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. — Valentinus

Right. The prefix "δια" here means by or through, thus dianoia (διανοία)/i] through thought and dialectic through speech.

Once again, according to the dialogue knowledge of the good can only be attained in death if at all. — Fooloso4

I think the multitude, if they heard what you just said about the philosophers, would say you were quite right, and our people at home would agree entirely with you that philosophers desire death, and they would add that they know very well that the philosophers deserve it.”

“And they would be speaking the truth, Simmias, except in the matter of knowing very well. For they do not know in what way the real philosophers desire death, nor in what way they deserve death, nor what kind of a death it is. — Phaedo 64b

I take this to mean that knowledge that is only ‘attained in death if at all’ is not thereby shoved off into an unknowable never-never, although it might seem like that to us. Bearing in mind the later arguments about the fate of the soul and of philosophers and ‘good men’, I think the argument is being made that the philosopher can discern the Good by power of reason as is argued in 79a-d.

I haven't read Phaedo and it doesn't appeal to me as much as it should probably but one of Plato's arguments, The Affinity Argument for the immortality of the soul seems to have similarities with An Argument From Boredom/Frustration For Physicalism/Dualism.

The thread I provided a link to suggests that our frustrations with what we are (immaterial souls/physical bodies) will automatically lead us to desire/wish to become that we are not. So, if we really are incorporeal souls, we would yearn to be physical bodies and if we're infact physical beings, we would be desperate to be nonphysical souls. Thus, the argument is, since we're all, in a sense, "dying" to be nonphysical souls, it follows, doesn't it?, that we're in fact physical beings.

Some may respond that we could've been souls before birth in physical form and were greatly dissatified to be so and opted for life on a physical plane. The problem is, why don't we have memories of making such a decision?

Persons of such a constitution [those who favor the body] will be dragged back into corporeal life, according to Socrates...they [those who favor the body] will be unable to enjoy the singular existence of the soul in death because of their constant craving for the body. These souls are finally imprisoned in another body — Wikipedia

He [Plato] 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

Yes. I am trying to keep in mind that Plato is the one who wrote this dialogue even as he draws attention to the fact that he wasn't there, apparently due to illness. He has Phaedo narrate the events as he recalls them.

Interesting that there is a reliance on someone's memory for the 'truth', or is it a myth (both ?) of what happened. Also, that Plato in choice of content and method brings his own 'worldview', including bias. The danger is recognised that it might not always coincide with that of the historical Socrates.

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. — frank

Indeed, the way we view the world is coloured by our knowledge, experience and beliefs.

Instead of saying that sinful flesh stands in my way, I say my worldview distorts the truth. — frank

There is more than one worldview or perspective. Even within a single person, there are tensions and conflict. Changes throughout our lives can alter our perspectives, or not.

My intention in this thread was to concentrate only on the particular sections as we proceed through the Phaedo. Also, of course, to listen to other points of view; some might call this 'mere opinion'. Interesting to read other interpretations...
Dialogue is as important here as it was to Plato and Socrates.

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

I don't know what you mean by 'pure thought'. How do you understand it as it pertains to this section of the text ?

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. — Fooloso4

That is a quote I can relate to.

The only good philosopher is a dead philosopher. — Fooloso4

:smile: Am I speaking to a ghost ?

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. — Fooloso4

So, Plato in giving us an understanding of who Socrates was, gives several versions of what he actually thinks ? Talk about getting to the 'truth'... :roll:

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. — Fooloso4

Ideas of the soul - of afterlife - of life and death - all 'images' or 'imagination' or mere speculation as in a story...?

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. — Fooloso4

Yes, it comes back to the story of hope that Socrates is giving to his audience. Does he actually believe what he is saying, or is it simply a matter of consolation...
If Socrates wants to inspire and for philosophy to continue, then he must offer hope in the very act of practising philosophy.

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. — Fooloso4

Understood.
I can postpone final judgement but not at the time of my reading and questioning.
I assess as I go...
This dialogue continues to intrigue and challenge me as I try to focus only on a particular section of text.

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. — Fooloso4

Thanks for clarification. Look forward to seeing what 'things themselves by themselves' actually means.

In that case the soul would not endure separate from the body. — Fooloso4

Correct.

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 — Fooloso4

OK. I still don't understand this...I will wait...

