have no right to commit suicide. We would be destroying the gods property."

That argument seems to have come out of nowhere. Since when did human beings become the property of the gods?

Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "It always surprises me when Socrates describes the gods as "good". He says that we are owned by them and so we have no right to commit suicide. We would be destroying the gods prop..."

Since the time gods created human beings.

Patrice wrote: "But why on earth does Socrates think the Greek gods are "good"? "

Good question, especially keeping Homer in mind. But there is more to Socrates's religion than Homer and the Greek pantheon -- there is his daimon, who certainly has a notion of the good (or at least steers Socrates away from the bad) and there are the Eleusinian Mysteries that he alludes to here to keep his friends from jumping off the nearest cliff. There also appears to be a Pythagorean influence with all the stuff on reincarnation.

But more importantly, there seems to be something divine about the Forms, all of which are governed by the Good. If the gods are in the same company as the Forms, they too must be good. The gods must be rational beings, and as such they must at least aspire to the Good, if they aren't the Good themselves. Despite the fact that Socrates quotes Homer and prays to Apollo, it seems that in the order of things he believes they are better than Homer portrays them.

Roger wrote: "Since the time gods created human beings. "

But the souls are immortal, so the gods couldn't have created them.

Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "Since the time gods created human beings. "

But the souls are immortal, so the gods couldn't have created them."

In Works and Days, Hesiod says that Zeus made the current (fifth) generation of mankind. In other places Zeus is said to have delegated the work to Prometheus, who is actually a titan, not a god.

Right. It's also Prometheus who created man in one of Ovid's myths. But that seems to contradict the account in Phaedo. If, as Socrates argues, the souls are immortal and have always existed, no gods created them. Humans are just as immortal as the gods.

Is there a difference between immortal and eternal? I think that immortal could mean being created at some point and existing thereafter, whereas eternal means having always existed and always will exist. If this is right, is Socrates using immortal in an eternal sense? If I am
Nitpicking, please forgive me, for I do have that tendency and it drives people around me crazy. :-)

Good question. I think Socrates is using immortal in the sense of the eternal.

His argument is that the soul participates in the Form of Life (and existence) and death can never be a part of it. That's why the soul is immortal. If the soul was created, it would mean that it participated in death (and non-existence) at one point, and not immortal.

I just realized where Mistress Quickly's description of Falstaff's death came from. (Henry V, 2.1)

The part about his body getting cold from the feet up?

If the soul has no beginning as well as no end, then I guess the answer to Meno's question is no--virtue cannot be taught or learned, because it is always in us, whether we're aware of it or not. We just forget it when we're incarnated. But perhaps we can be induced to remember it by well-posed questions. I don't know how much difference that makes. I guess Aristotle would say we're born with a potentiality for virtue, but it doesn't become real without appropriate instruction and effort.

Patrice wrote: "I'm wondering... Freud thought that God represented our longing for a father. Perhaps the Greek family structure gave ownership of the children to the father. They may have been the property of t..."

The Romans had this idea--a father could dispose of his children as he saw fit. As far as I know the Greeks did not. The point of the Iphigenia story was that her sacrifice was contrary to law and custom.

Patrice wrote: "Yes, I hesitated to mention Iphigenia for that very reason. Yet he did do it. And was it Artemis who demanded that he do it?"

Yes, Artemis demanded the sacrifice as the price for lowering the winds that were keeping the Greek fleet in Aulis. She had become enraged because some of the Greeks has killed one of her sacred animals, according to some stories.

Genni wrote: "Is there a difference between immortal and eternal? I think that immortal could mean being created at some point and existing thereafter, whereas eternal means having always existed and always will..."

Cebes has a similar concern about the nature of immortality, sort of. Cebes is willing to concede that the soul goes through many bodies, but he says this does not demonstrate that the soul will not one day wear out. He uses the image of a cloak. A man may go through many cloaks in a lifetime, but eventually the man still dies. In the same way, a soul may go through many bodies, but the soul still die.

For if one were to concede even more than what you say to somebody who makes this argument, granting him not only that our souls were in the time before we were born but also that nothing prevents this -- that the souls of some of us, once we're dead, still are and will be and will often be born and die in turn (because a soul is so strong a thing by nature that she can withstand being born often) --even if one granted this, one might not go on to concede that she doesn't exhaust herself in these many births and, meeting her end in one of these death, doesn't perish altogether. 88a

At this point in the conversation, Phaedo says they all felt ill at ease, and that the previous argument for immortality had "fallen into discredit."

And then Socrates does a very strange thing. He caresses Phaedo's head and plays with his hair. This is the man who has argued so strenously against the pleasures of the body and physicality in general. What are we to think of this physical sign of affection?