A bit of dark humour re suicide and philosophers? — Amity

Right. He tells him to drop dead!

Being emotionally incontinent is not good ? — Amity

This and:

'kinds of things that women are given to saying'. — Amity

reflect common opinion at that time.

I think it may also be part of the theme of comedy and tragedy. If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched.

Socrates begins not with something he recollects from a previous life or recalls or even his own stories but with “hearsay” :

'Well, I myself can speak about them only from hearsay; but what I happen to have heard I don't mind telling you. Indeed, maybe it's specially fitting that someone about to make the journey to the next world should inquire and speculate as to what we imagine that journey to be like; after all, what else should one do during the time till sundown?' (61d-e)

Inquiry and speculation based on what we imagine it to be based on hearsay. This is the measure by which to evaluate the stories that follow.

… sometimes and for some people, that it is better for a man to be dead than alive, and for those for whom it is better to be dead, perhaps it seems a matter for wonder to you if for these men it isn’t pious to do good to themselves, but they must await another benefactor.' (62a).

Socrates states that it would be better for some to be dead. In that case, it would be better for others to be alive. But he does not make the connection. Instead he moves to a defense of the prohibition against suicide.

Cebes gives a little laugh to which Socrates responds:

Well yes, it would seem unaccountable, put that way. And yet just maybe it does have an account. The account that’s given about these things in the Mysteries …

Socrates does not give an account. He appeals again to hearsay, to what is said in the Mysteries.

… we men are in some sort of prison, and that one ought not to release oneself from it or run away, seems to me a lofty idea and not easy to penetrate; but still, Cebes, this much seems to me well said: it is gods who care for us, and for the gods we men are among their belongings.

Socrates likens life to a prison. In that case it would not be just some men who would be better off dead, but all men who do not wish to be imprisoned. The irony here should not be missed. What Socrates is trying to persuade them of is not simply that death is not so bad, but that the soul will endure and be born again. But if life is a prison, then rebirth would mean to be imprisoned once again after having been freed from life.

Simmias objects:

… why, indeed, should truly wise men want to escape from masters who are better than themselves, and be separated from them lightly? So I think it's at you that Cebes is aiming his argument, because you take so lightly your leaving both ourselves and the gods, who are good rulers by your own admission. (63a)

Socrates responds:

'What you both say is fair, as I take you to mean that I should defend myself against these charges as if in a court of law.' (63 b)

Only Socrates made clear in the Apology that a court of law was not the proper place for him to defend himself. Socrates’ defense begins here, with those who are not hostile to philosophy.

'Very well, then,' he said; 'let me try to defend myself more convincingly before you than I did before the jury. Because if I didn't believe, Simmias and Cebes, that I shall enter the presence,
first, of other gods both wise and good, and next of dead men better than those in this world, then I should be wrong not to be resentful at death; but as it is, be assured that I expect to join the company of good men-although that point I shouldn't affirm with absolute conviction; but that I shall enter the presence of gods who are very good masters, be assured that if there's anything I should affirm on such matters, it is that. So that's why I am not so resentful, but rather am hopeful that there is something in store for those who've died-in fact, as we've long been told, something far better for the good than for the wicked.' (63c)

Socrates says that he is hopeful about something they have long been told, that death is something far better for the good than for the wicked. This is not a recollection of death, but a story that has long been told.

'Now then, with you for my jury I want to give my defence, and show with what good reason, as it seems to me, a man who has truly spent his life in philosophy feels confident when about to die, and is hopeful that, when he has died, he will win very great benefits in the other world.

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim?

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

Philosophers are trying to see life, to gain a vantage point on it. It would appear that the only vantage point is in death.

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

I don't know but it reminded me of something else - perhaps the Stoics. Something like it is only because of death that we appreciate life...i.e. it gives perspective as to what really matters.
How to live life well. Keeping death in mind...

Or it could be that the 'dying' refers to philosophers giving less oxygen to mundane matters. Paying more attention to the mental than the physical.

Or...the aim to attain a higher self by killing off the base instincts.

Or...living life in the moment so that there are no regrets or fears at point of death.

Or...practising arguments - so that the better man wins by killing any apparent conflicting reasons...or wrong conclusions.

Or...playing devil's advocate - pretending not to be alive to the better argument.

None of the above.

I think he is just trying to encourage his anxious young men that because they are philosophical they will be ready to die when the time comes. Not to fear it or to grieve his passing. He is setting an example of how to approach death with the right attitude.