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. — Fooloso4

Indeed, I think the importance lies in the quantity and quality of desire.
Philosophy as a human enterprise can be as 'infected' by distractions or obsessions as much as the body. At death, desire is lost.
I guess, even if you believe in an afterlife...depending on what you think has been promised by 'being good' or temperate, it will have been satisfied.

I think the key word is 'nous' - a faculty rather more specific than is described by the general term 'thought'. — Wayfarer

Right now, I am only reading this particular English translation.
That there are more ways of interpreting and understanding I have no doubt.

Informative to read the responses by:
@Fooloso4 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535610
@Valentinus https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535632
@Fooloso4 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535646

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

Egyptian influence on early Minoan art is generally accepted. But there are also some interesting parallels between the Egyptian cult of the Mother Goddess and similar developments in Minoan culture. Obviously, Crete was just across the sea and there were trade and cultural links between the Minoans and the Egyptians.

Similar links also later developed between the Greek mainland and Egypt, with extensive Egyptian influence on Greek art in the 7th century BC. And then we have literary accounts of Pythagoras going to Egypt in search of secret knowledge which he apparently obtained from Egyptian temple priests.

“[Pythagoras] was also initiated into all the mysteries of Byblos and Tyre, and in the sacred function performed in many parts of Syria […] After gaining all he could from the Phoenician mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt […] This led him to hope that in Egypt itself he might find monuments of erudition still more genuine, beautiful and divine. Therefore following the advice of his teacher Thales, he left, as soon as possible, through the agency of some Egyptian sailors […] and at length happily landed on the Egyptian coast […] Here in Egypt he frequented all the temples with the greatest diligence, and most studious research […] After twelve years, about the fifty-sixth year of his age, he returned to Samos …” - Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras

Right, but that is very different from what Apollodorus is claiming. — Fooloso4

How is that "very different"? As I said before, Plato is best interpreted in the Platonic tradition of Plotinus and others. If you choose a different standpoint then it might help to let us know what it is.

Bearing in mind the later arguments about the fate of the soul and of philosophers and ‘good men’, — Wayfarer

Yes, we will have to look a those arguments and whether they succeed or fail. This is why I ended my last reading this way:

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. — Fooloso4

So, Plato in giving us an understanding of who Socrates was, gives several versions of what he actually thinks ? Talk about getting to the 'truth'... — Amity

In the Second Letter Plato says that the Socrates of the dialogues is made "young and beautiful", which can also be translated as "new and noble".

Ideas of the soul - of afterlife - of life and death - all 'images' or 'imagination' or mere speculation as in a story...? — Amity

Reading and thinking along we become involved in speculation, but Plato provides the images and stories.

Does he actually believe what he is saying, or is it simply a matter of consolation... — Amity

Before deciding whether we think he believes what he is saying, we have to figure out what it is he is saying. There may be more to it than at first appears.

If Socrates wants to inspire and for philosophy to continue, then he must offer hope in the very act of practising philosophy. — Amity

Yes! He will have much more to say about this.

At death, desire is lost. — Amity

The irony is that on the one hand the desire will be fulfilled, one will be able to see the truth unencumbered by the body. On the other, if philosophy is the desire for wisdom rather than its possession there would be no philosophizing in Hades.

Plato is best interpreted in the Platonic tradition of Plotinus and others. — Apollodorus

Platonism is an impediment to understanding Plato. You end up attributing things to Plato that are nowhere to be found in the dialogues.

If you choose a different standpoint then it might help to let us know what it is. — Apollodorus

It is not a matter of a standpoint but of letting the dialogues stand on their own. In the Phaedrus Socrates says about a written composition:

Every part must be put together like a living creature, with a body of its own; it must be neither without head nor without legs; and it must have a middle and extremities that are fitting both to one another and to the whole work. (264c)

The dialogue should be read as a whole, with each part having a function within that whole.

If you want to read Plotinus you would do well to read Plato, but not the other way around.

Platonism is an impediment to understanding Plato. You end up attributing things to Plato that are nowhere to be found in the dialogues. — Fooloso4

Not necessarily. What kind of things might that be? Wouldn't an anti-Platonic approach also lead to misattributions or misinterpretations and perhaps even more so?

