Had it ever occurred to you that you may not have understood the arguments? — frank

Of course, but no one has actually shown where I have misunderstood them. I have repeated asked you to do so,

Of course, but no one has actually shown where I have misunderstood them. I have repeated asked you to do so, — Fooloso4

Actually you used this thread to write an essay. You didn't engage other viewpoints.

Your approach is odd. It's normal to bring something personal to interpretation, but it's not normal to edit a work based on your views. — frank

I did not edit the work, I pointed to a specific point. Whenever we quote from a text we do not include the whole of the work.

Actually you used this thread to write an essay. You didn't engage other viewpoints. — frank

Actually, the essay was written over the period of a week. Several times I asked for viewpoints on the section under discussion.

did not edit the work, I pointed to a specific point. Whenever we quote from a text we do not include the whole of the work. — Fooloso4

@Apollodorus asked why you ignore the fact that the text has S saying immortality was shown.

You responded that you ignore it because he didn't show it. wtf?

Several times I asked for viewpoints on the section under discussion. — Fooloso4

I didn't see those. Sorry.

You responded that you ignore it because he didn't show it. wtf? — frank

Socrates did not show that the soul is immortal. I laid out the arguments. Read what Socrates says to Simmias when he expresses his doubts. Read what he says about the limits of arguments. Read what he says about the evaluation of arguments.

He just finished a myth that included the immortality of the soul and followed it with:

No sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think it is fitting for a man to risk the belief—for the risk is a noble one—that this, or something like this, is true about our souls and their dwelling places … (114d)

As I said, if the immortality of the soul has been demonstrated there would be nothing to risk in believing what has been shown to be true is true.

Actually, the essay was written over the period of a week. Several times I asked for viewpoints on the section under discussion. — Fooloso4

You ignored other people's views or had their posts deleted.

In their Introduction, Sedley & Long say:

“… in this concluding moment Socrates and his companions are in no doubt as to what it amounts to: soul must leave the body and go to Hades. Thus, at the very close of the defence of immortality, at the point where argument reaches its limit, and is about to give way to eschatological myth, Socrates is seen yet again reaffirming the Hades mythology” p. xxxiii

It looks like you have deliberately chosen another, incomplete translation because it suits your agenda. Sedley & Long’s translation and commentary would have demolished your theory.

You need to consider other scholars' views as well, not only those of atheists and materialists.

Socrates did not show that the soul is immortal. — Fooloso4

Whether this is true or not, you do not ignore a passage where Socrates says it was shown. ???

You ignored other people's views or had their posts deleted. — Apollodorus

I am not able to delete other people's posts and had nothing to do with them being deleted.

I asked for comments on what was being read, not what you can find on Wiki or elsewhere. It is my opinion that Plato must be read rather than read about.

Thus, at the very close of the defence of immortality, at the point where argument reaches its limit, and is about to give way to eschatological myth, Socrates is seen yet again reaffirming the Hades mythology — Apollodorus

This is entirely consistent with what I have said. The immortality of the soul has not been shown because to do so would go beyond the limits of argument. Of course he reaffirms the mythology. How could he persuade them otherwise?

Whether this is true or not, you do not ignore a passage where Socrates says it was shown. ??? — frank

This is something he said many times already. He says he repeats it as an incantation.

I want to return to one of the opening passages. This is one of the passages cited in respect of the famous quotation that philosophy is the 'preparation for death'.

[64a] (Socrates) “Other people are likely not to be aware that those who pursue philosophy aright study nothing but dying and being dead. Now if this is true, it would be absurd to be eager for nothing but this all their lives, and then to be troubled when that came for which they had all along been eagerly practicing.”

And Simmias laughed and said, “By Zeus, [64b] Socrates, I don't feel much like laughing just now, but you made me laugh. For 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.

Emphasis added.

I think the reference to 'our people at home' is clearly a reference to non-philosophers, i.e. those who haven't been trained in philosophy. The fact that they 'know very well' that philosophers 'deserve death' is a mocking reference to the idea that the 'people at home' don't understand at all what the philosopher does about the significance of death, because they do not know in what way the real philosopher desires death, nor in what way they deserve it, nor 'what kind of death it is'.

What does 'what kind of death' mean? How many kinds could there be?

Socrates implies here that the philosopher does 'know very well' the way in which real philosophers desire death. In the next few verses, he describes the fate of the philosopher as joining the 'good men' in a beneficial afterlife, which is distinct from 'the mire' into which the unrighteous fall.