So that's why I am not so resentful, but rather am hopeful that there is something in store for those who've died-in fact, as we've long been told, something far better for the good than for the wicked.' (63c) — Fooloso4

Perhaps that is why he sent his wife way...the tears...the lamenting...he wanted a positive message to be held in lasting memory.

If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched. — Fooloso4

No. It's a tragicomedy. The tears are there in joy and despair.

AH - thank you.

The next section will cover up to 67c.

I don't know but it reminded me of something else - perhaps the Stoics. — Amity

I will have something to say about this in the next section. Part of the Stoic practice of philosophy involved meditations on death.

I think he is just trying to encourage his anxious young men that because they are philosophical they will be ready to die when the time comes. Not to fear it or to grieve his passing. He is setting an example of how to approach death with the right attitude. — Amity

I agree. His arguments are rhetorical, intended to persuade, give them courage, and alleviate their fears.

If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched.
— Fooloso4

No. It's a tragicomedy. — Amity

A tragedy is about the protagonist's downfall. But instead of the end of his life being a downfall
Socrates makes it seem as if it is a journey of hope. A happy ending and new beginning.

But I think you are right. No life is either one or the other, but a mixture.

. What Socrates is trying to persuade them of is not simply that death is not so bad, but that the soul will endure and be born again. But if life is a prison, then rebirth would mean to be imprisoned once again after having been freed from life. — Fooloso4

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

That they're examples of the Ur-religion of the Ancient Greeks, relfected in Orphism, which was ultimately grounded in the pre-historic Indo-European mythology of the endless caravan of reincarnation and the fallen state of mortal man. Death in this context is a return to the source of life more than the ending of it all. The philosopher, being purified, being a 'good man', has nothing to fear at death because he will be 'joining the company of good men'. Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour.

Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

And it couldn't have hurt that Socrates was over 70. All 'death prep' aside, I wonder how he would have taken the news at 35...

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. — Dylan Thomas

I ask a wreath which will not crush my head.
And there is no hurry about it;
I shall have, doubtless, a boom after my funeral,
Seeing that long standing increases all things
regardless of quality.

Ezra Pound

That they're examples of the Ur-religion of the Ancient Greeks, — Wayfarer

Socrates does make use of mythologies as a means of persuasion, both stories of old and new ones he makes up, but this does not mean that he is persuaded by these stories. Regarding knowledge he demands logos not muthos, that is, not simply stories but the ability to give an account of what is said that can be defended against elenchus.

Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that this is part of it.

That they're examples of the Ur-religion of the Ancient Greeks, relfected in Orphism, which was ultimately grounded in the pre-historic Indo-European mythology of the endless caravan of reincarnation and the fallen state of mortal man. Death in this context is a return to the source of life more than the ending of it all. The philosopher, being purified, being a 'good man', has nothing to fear at death because he will be 'joining the company of good men'. Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

I think "life as a preparation for death" is indeed the key to understanding Socrates and Plato. However, we find parallels in Egyptian culture.

The ancient Egyptians viewed death as a temporary transition into what could become everlasting life in paradise. The Egyptian outlook on death was not focused on fear as much as it was preparing and transitioning into a new prosperous afterlife.

The Egyptian Gods judged the merits of human character and deeds when deciding who was permitted to be immortal. As a result, much of human-life was centered on the hopeful attitude that if one is moral, one will live forever in a blissful afterlife. (This is somewhat comparable to Christian concepts of religion.)

So, basically, for the Egyptians – at least the wise or the initiated into wisdom traditions – life was a preparation for death. It seems to me that Greek philosophy was influenced by the Egyptian outlook. This may provide part of the explanation for the fact that the Greeks developed the philosophical system they did, whereas others whose beliefs were more similar to those of the Sumerians didn't.

The Ancient Sumerian and Egyptian Attitudes toward Death and the Afterlife

Philosophy as life-long preparation for death would be more than just about “letting go”. It would also entail the cultivation of virtues and spiritual knowledge, etc. i.e., all the elements that together constitute Platonic philosophy.

From 64a - 67c, pp. 8-12.

For me, reading this is both compelling and non-compelling.

Compelling: following the arguments put forward by Socrates to Simmias. Considering the purpose of philosophy. The importance of discovering what life and death is really all about. Philosophy as preparation for death. The questions of duality. Is it even possible to be a 'genuine' philosopher if it means turning away from body to soul ( or mind ) - to isolate oneself or by gathering in the company of like-minded souls only ?

