The setting of the work is Socrates last day. If you think that any conclusion I have arrived at is odd then I would welcome a discussion of it. The fact is what he called Homer divine. If I am wrong that others did not regard him this way what difference does that make?

The fact is what he called Homer divine. If I am wrong that others did not regard him this way what difference does that make? — Fooloso4

One of the things one could do is analyze the argument that Homer affirms that the soul can be separated from the body.

Who is Plato arguing with here? Would this opponent (who believes the soul is essentially motion, or what we might call energy) be persuaded by an appeal to divinity? Is that was Plato has Socrates doing?

Who was the great Athenian law giver? A god? No, it was Solon, a man.

So maybe Plato is showing off the conservatism of the gentry? Think about the images in the works of Homer. It's the Greek epic. It describes how people should relate to one another and it clearly gives precedence to an aristocrat like Plato. Maybe it's: I speak for tradition. I speak from the depths of the Greek soul.

Or maybe it's something else.

Socrates didn't tend to care much about prudence. He expressed admiration for Sparta in the middle of a devastating war. He managed to irritate the crap out of most Athenian citizens.

I think it's more likely we're taking in Plato's flair for poetic expression. — frank

Perhaps that is the case. On the other hand, the dialogue begins with Socrates trying "bodily" music composition to satisfy what his daemon might be requiring from him. That and the calls for phronesis are at odds with the harsh division between the body and the mind in many of the arguments.

Maybe all that time in fetters messed with his old modus operandi.

One of the things one could do is analyze the argument that Homer affirms that the soul can be separated from the body. — frank

Where in the dialogue is it? Stephanus number?

Who is Plato arguing with here? — frank

Where?

Who was the great Athenian law giver? — frank

What is the relevance to the dialogue? Again, a stephanus reference would be helpful.

So maybe Plato is showing off the conservatism of the gentry? — frank

See above. As a student of Socrates a case would have to be made that he is conservative. Socrates certainly was not.

None of these things speak to the specifics of your claim that my conclusions are odd. None of them speak to your point that the Greeks did not deify Homer.

One cool thing about Plato is the way he presents the repeating theme of oppositions.

It will come through in a dry logical argument, then it shows up in the tone of the work.

Where in the dialogue is it? Stephanus number? — Fooloso4

You just posted it.

Where? — Fooloso4

Who is the opponent he is addressing? We talked about this earlier (in regards to why it comes in handy to call Plato's approach idealistic). What is the existing contrast to his approach? You should know this.

See above. As a student of Socrates a case would have to be made that he is conservative. Socrates certainly was not. — Fooloso4

This is a middle work. It's Plato we're hearing here, not Socrates. In what sense was Plato conservative?

None of them speak to your point that the Greeks did not deify Homer. — Fooloso4

Holy crap, man.

You just posted it. — frank

Do you mean where Socrates said "Homer put it poetically"? (94d) Socrates makes the distinction between poetry and argument several times. Homer does not present and argument. He says:

Odysseus struck his breast and rebuked his heart saying, 'Endure, my heart, you
have endured worse than this.'

Socrates uses this to claim that the soul is not a harmony of the body, but rather the soul rules over the body.

I pointed out that:

But the passage cited (Odyssey XX 17-18) is not a case of the soul ruling the bodily desire, but of the soul controlling its own anger. — Fooloso4

And:

In an earlier post I discussed the problem of soul’s desire. In both cases the divide between body and soul cannot be maintained. — Fooloso4

Who is the opponent he is addressing? We talked about this earlier (in regards to why it comes in handy to call Plato's approach idealistic). What is the existing contrast to his approach? You should know this. — frank

I don't know what you mean. If you explain it I will respond. If you mean the appropriateness of using the term 'idealistic' I have nothing further to say.

This is a middle work. It's Plato we're hearing here, not Socrates. — frank

It is all Plato we are hearing, from the early dialogues to the end, simply from the fact that he wrote the dialogues. We cannot make a clear distinction between where he might be repeating what Socrates said and where he is not. Some scholars have attempted to do this, but others reject this approach. One thing is clear: With the possible exception of what he wrote while awaiting the poison, Socrates did not write anything and Plato never speaks in the dialogues. In this dialogue attention is drawn to the fact that he was not present. Xenophon also wrote Socratic dialogues. His dialogues differ from Plato's, even when they are writing about the same thing. Compare, for example, Plato's Symposium and Xenophon's.

In what sense was Plato conservative?

I don't think he was. You said:

So maybe Plato is showing off the conservatism of the gentry? — frank

And I responded:

As a student of Socrates a case would have to be made that he is conservative. — Fooloso4

Plato was an aristocrat but not a conservative. He was truly a revolutionary. Socrates was not an aristocrat but was a revolutionary.