I asked for comments on what was being read, not what you can find on Wiki or elsewhere. It is my opinion that Plato must be read rather than read about. — Fooloso4

As already stated, Sedley and Long aren't nobodies, they are highly regarded scholars.

David Neil Sedley is a British philosopher and historian of philosophy. He was the seventh Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy at Cambridge University.

David Sedley – Wikipedia

Alex Long, of St Andrews is the editor of Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, which brings together original research on immortality from early Greek philosophy, such as the Pythagoreans and Empedocles, to Augustine. The contributors consider not only arguments concerning the soul’s immortality, but also the diverse and often subtle accounts of what immortality is, both in Plato and in less familiar philosophers, such as the early Stoics and Philo of Alexandria.

So, Sedley & Long would have been highly relevant to your “essay” IMHO.

Could it not be the case that the exhortation to ‘repeat such things to himself’ is so as not to loose sight of the importance of the ‘care of the soul’? (Perhaps even as a mantra.) I find that a much more cohesive explanation, than the idea that Socrates (and Plato) are covertly signalling doubt about the immortality of the soul. — Wayfarer

Looking at the matter through Timaeus, the identification of oneself as a soul in the sense of being the person you are after death is in tension with the recognition of our mortality. The myth of the Creator working through agents of creation distinguishes mortal man in this way:

On the other hand, if they were created by me and received life at my hands, they would be on an equality with the gods. In order then that they may be mortal, and that this universe be truly universal, do ye, according to your natures, betake yourselves to the formation of animals, imitating the power which was shown by me in creating you.
The part of them worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you--of that divine part I will myself now sow the seed, and having made a beginning, I will hand the work over to you. And do ye then interweave the mortal with the immortal and make and begat living creatures, and give them food and make them to grow, and receive them again in death. — Plato, Timaeus,41b, translated by Benjamin Jowett

That is not the sort of immortality many are hoping for.

That is not the sort of immortality many are hoping for — Valentinus

I follow. I don't think the eschatology is by any means worked out or finalised. This comes up in the Phaedo in the discussion about 'snow' as being 'a kind' on the one hand, and 'an instance' on the other. So it's a question about the relationship between universals and particulars which was of course to continue being explored for millenia thereafter before petering out in the mangrove deltas of modernity.

But, confining the discussion to what is said and implied in the Phaedo, I think it's still fair to say that the intimation of the immortality of the soul seems more than just a wish.

//ps// Incidentally, check out this title. It's on my to-read list.

I don't think the eschatology is by any means worked out or finalised. — Wayfarer

Sedley & Long make the following observation:

“And that the souls of the dead exist in Hades was a well-entrenched popular belief too, with its roots in Homer (Odyssey I I). Socrates’ aim in the Phaedo is to establish both the scientific respectability and the real meaning of these traditions [immortality and reincarnation]. The soul’s survival in Hades and its eventual reincarnation start out with the credibility that ancient tradition is assumed to confer on a belief, and Socrates’ central strategy is to establish scientific laws (as we might call them) to which these particular beliefs confirm. Arguments which fail as complete proofs of a thesis may nevertheless have considerable corroborative force when used in this way.”

The relationship between "universals and particulars" is mixed up with different ways we have talked about them over a long time.

What strikes me about the Timaeus passage is the "one who weaves" the immortal and the mortal together must be ourselves. Or if not ourselves, pretty closely related. It is left open as a consideration.

Indeed, but the Timaeus is a whole other can of worms! I think it would be useful in this thread to confine ourselves to intepretive questions raised by the Phaedo. Maybe in future we can do some of the other dialogues, I would certainly be interested in it.

Well, I brought it up because myths were being discussed and there is a dialogue devoted to them.

I read the dialogues as conversations between themselves. They disagree with each other. Some things become more important in one place than in another. But Plato himself puts them side by side. Like they need each other.

I think the reference to 'our people at home' is clearly a reference to non-philosophers — Wayfarer

In the beginning of the paragraph he says "the multitude" and then toward the end "our people at home". I don't know if he is making a distinction between them. It may be some reference to something related to Thebes.

'know very well' that philosophers 'deserve death' — Wayfarer

Two ways in which he may have meant this, and possibly both -

The ascetic life, a life without pleasure, is not worth living
There was a distrust of philosophers

I do not know if Socrates says in any of the other dialogues that the philosopher desires death. I think it may have something to do with the theme of both fear of death and their despair over Socrates death. He tells that this is what philosophers want all along.


.