I think not. However, I am not sure that that is what Socrates is saying. He qualifies everything with 'as far as possible'. Nevertheless, there is a focus on abstract concepts such as 'Beauty' compared to the experience of seeing things that are beautiful (65d)

'Well now, what about things of this sort, Simmias? Do we say that there is something just, or nothing?'
'Yes, we most certainly do!'
'And again, something beautiful, and good?'
'Of course.'
'Now did you ever yet see any such things with your eyes?'
'Certainly not.'

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone. This line drawn between sense experience and rational thought - I don't find compelling. There is an interaction.

Just as in the distinction between 'pure philosophers' who have a special knowledge of truth via the reasoning soul compared to the hoi polloi 'infected' (67a) as they are by bodily concerns or pleasures.
It seems that the 'true believers' * - the intellect having been purified (67c) - alone have access to the benefits of the hereafter:

" Such are the things, I think, Simmias, that all who are rightly called lovers of knowledge must say to one another, and must believe.* Don't you agree?'
'Emphatically, Socrates.

'there's plenty of hope for one who arrives where I'm going, that there, if anywhere, he will adequately possess the object that's been our great concern in life gone by; and thus the journey now appointed for me may also be made with good hope by any other man who regards his intellect as prepared, by having been, in a manner, purified'

(67c)

This all starts from the premise, the definition of death as: 'nothing but the separation of the soul from the body' (64c); 'the release and parting of the soul from body' (67d)

What is the 'soul' ?
Is it the reasoning mind alone ?
I think, if there is such a thing, it would involve the bodily senses - even if they are not always 'true' in the sense of correct.

When does the soul attain the truth? Because plainly, whenever it sets about examining anything in company with the body, it is completely taken in by it.' 'That's true.'
'So isn't it in reasoning, if anywhere at all, that any of the things that are become manifest to it?'
'Yes'

(65c)

What are 'the things that are' or 'that which is' - things that exist ?
Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ?
They arise from the real world - we create such - why ? To give ourselves something to think about.
Philosophy can be just as much an impure distraction as anything else...

"Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ?
They arise from the real world - we create such - why ? "

This is a viewpoint that Plato is dedicated to challenge. Man is not the measure of all things. Truth is different from mere appearance. Beauty (and justice etc) do exist "by themselves" quite independently of our mere opinions. We can apprehend beauty (justice etc) by exercise of the intellect. Poetry and myth are not enough.

He believed all that and at the same time was one of the most poetic and mythically inclined philosophers of all time. Quite a contradiction.

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone. This line drawn between sense experience and rational thought - I don't find compelling. — Amity

I've long been fascinated by culture. In this case there's 2400 years of cultural change that stands between us and Plato.

I always wonder to what extent I can put down the lens of my own worldview and see through the eyes of someone like Plato.

If you analyze what I just said, you'll see traces of what Plato has Socrates say here.
Instead of saying that sinful flesh stands in my way, I say my worldview distorts the truth.

Compare this to Kant: that there is no knowable truth beyond what I couch in the language of time and space.

Does pure thought reveal to us that there is an unexplored landscape right in front of us? What do you say?

In the Apology Socrates suggests two possibilities of what happens in death:

to be dead is one of two things: either the dead person is nothing and has no perception of anything, or [death] happens to be, as it is said, a change and a relocation or the soul from this place here to another place (40c).

In the Phaedo Socrates is silent about the first possibility. He wishes to leave his friends with a message of hope, but if death is nothingness then despite the attempt to portray the end of his life as a comedy it is a tragedy. The practice of dying and being dead cannot be the practice of nothingness. That practice must take into account both possibilities. If there are rewards and punishments, one must live a just life and be rewarded rather than punished. And if there is nothing after life then one should live life for its own rewards rather than live in expectation of what may never be. Here too it is the practice of justice, for the just soul according to the Republic is the healthy soul, in proper harmony with itself.

If we heed the words of Parmenides that “out of nothing comes nothing”, then if a dead person is nothing and out of nothing comes nothing, there can be no rebirth.

But a problem that must be faced in the Phaedo is fear of death. One has it within their power to live in such a way as to avoid fear of punishment for wrongdoing in death. What about the fear of nothingness? Here the practice may involve meditation along the lines of Epictetus:

Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not.

Simmias laughs at Socrates claim that philosophy is the practice of dying and being dead:

'Goodness, Socrates, you've made me laugh, even though I wasn't much inclined to laugh just now. l imagine that most people, on hearing that, would think it very well said of philosophers-and our own countrymen would quite agree-that they are, indeed, verging on death, and that they, at any rate, are well aware that this is what philosophers deserve to undergo.' (64b)

The only good philosopher is a dead philosopher.