Holy crap, man. — frank

Is this what stands as an argument for you? You have not told me why it makes a difference to our understanding of the text if Socrates was alone in calling Homer divine. It is right there in the text. No one who heard it disagreed or found it odd for him to have said this.

You have not told me why it makes a difference to our understanding of the text if Socrates was alone in calling Homer divine. — Fooloso4

We might take it that Socrates is suggesting that divinity was at work in Homer. He's not suggesting that Homer is really divine.

You specifically stated that Socrates was calling on Homer's divine authority.

We could look at how an appeal to divine authority differs from an appeal to tradition. In this, I suggest we'd need to think about the competition of ideas at the time.

In some cases, your interpretation is just wrong. The bigger problem is that you seem to think there is one right interpretation.

Think of Phaedo as food for thought.

Perhaps we can discuss that if we move on to The Apology after this (which would seem a logical progression.) — Wayfarer

The hatred of logos is a big part of this dialogue. At the beginning of Phaedo, there is a proposal that that the trial would be played out again amongst those assembled. To that extent, doesn't the topic of corrupting people fall within the parameters of the dialogue under discussion?

In some cases, your interpretation is just wrong. The bigger problem is that you seem to think there is one right interpretation. — frank

I do not think there is one right interpretation, but you have not given me a single case of where you think my interpretation is wrong. Without details your accusations are empty. Provide specific cases and where you think my interpretation does not agree with what is said in the dialogue, as well as what you think is a better interpretation, and we can talk.

Socrates is not being presented as believing Homer is divine.

Do you understand that?

Socrates is not being presented as believing Homer is divine.

Do you understand that? — frank

Socrates calls him divine. In what way is his calling him divine not presenting him as being divine?

What he means by this is another matter. And whether or not he believes it cannot be determined without first figuring out what he means.

Once again, you said in some cases my interpretation is wrong, but you have not given a single case. So what are those cases? Saying that he calls him divine is not an interpretation. It is a direct quote from the text.

From the OP:

The question arises as to whether this is a comedy or tragedy. — Fooloso4

Thanks to @Fooloso4 for drawing this to my attention. It meant that I paid more attention and found comedic elements I wouldn't otherwise have done. It surprised me at the time because I had the wrong impression that Plato did not think highly of humour. So, another paradox.
See SEP article on 'Philosophy of Humour':

Plato, the most influential critic of laughter, treated laughter as an emotion that overrides rational self-control. In the Republic (388e), he says that the Guardians of the state should avoid laughter, “for ordinarily when one abandons himself to violent laughter, his condition provokes a violent reaction.” Especially disturbing to Plato were the passages in the Iliad and the Odyssey where Mount Olympus was said to ring with the laughter of the gods. He protested that “if anyone represents men of worth as overpowered by laughter we must not accept it, much less if gods.”

Another of Plato’s objections to laughter is that it is malicious. In Philebus (48–50), he analyzes the enjoyment of comedy as a form of scorn. — John Morreall

Humour compares, I think, to the issue of desire, as a bodily disturbance to be disdained.
However, as mentioned previously, this is not absolute. It includes the idea of temperance. The Goldilocks effect. Keeping the right balance. So, what matters is the quantity and quality of the emotion; the type and motivation, virtuous or vicious.

I have probably missed some of the wry, subtle humour sprinkled throughout. Some are obvious: 'chuckles'. We have to work at noticing. No emoticons here :smile: :sad: :chin: :brow:
In general, it is a way of looking at the human condition; the bitter-sweet connections, the experiences of pain/pleasure.

Listening to the second of the audio files recommended earlier by @Banno
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536659
I woke up in time to hear the last few minutes:

pp15-16 ( 70b-d)

...on just this point, perhaps, one needs no little reassuring and convincing, that when the man has died, his soul exists, and that it possesses some power and wisdom.' (14)
'That's true, Cebes,' said Socrates; 'but then what are we to do?
Would you like us to speculate (15) on these very questions, and see whether this is likely to be the case or not?'
'For my part anyway,' said Cebes, 'I'd gladly hear whatever opinion you have about them.'
'Well,' said Socrates, 'I really don't think anyone listening now, even if he were a comic poet, would say that I'm talking idly, and arguing about things that don't concern me. If you agree, then, we should look into the matter.
'Let's consider it, perhaps, in this way: do the souls of men exist in Hades when they have died, or do they not? Now there's an ancient doctrine, which we've recalled, (16) that they do exist in that world, entering it from this one, and that they re-enter this world and are born again from the dead;

Bracketed numbers within the text refer to the Notes.
I haven't looked there yet. Curious as to why 'speculate' and 'recalled' have been highlighted. I could speculate...that mere or idle 'opinion' had been frowned upon...that 'recall' occurs when thinking in the present about things past, we don't need a re-born soul.

