Classical Self-Education discussion

The discussion thread for Plato's "Phaedo".

I'm a little behind with the long weekend, but I'll post some deeper thoughts about Phaedo as we go. Personally, I find Phaedo to be the most frustrating, as I disagree with nearly every conclusion he reaches. His validation of death, the concept of original virtues (you get them before birth? You lose them AT birth? What?) But there's so much here, it begs for a deeper thought, and I'll attempt to convey at least my own, deeper thoughts shortly.

Still writing up my Phaedo thoughts, as there's a lot to say, and requires quotes...coming soon

I'll address Phaedo in stages, beginning with what amounts to the introduction:
-----------------
Phaedo is perhaps for me the most difficult of Socrates, not due to the writing or subject matter because I'd consider it in fact one of the more approachable writings in philosophy, but because the logic employed in it's arguments. Where The Apology is remarkable as a mystery story in some respects, and as a historical and political document, and Crito is almost entirely contradictory (to me), Phaedo is at times a moving account of real people, obfuscated by logical fallacy.

It begins in a rather cinematic way: With two friends discussing the circumstances of their friends death. One can almost see the fade out from the two men to the waves lapping at a rocky Greek shore (never mind that Greek shores were somewhat less rocky then, that's a different tale). In the distance a sail comes into view in the offing, and a cry goes up. Cut to jail, interior: Those present know the cry spells the final hours of doom for Socrates. Wow.

It immediately takes up the subject of suicide, where the case is made that man is not of his own truly free will, or in another point of view, the gods grant us at least the illusion of free will, and man is the possession of the gods, and they will care for us better than we could for ourselves anyway..providing the only real link for me with the thoughts in Crito. "I too believe that the gods are our guardians, and that we men are a chattel of theirs".

The philosopher should desire death, as they are a practitioner of death, freeing the wisdom of the confusion of the body and senses makes up the remainder of the initial part of Phaedo. Wikipedia outlines it best with:

[The philosopher, if he loves true wisdom and not the passions and appetites of the body, accepts that he can come closest to true knowledge and wisdom in death, as he is no longer confused by the body and the senses. Death is a rite of purification from the "infection" of the body. As the philosopher practices death his entire life, he should greet it amicably and not be discouraged upon its arrival, for, since the universe the Gods created for us in life is essentially "good," why would death be anything but a continuation of this goodness? Death is a place where better and wiser Gods rule and where the most noble souls exist:"And therefore, so far as that is concerned, I not only do not grieve, but I have great hopes that there is something in store for the dead..., something better for the good than for the wicked
The soul attains virtue when it is purified from the body: "He who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements when they associate with the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge--who, if not he, is likely to attain to the knowledge of true being?"]

This sense of separation between the mind and body, the soul and sense, of wisdom and the passions is one of the most common themes in history, and certainly worthy of consideration and debate. However, it must be considered that we are not built that way. Perhaps you believe that we're not built that way by accident, or by design, or if you're really into that, you could consider that we've been designed that way to provide a built in challenge for ourselves to overcome. There's a certain amount of a type of original sin to that argument that I cannot buy into. The fact remains, we are born, we see, we feel, we have passion, we have (hopefully) wisdom, we die. The emotions and senses certainly confuse, and at times often ruin the more considered reason and wisdom of man's intellect. History is little else but the play of such passions against the desires and laws of other men and women. The Samurai knew that even a stray thought could kill a warrior by the slightest distraction from the fight. But the Master knows that the solution isn't to attempt to quell and quash the passions, but to understand them, to embrace and incorporate them, to observe that which disturbs you until your understanding of them (and thus yourself) reaches a place of peace and equilibrium. This is quite the opposite of the rigid and ceaseless training of the philosopher to increase the mind/body dichotomy, but to create a true self, one where the individual isn't a collection of fractured selves competing against each other for differing goals, but a united self, one where the strengths of these formerly different facets of man are united against the shortcomings of each, where the subject becomes object, the I becomes Me. To put it another way, there might not be an "I" in team, but there is a "Me". I suggest "Me" as unified self.
Socrates leads Simmias down a path of logic that depends on the belief that the separation of mind and body are both desirable and achievable.

[Soc. - And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble her—neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure,—when she takes leave of the body, and has as little as possible to do with it, when she has no bodily sense or desire, but is aspiring after true being?
Simm.- Certainly.
Soc.- And in this the philosopher dishonours the body; his soul runs away from his body and desires to be alone and by herself?
Simm.- That is true. ]

Socrates then asks if there is such a thing as absolute beauty or absolute good, and finding his listener agreeable, asks if he's ever seen them. Simmias of course says no, to which Socrates then claims that since the mind is the only organ capable of sensing such things, it proves that the senses and the mind must be made separate if true wisdom is to be found. A charming progression, of course, but I've never personally tasted a song or heard a painting either. Some things exist in a limited number of dimensions, and those things aren't even philosophical abstractions!
He then makes the case that war and other pests of humanity are the fault of the body and senses, and so amazing us as to prevent us from seeing the truth. I'd suggest that war and factions are the province of the mind, and that the lust for money and glory are entirely non-physical desires, but mental...but whatever.