Socrates defines death:

'And that it is nothing but the separation of the soul from the body? And that being dead is this: the body's having come to be apart, separated from the soul, alone by Itself, and the soul's being apart, alone by itself, separated from the body? Death can't be anything else but that, can it?' (64c)

Simmias agrees with Socrates’ claim, but we should not be so quick to agree. The question of the soul is the very thing that will be the focus of the discussion. Death may simply be, as Socrates said in the Apology, annihilation. The idea of the soul itself by itself will be questioned.

Socrates then proceeds to make an argument for asceticism:

And certainly Simmias, most human beings are of the opinion that the man for whom none of these things is pleasant and who doesn’t have a share of them doesn’t deserve to live. In fact, the man who thinks nothing of the pleasures that come through the body is pretty much headed for death. (65a)

It is not Socrates who thinks this, it is the opinion of most human beings. So what is the opinion of Socrates who is quite literally headed for death? We are provided with a piece of evidence near the beginning: Xantippe is there with his little boy (60a). A seventy year old man with a young son is hardly a man who eschews the pleasure of sex.

Socrates asks:

So when does the soul get in touch with truth?

Isn’t it in her act of reasoning, if anywhere, that something of the things that are becomes very clear to her? (65b-c)

Socrates now introduces his “Socratic Trinity”, the Just, the Beautiful, and the Good. (65d) But he says nothing of them, and for very good reason:

… if we can know nothing purely in the body's company, then one of two things must be true: either knowledge is nowhere to be gained, or else it is for the dead. (66e)

This is at odds with the Republic and the story of knowledge of the Forms. But of course those philosophers who had knowledge of "the Forms themselves by themselves" only existed in a city made in speech. A city that is the soul writ large. An image of the soul found in an image of the city. A fine example of Plato’s poesis.

Now if the soul is reborn this is not a problem. In fact, it is an essential part of the myth of anamnesis, that is, knowledge through recollection. But if death is the end then knowledge of such things is not possible.

“Then”, said Socrates, “if these things are true, my comrade, there’s great hope that when I arrive at the end of my journey, there - if anywhere - I shall sufficiently attain what our constant business in our bygone life has been for. (67b)

And if these things are not true then rather than great hope there is a danger of a loss of hope. Knowledge of the just, the beautiful, and the good hang on the fate of the soul.

The Athenians lived on our side of the Bronze Age collapse. Out of the chaotic Iron Age came Athens.

What even Plato may not know is that something amazing is dying with Socrates. Athens is never going to be the same after its recent defeat at the hands of the Spartans. This defeat precipitated his trial.

One can imagine that just as Genesis is made of pre-Bronze Age images, maybe the waves of settlers along the Aegean who became the Greeks also held onto versions of the old stories. Those stories would have been as old to Socrates as Socrates is to us.

Those stories are about immortality.

The questions of duality. Is it even possible to be a 'genuine' philosopher if it means turning away from body to soul ( or mind ) ... I think not. — Amity

I agree.

However, I am not sure that that is what Socrates is saying. — Amity

Some readers are all too quick to reject. We need 'as far as possible' to figure out what he means. This often requires going beyond isolated statements. I think it is a good practice when you come across something questionable to note it, postpone judgment, keep in mind the circumstances, and see how things develop. With the dialogues it is always important to look not only at what is said but at what is done.

He qualifies everything with 'as far as possible'. — Amity

Socrates' many qualifications are important. How far is it possible to turn away from the body? The qualification 'it seems' and its variations are frequent.

Nevertheless, there is a focus on abstract concepts such as 'Beauty' compared to the experience of seeing things that are beautiful — Amity

The Forms differ from the things of experience but they are not abstract concepts or objects of the mind. They are said to be "things themselves by themselves". This formulation is used with regard to the soul. What this means will be discussed.

What is the 'soul' ? — Amity

Good question.Socrates gets Simmias to agree before they even raise the question.

I think, if there is such a thing, it would involve the bodily senses — Amity

In that case the soul would not endure separate from the body.

What are 'the things that are' or 'that which is' - things that exist ? — Amity

The Forms.

Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ? — Amity

Concepts do not exist by themselves. They require thought or mind. But Beauty is not a concept. It's existence is independent of the mind. Things are beautiful to the extent they are images of Beauty itself.

Philosophy can be just as much an impure distraction as anything else... — Amity

In the Symposium Socrates says that the love of wisdom is eros, desire. Philosophy then cannot be freedom from desire if it is motivated by desire.

This is a viewpoint that Plato is dedicated to challenge. Man is not the measure of all things. Truth is different from mere appearance. Beauty (and justice etc) do exist "by themselves" quite independently of our mere opinions. We can apprehend beauty (justice etc) by exercise of the intellect. Poetry and myth are not enough.