Socrates mentions his scornful and critical 'comic poet' - ? Aristophanes *
Again, we can see why this kind of humour was not appreciated and objected to.
Nevertheless, it is used to good effect in the dialogue(s), helping us to form the picture.

For example: the audience is fearful about death and loss. What happens after death.
Socrates brings in some wry comments that raises chuckles - a release from pent up nervous energy and anxiety. Both Plato and Socrates are more than aware of the human condition - the interplay between body and mind. The need for a sense of humour...

Not to mention patience with those who hurl false accusations :brow:

-----

* Edit to add from the Notes, p104:

Socrates' denial that he is 'talking idly' (70cl-2) may be an allusion to Aristophanes' caricature of him in the Clouds. For the gibe cf. Republic 489a, Gorgias 485d-e. As if in answer to charges of 'irrelevance', the close connection between the present inquiry and Socrates' own situation is stressed again and again (7 6b 10-12, 78a1-2, 80d7-8, 84c6-85b9, 89b, 91a-c, 98c-99a).

Surely the expression that ‘there is an ancient doctrine that we’ve recalled’ signifies something more than here-say, in the context of one who believes that true knowledge is recollection of knowledge obtained before this life.

Surely the expression that ‘there is an ancient doctrine that we’ve recalled’ signifies something more than here-say, in the context of one who believes that true knowledge is recollection of knowledge obtained before this life. — Wayfarer

What do you think it signifies?
Re any stated belief, how do we know that this is an absolute belief sincerely held ?

I think that the point is: we don't know, even if we think we do...
Even recent past events are seldom recalled perfectly by one person, never mind if more are involved. And as for the recall of a soul events...or knowledge of...any truth...

What do you think it signifies? — Amity

I think it signifies that it is something other than what us moderns think of as a 'myth', by which we mean, something that could never happen. The way myths are told in ancient literature - not only by Plato - they're often allegorical presentations of truths which can't be stated directly. Which is convenient for modern intepreters, because they can also be dismissed as 'merely myth'.

they're often allegorical presentations of truths which can't be stated directly. Which is convenient for modern intepreters, because they can also be dismissed as 'merely myth'. — Wayfarer

Interesting. Do you have any particular examples in mind ?

Since you asked, quite frankly it indicates that you don't know much about the setting of the work. You're prone to jumping to odd conclusions, and then you refuse to accept facts when they're presented. — frank

I tend to agree with that. Take the example of 85b where, on being asked who Socrates refers to (Apollo or some other master), he replied "I don't know" only to later claim that he "misread" the text and corrected himself after consulting other translations and even that only after I pointed out that his reading is incorrect.

How can you "misread" a text written in plain English?

But he goes even further and baselessly asserts:

But (and with Plato there is always more to it) he goes on to say: "... that I possess prophetic power from my master no less than theirs" Which indicates that it is not Apollo. — Fooloso4

So, he uses his own misreading to infer quite a lot from it. "It is not Apollo" (even when it obviously is Apollo) and, anyways, "with Plato there is always more to it" so let's turn the dialogues into something else, like a "comedy" for example. Plato, after all, was not a philosopher but a playwright.

The way myths are told in ancient literature - not only by Plato - they're often allegorical presentations of truths which can't be stated directly. Which is convenient for modern intepreters, because they can also be dismissed as 'merely myth'. — Wayfarer

Correct.

Interesting. Do you have any particular examples in mind ? — Amity

The very one we’re discussing! Socrates refers to ‘an ancient myth’ and also ‘the mysteries’. ‘The mysteries’ are a reference to the Greek ‘mystery religions’, notably Orphism (the cult of Orpheus) which taught a doctrine of re-incarnation very similar to ancient Hinduism (to which it was distantly related). It has been called the ‘ur-religion’ of Ancient Greece, ‘ur-religion’ being the ancestral indigenous belief system which originated with the ancient Indo-European peoples. (On a side-note, the original definition of a ‘mystic’ was ‘one initiated into the Mysteries.’ And if, as legend suggests, Plato was such an initiate, then he was literally ‘a mystic’).

The very one we’re discussing! — Wayfarer

OK. I thought you were thinking of philosophical interpreters of Plato's Phaedo who dismiss it as 'merely myth' as you expressed:

as a 'myth', by which we mean, something that could never happen. — Wayfarer

And wondered if you had anyone specific in mind.