The relationship between "universals and particulars" is mixed up — Valentinus

I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful. That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else.” (100c-e)

This comes up in the Phaedo in the discussion about 'snow' as being 'a kind' on the one hand, and 'an instance' on the other. — Wayfarer

I discuss this. It is important because the same thing occurs with Soul/soul. At the approach of Heat Snow retreats but the stuff melts. Analogously, at the approach of Death Soul retreats but the soul of the man is destroyed.

So it's a question about the relationship between universals and particulars — Wayfarer

Right. Socrates' soul is of the Kind Soul, but his soul is not the Kind or Form Soul

I read the dialogues as conversations between themselves. — Valentinus

There are certain continuities that connect them. There are a few passages in the Phaedo that I compare with the Republic. I think the similarities are intentional but the differences are what shed light.

Although I think they are intended to read one against another, I also think they all stand on their own.

Agreed.
It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing?
The unique quality is exposing oneself to argument, no matter the consequence.

I discuss this. It is important because the same thing occurs with Soul/soul. At the approach of Heat Snow retreats but the stuff melts. Analogously, at the approach of Death Soul retreats but the soul of the man is destroyed. — Fooloso4

Thanks, I will look into the original again when I have some time. I think it's one of the crucial issues of metaphysics in this text.

It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing?
The unique quality is exposing oneself to argument, no matter the consequence. — Valentinus

Yes. For me, this exposure to argument is the crux of the matter, no matter what particular religious belief or philosophical stance you take.

The relationship between "universals and particulars" is mixed up
— Valentinus

I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful. .” (100c-e) — Fooloso4

As @Fooloso4 points out Socrates and his particular mind is unable to give an explanation of the relationship between Forms and things, the unchanging and changing.
Would the Form - 'Mind' be able to ? No. As an abstract concept created by our own minds it can't act.
Only humans can think with their minds and act accordingly to the best of their ability.

Mind as Form is not the same as a particular mind. Does the Form cause the particular or is it the particular that creates the Form ? I think the latter, others will disagree.

Points I find interesting:
1. '...That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else' ( 100c-e).
Why the concern for the 'safest answer' - what did he mean by 'safest' ?

2. What is considered 'the greatest evil'.
Compare (83c-d) - ' the fact that pleasure and pain trick us into thinking that sensory stimuli are to be treated as truest reality. Pleasure and pain seal the soul shut within its bodily cage'.

with (89d) - 'There is not greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse'.

Here, we return to the issue of pain/pleasure. Socrates' release from the prison fetters. His body and mind soon to be released from the world, the real troublesome world. The human experience can be nothing other than holistic - mingling and divisions all in the mix.

A philosopher who blames arguments rather than himself must 'spend the rest of his life hating and reviling reasoned discussion and so be deprived of truth and knowledge of reality' (90d).

Socrates assumes the existence of the Forms and asks them to be a given (100b).
They are the true causes of qualities and can keep opposites from mixing with one another (102e-103a)
This basic claim will be crucial for his ultimate defence of the soul's immortality. ( Hannan, p31)

Well, given that I can't accept his alleged assumption...it is unlikely that I will accept the conclusion...
I think accepting such matters is by faith... not by reasoned argument.

Socrates' soul is of the Kind Soul, but his soul is not the Kind or Form Soul — Fooloso4

That sounds good. I am not sure what you mean by 'soul' here, though. His mind, his spirit ?
Why the capitals at 'Kind Soul' ?

Can a mind be Kind ?
Or is it the case that Socrates is one of a kind. With a kind of mind that thinks kindly...and carefully.
And that is the whole point...isn't it ?

Unique. As per @Valentinus quote:
'The unique quality is exposing oneself to argument, no matter the consequence...'

However, the consequences do matter, don't they ?

It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing? — Valentinus

One that comes to mind is, "How Philosophy Became Socratic: A Study of Plato's Protagoras, Charmades, and Republic" by Laurence Lampert
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo8725147.html

He takes the dialogue in their dramatic chronology, how old Socrates was when the dialogue took place.

[Edit] Another is Plato's Trilogy : Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman, by Jacob Klein

It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing? — Valentinus

I skipped over this earlier - not paying attention to the second part.
What did you mean by 'this sort of thing' ?
Stories within a story showing different perspectives ? With the motives of the author(s) in question ?

Mind as Form is not the same as a particular mind. Does the Form cause the particular or is it the particular that creates the Form ? I think the latter, others will disagree. — Amity

I think it is Socrates mind ordering things according to kind. It is the kind of thing Mind does. I don't think this is meant to be the intelligible order of the whole. It is a hypothesis by which he makes that order intelligible.