He believed all that and at the same time was one of the most poetic and mythically inclined philosophers of all time. Quite a contradiction. — Cuthbert

A paradox rather than a contradiction, perhaps. A paradox arises when the same thing is seen from different perspectives, and thus is different to a contradiction, although due to the difficulties in the subject matter, it might be difficult to differentiate them.

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone. — Amity

I think the key word is 'nous' -

Nous sometimes equated to intellect or intelligence, is a term from classical philosophy for the faculty of the human mind necessary for understanding what is true or real. — Wikipedia

So it's a faculty rather more specific than is described by the general term 'thought'.

I think the key word is 'nous' — Wayfarer

“nous” is the contracted form of “noos” which is also used in the sense of “heart” or “soul”, i.e. that part of the self that uses a more direct or intuitive form of perception or understanding.

A useful way to look at it is:

1. eikasia or “imagination”, “image forming” related to sense perception.
2. pistis or “belief”, related to the things we perceive or imagine.
3. dianoia or “thinking”, apprehending by means of thought processes.
4. noesis or “intuition”, understanding, wisdom.

Obviously, these levels of knowledge are more or less fluid forms/functions of mind or consciousness, they are not tight compartments.

The individual nous is in turn illumined by the Cosmic Nous or Divine Mind. So, there is a continuum extending from Ultimate Reality all the way down to the lowest levels of experience or existence.

True, and explicated in detail in the Republic, Analogy of the Divided Line, more so than the Phaedo. However the general point of nous as 'the faculty which sees what truly is', is certainly relevant across all the dialogues.

However the general point of nous as 'the faculty which sees what truly is', is certainly relevant across all the dialogues[/quote]

Correct.

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone.
— Amity

I think the key word is 'nous' - — Wayfarer

Amity is right. The passage under discussion is not about noesis but rather dianoia, thought or reason.

True, and explicated in detail in the Republic, Analogy of the Divided Line, more so than the Phaedo. However the general point of nous as 'the faculty which sees what truly is', is certainly relevant across all the dialogues. — Wayfarer

The Phaedo tells a different story than the Republic.It is certainly useful to compare the dialogues, but what is said in one cannot be substituted for what is said in another. Each must be read on its own as a whole. It is not explicated in the Phaedo because it is not there. As Socrates said, quoted above:

… if we can know nothing purely in the body's company, then one of two things must be true: either knowledge is nowhere to be gained, or else it is for the dead. (66e)

The individual nous is in turn illumined by the Cosmic Nous or Divine Mind. So, there is a continuum extending from Ultimate Reality all the way down to the lowest levels of experience or existence. — Apollodorus

In which of the dialogues does Plato say this?

Quite true, but the distinctions between ‘dianoia’ and ‘noesis’ can hardly be subsumed under the single English word, ‘thought’ which is so general as to be practically meaningless in the context. So to say that ‘the real can only be discerned by thought’ doesn’t convey what depth of the ‘idea of the good’, as it is too easy to characterise it in terms of the kinds of casual thoughts that persons have from one moment to the next without any real rigour or direction.

In which of the dialogues does Plato say this? — Fooloso4

In Phaedro 97-98, the discussion of the books of Anaxagoras, where Socrates criticises Anaxagoras for assigning causes such as ‘air and aether and water and many other absurdities’, contrasting this with the ‘real causes’ which is ‘the real good’ that always ensures that things are in accordance with the good. He uses the simile of physical causes as being like the ‘bones and sinews’, which, of course, Socrates cannot act without, but at the same time, saying that the reason he’s in jail and not escaped to some other province has nothing to do with bones and sinews, but the requirement that he observes the law. Although I don’t discern there any equivalent expression to ‘cosmic law’ or ‘divine mind’, the presumption is still that things are guided by intelligence, not by merely material causes.

Yes, especially in the contrast with the "bodily" perceptions, διανοία is used.
As a matter of expression in Greek, the use of "δια" to nous and logos are not far away from the nouns and verbs by themselves.

So to say that ‘the real can only be discerned by thought’ doesn’t convey what depth of the ‘idea of the good’, — Wayfarer

Once again, according to the dialogue knowledge of the good can only be attained in death if at all.

'So isn't it in reasoning, if anywhere at all, that any of the things that are become manifest to it?' (65b)

Noesis is not reasoning. It is direct apprehension.

...the presumption is still that things are guided by intelligence, not by merely material causes. — Wayfarer

Right, but that is very different from what Apollodorus is claiming. I will have more to say about this section when I get there.