The very one we’re discussing! Socrates refers to ‘an ancient myth’ and also ‘the mysteries’. ‘The mysteries’ are a reference to the Greek ‘mystery religions’, notably Orphism (the cult of Orpheus) which taught a doctrine of re-incarnation very similar to ancient Hinduism (to which it was distantly related). It has been called the ‘ur-religion’ of Ancient Greece, ‘ur-religion’ being the ancestral indigenous belief system which originated with the ancient Indo-European peoples. (On a side-note, the original definition of a ‘mystic’ was ‘one initiated into the Mysteries.’ And if, as legend suggests, Plato was such an initiate, then he was literally ‘a mystic’). — Wayfarer

Plato is also said to have been initiated into Egyptian mysteries as was Pythagoras. But you are right, we can't ignore the mystic aspect of Platonism and try to force an exclusively atheistic or materialist interpretation on Platonic texts. Otherwise we take a dogmatic approach which to my understanding the discussion intended to avoid.

And wondered if you had anyone specific in mind. — Amity

I was thinking of passages like this:

And I fancy that those men who established the mysteries were not unenlightened, but in reality had a hidden meaning when they said long ago that whoever goes uninitiated and unsanctified to the other world will lie in the mire, but he who arrives there initiated and purified will dwell with the gods. — Phaedo 69c

In general, it is a way of looking at the human condition; the bitter-sweet connections, the experiences of pain/pleasure. — Amity

Both Plato and Socrates are more than aware of the human condition - the interplay between body and mind. The need for a sense of humour... — Amity

You make some good points.

As I have said before, with the dialogues we need to look not only at what is said but at what is done. Here are two examples from the Phaedo of Socrates laughing.


At 84d: "When Socrates heard this he laughed quietly " (or in other translations "gently")
At 115c: "laughing quietly" (serenely)

This looks interesting:

From the summary of the book "Plato's Laughter":

Counters the long-standing, solemn interpretation of Plato’s dialogues with one centered on the philosophical and pedagogical significance of Socrates as a comic figure.

Plato was described as a boor and it was said that he never laughed out loud. Yet his dialogues abound with puns, jokes, and humor. Sonja Madeleine Tanner argues that in Plato’s dialogues Socrates plays a comical hero who draws heavily from the tradition of comedy in ancient Greece, but also reforms laughter to be applicable to all persons and truly shaming to none. Socrates introduces a form of self-reflective laughter that encourages, rather than stifles, philosophical inquiry. Laughter in the dialogues—both explicit and implied—suggests a view of human nature as incongruous with ourselves, simultaneously falling short of, and superseding, our own capacities. What emerges is a picture of human nature that bears a striking resemblance to Socrates’ own, laughable depiction, one inspired by Dionysus, but one that remains ultimately intractable. The book analyzes specific instances of laughter and the comical from the Apology, Laches, Charmides, Cratylus, Euthydemus, and the Symposium to support this, and to further elucidate the philosophical consequences of recognizing Plato’s laughter. https://www.sunypress.edu/p-6468-platos-laughter.aspx

Socrates mentions his scornful and critical 'comic poet' - ? Aristophanes — Amity

Nietzsche said:

I know of nothing that has caused me to dream more on Plato’s secrecy and his sphinx nature than the happily preserved petit fait that under the pillow of his deathbed there was found no “Bible,” nothing Egyptian, Pythagorean, or Platonic—but a volume of Aristophanes. How could even a Plato have endured life—a Greek life to which he said No—without an Aristophanes?

The Sedley and Long translation is slightly different. But in 69d it says:

For in fact, as those involved in the rites [mysteries] put it, "many carry the fennel-wand, but few are inspired". The latter, in my opinion, are none other than those who have pursued philosophy correctly. In trying to become one of them I left nothing undone in my life, at least as far as I could, but did my utmost in every way. Whether I did so correctly and achieved anything, I'll know for certain when I've got there, god willing, and I don't think it will be long. —

This and other statements would suggest that the speaker does see himself as a follower of the mystery traditions.

Surely the expression that ‘there is an ancient doctrine that we’ve recalled’ signifies something more than here-say, in the context of one who believes that true knowledge is recollection of knowledge obtained before this life. — Wayfarer

You seem to have missed the irony. They have recalled the doctrine. They have not recollected. It remains something they have been told rather than knowledge they have attained.

The book analyzes specific instances of laughter and the comical from the Apology, Laches, Charmides, Cratylus, Euthydemus, and the Symposium to support this, and to further elucidate the philosophical consequences of recognizing Plato’s laughter. — Fooloso4

No one denies that there is humor in Plato's dialogues but to dismiss them as "comedy" is stretching it too far. Plus, even comedy may have a spiritual message. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the facts.

Nietzsche said ... — Fooloso4

Yes. But on what grounds do we ignore or dismiss other views like those of later Platonic philosophers in favor of Nietzsche?

They have recalled the doctrine. They have not recollected. It remains something they have been told rather than knowledge they have attained. — Fooloso4

Yes, but they are vindicating the doctrine in 72c and 72d are they not?

If the living come back from the dead, this justifies belief in learning as recollection, as discussed at 72e ff

So, where is the "irony"?