Why the concern for the 'safest answer' - what did he mean by 'safest' ? — Amity

Good question. He begins the story of his second sailing by saying how confused he was by looking at things themselves. His hypotheses are his way of bringing order to things. A second sailing means when the wind dies down and you must oar the boat, move it forward under your own power.

A philosopher who blames arguments rather than himself must 'spend the rest of his life hating and reviling reasoned discussion and so be deprived of truth and knowledge of reality' (90d). — Amity

He begins this statement by saying:

when there is a true and reliable argument and one that can be understood

This is important because the arguments for the immortality of the soul may not be true and reliable
arguments. In other words, sometimes the argument is to blame. The philosopher has a responsibility to the argument, and this includes having reasonable expectations about what argument is capable of. If the philosopher comes to hate reasoned discussion because it cannot do what he expects of it it is the philosopher and not the argument that is to blame.

Well, given that I can't accept his alleged assumption...I think accepting such matters is by faith... not by reasoned argument. — Amity

After saying he assumes the Form he goes on to say:

If you grant me these and agree that they exist ...

The acceptance of the assumption does not come as the result of reasoned argument, it is used as a condition for it.

I am not sure what you mean by 'soul' here, though. His mind, his spirit ? — Amity

This raises a couple of problems that become clear when he introduces number. In the division between the body and soul where is the activity of thought? If it is in the soul then the soul cannot be one thing because thought is the activity of Mind. Soul would the be composite, a combination of Soul and Mind and the argument that it cannot be destroyed because it is one thing and not composite fails.

Why the capitals at 'Kind Soul' ? — Amity

'Kind' is another English term for 'Form'. The Greek

eidos

means both. Soul with with a capital indicates the Form rather than a particular soul.

Or is it the case that Socrates is one of a kind. — Amity

This has a double meaning: Socrates is one (a particular) of the the Kind Man, but also unique. Through much of the dialogue no distinction is made between Socrates and his soul. Is he then of the Kind/Form Soul or Man? Is the fate of his soul the same as the fate of the man?

The two uses of 'kind' in English are related. Kind means both the kind of thing something is, that is, its nature or species and something whose nature or disposition is what we describe as kind.

After saying he assumes the Form he goes on to say:

If you grant me these and agree that they exist ...
The acceptance of the assumption does not come as the result of reasoned argument, it is used as a condition for it. — Fooloso4

Yes, I did understand that it was the basic assumption and condition of the argument not the conclusion

Well, given that I can't accept his alleged assumption...I think accepting such matters is by faith... not by reasoned argument. — Amity

Perhaps I need to clarify.
I meant I can't grant him that basic assumption on which the argument relies or stands.
Shaky ground.

I think any conclusion or belief that the soul is immortal can't be deduced by argument.
Rather it is a matter of faith.

Good question. He begins the story of his second sailing by saying how confused he was by looking at things themselves. His hypotheses are his way of bringing order to things. A second sailing means when the wind dies down and you must oar the boat, move it forward under your own power. — Fooloso4

Interesting. I had wondered if 'safety' could also mean something 'acceptable' to the status quo - those who had sentenced him.
Perhaps it was necessary to convince his students of the divine, and ideal Form - an afterlife - so that they would be protected from danger.
With Socrates as their mentor, they would have come under suspicion...
This in addition to comforting them that he was absolutely fine with dying. No problem...

The two uses of 'kind' in English are related. Kind means both the kind of thing something is, that is, its nature or species and something whose nature or disposition is what we describe as kind. — Fooloso4

Yup. Already grasped that, thanks.

'Kind' is another English term for 'Form'. — Fooloso4

Really ? How so ?
Like this ?

Also in English as a suffix (mankind, etc., also compare godcund "divine"). Other earlier, now obsolete, senses included "character, quality derived from birth" and "manner or way natural or proper to anyone — Etymology dictionary

."

Soul with with a capital indicates the Form rather than a particular soul. — Fooloso4

Yes, I understand the use of capitals. As in:

I think it is Socrates mind ordering things according to kind. It is the kind of thing Mind does. — Fooloso4

Emphasis added
and:

Socrates' soul is of the Kind Soul, but his soul is not the Kind or Form Soul — Fooloso4

Emphasis added.

What I don't understand is why you capitalised the words bolded.
1.Why would you say that is the kind of things Mind as Form does ?
How can an abstract concept act ?
2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ?

I think I have suffered enough confusion for today.