Philosophical systems do evolve over time. However, Platonism is generally consistent with Plato's writings, that's why it's called Platonism, and it does help in understanding uncertain or ambiguous points. Obviously, concepts that are unambiguous and crystal clear need no reference to external sources. But where this is not the case, it can do no harm to see what other Platonic writers have to say.

As I said in my previous post, it may even be helpful to refer to the wider cultural context, including non-Greek (e.g. Egyptian) influence, to better understand the worldview of Ancient Greek philosophers.

Not necessarily. What kind of things might that be? Wouldn't an anti-Platonic approach also lead to misattributions or and perhaps even more so? — Apollodorus

You are confusing terminology. Platonism and Platonic are not the same. "Anti-Platonic" would presumably mean against Plato. The result may well be misattributions or misinterpretations.

Philosophical systems do evolve over time. — Apollodorus

The dialogues are not a philosophical system and do not evolve. How the dialogues are read and interpreted change over time. The reliability of any of those interpretations can only be evaluated in light of the dialogues themselves.

Platonism is generally consistent with Plato's writings, that's why it's called Platonism — Apollodorus

This is simply wrong. It is called Platonism because it was influenced by Plato. It is not consistent with his writings. Nowhere in Plato do we find your assertion about the individual mind being illumined by the cosmic or divine Mind and the rest.

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


Indeed, the way we view the world is coloured by our knowledge, experience and beliefs. — Amity

In this case, there's a relatively profound change in worldview.

We can try to put ourselves there. Note that the Greeks did move between realism and idealism much the same way we do, but even the most materialistic people of his day still allowed divinity of some kind.

My intention in this thread was to concentrate only on the particular sections as we proceed through the Phaedo. Also, of course, to listen to other points of view; some might call this 'mere opinion'. Interesting to read other interpretations...
Dialogue is as important here as it was to Plato and Socrates. — Amity

And it may be that I need to cut out. Images from Phaedo have gone deep into my thoughts since I first read it.

So I'm like, when are you guys going to relate Wittgenstein to what he's saying about the transcendent vantage point?
Maybe later.

Images from Phaedo have gone deep into my thoughts since I first read it. — frank

What kind of images ?
When did you first read it?
What was your worldview then related to philosophy, religion...? What is it now ?

We can try to put ourselves there. — frank

We could. How would you do that relative to the Phaedo?
Other than do a heap of research, we can read and discuss the text as a glimpse of a certain worldview as seen and portrayed by Plato.

it may be that I need to cut out — frank

Why would you think that ? Is it too difficult to read again with a fresh pair of eyes?
Perhaps you know enough already and wish to explore further.
Clearly, we are all at different levels of understanding. Some might be frustrated at content, interpretation and the process. So be it.

As far as I am aware, the purpose of the thread is to read and discuss Plato's Phaedo.

So I'm like, when are you guys going to relate Wittgenstein to what he's saying about the transcendent vantage point?
Maybe later. — frank

So, I'm like, when are you going to realise what @Fooloso4 is attempting to do here ?

I note you ask questions of me but haven't answered mine:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535717

I don't know what you mean by 'pure thought'. How do you understand it as it pertains to this section of the text ? — Amity

So, I'm like, when are you going to realise what Fooloso4 is attempting to do here ? — Amity

I think that was a fuck-off. Fair enough.

I don't know what you mean by 'pure thought'. How do you understand it as it pertains to this section of the text ? — Amity

Ask Fooloso4.

I think that was a fuck-off. Fair enough. — frank

If I had meant to say, "Fuck off", I would have. You wouldn't have to think about it.
Your interpretation of my post as such, combined with an unwillingness to answer questions is telling. I'll end it here. For now.

@frank

I would like for you to stick around. This tread was started in part because of things you said about Plato and the soul.

Images from Phaedo have gone deep into my thoughts since I first read it. — frank

That, it seems to me, would be a good reason to read it again. I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different. Certainly I do not the Phaedo now the same way I did when I first read it.

That, it seems to me, would be a good reason to read it again — Fooloso4

I agree. That was behind my questions re @frank 's deep ( ? ingrained ) images and any changing worldview.

I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different. — Fooloso4

It is the same for me, with any book or film there is always something I missed first time round.

However, some may have fixed views on what the text means.
Responses can be ready-made. Re-heat in microwave for 3 minutes.

That, it seems to me, would be a good reason to read it again. I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different. Certainly I do not the Phaedo now the same way I did when I first read it. — Fooloso4

I am re-reading it. I've read it many times.

Did I misunderstand you when you said you "need to cut out".

Did I misunderstand you when you said you "need to cut out". — Fooloso4

Uh, carry on. :cool:

This is simply wrong. It is called Platonism because it was influenced by Plato. It is not consistent with his writings. Nowhere in Plato do we find your assertion about the individual mind being illumined by the cosmic or divine Mind and the rest. — Fooloso4

Plato and his disciples didn’t call themselves “Platonists” or their system “Platonism” so the designation is irrelevant. What matters is that this was a living tradition that was transmitted orally from master to disciple for centuries after Plato. Its representatives didn’t think they were just “influenced” by Plato, they believed and had reasons to believe that they followed Plato in all his main teachings.

It is clear from Plato’s writings that he believed in an eternal “Good” which is the source of all ideas, both in the higher world of realities and in the lower world of appearances. The immortal aspect of man, soul or spirit, is obviously connected with the Good, that’s why the philosopher can ascend or reascend to the Good.

Plotinus and others identified the Good with the One, etc. which they had every right to do. That doesn’t mean that they “misinterpreted” Plato or that they made things up just for the sake of it.

I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different. — Fooloso4

That makes the whole discussion kind of pointless, doesn't it? What happens if following the closure of the discussion you decide to find "new and different things" in the texts?

Plato and his disciples didn’t call themselves “Platonists” or their system “Platonism” so the designation is irrelevant. — Apollodorus

And yet that was the designation you used.

What matters is that this was a living tradition that was transmitted orally from master to disciple for centuries after Plato. — Apollodorus

That may be what matters to you. What matters to me is the dialogues themselves. I have no interest a Platonist cult.

Its representatives didn’t think they were just “influenced” by Plato, they believed and had reasons to believe that they followed Plato in all his main teachings. — Apollodorus

Well, if what you claimed is an example of following his main teachings then they thought wrong.

It is clear from Plato’s writings ... — Apollodorus

In the Seventh Letter Plato says:

There is no treatise (suggramma) by me on these subjects, nor will there ever be. (341c)

I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different.
— Fooloso4

That makes the whole discussion kind of pointless, doesn't it? What happens if following the closure of the discussion you decide to find "new and different things" in the texts? — Apollodorus

It does not make it pointless. It simply means that there is more there then I have seen. It is not a matter of "deciding" to find something new and different things. If they are there to be found I consider myself fortunate to have found them and revise my interpretation accordingly.

In the Seventh Letter Plato says:

There is no treatise (suggramma) by me on these subjects, nor will there ever be. (341c) — Fooloso4

That's precisely why I pointed out that in the Greek philosophical tradition, teachings were transmitted orally.

Even if there is no "treatise" by Plato, certain core teachings must be acknowledged and they have been acknowledged, both by Platonic philosophers like Plotinus and by modern scholars. If you don't acknowledge that, then you might as well throw the book out of the window and forget the discussion.

On the other hand and as I said before, if you do want to have a discussion of Plato then it would be helpful to state what you think Plato's core teaching are or are not, and then adduce evidence for or against as the case may be. This would be a sensible procedure IMO.

In the Seventh Letter Plato says:

There is no treatise (suggramma) by me on these subjects, nor will there ever be. (341c)
— Fooloso4

That's precisely why I pointed out that in the Greek philosophical tradition, teachings were transmitted orally. — Apollodorus

Oh. really. You said:

It is clear from Plato’s writings ... — Apollodorus

It cannot clear from his writings if he did not write what he actually thought about such things.

Has an oral tradition ever been authenticated?

Even if there is no "treatise" by Plato, certain core teachings must be acknowledged ... — Apollodorus

The core teaching of Plato is not in the form of a doctrine. He teaches those who are thoughtful and perspicacious enough how to philosophize. To the careful reader he does not provide answers, although there are plenty of things he says that can be latched onto as answers. This dynamic plays out in the dialogue, as we shall see.

... if you do want to have a discussion of Plato ... — Apollodorus

I am not going to allow you to dictate how I will proceed in this thread. I will follow Plato's lead, attending to what is said and done in the the dialogue in the order it occurs. It is only once we have seen the whole that we can see how everything fits together, with each part serving its purpose.