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

I know you did. I was drawing out the point.

I meant I can't grant him that basic assumption on which the argument relies or stands.
Shaky ground. — Amity

I agree. I think he himself says as much.

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

Right, and the myths are intended to strengthen that faith.

Perhaps it was necessary to convince his students of the divine, and ideal Form - an afterlife - so that they would be protected from danger. — Amity

Do you mean the danger of being run out or sentenced to death? Or some other danger? Misologic?

With Socrates as their mentor, they would have come under suspicion... — Amity

I take it you meant danger in the first sense. I think it may also apply in other ways.

Like this ? — Amity

Also like this:

And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit after its kind;

And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind

`Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:'

And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind (Genesis 1)

And this:

The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. (Darwin, The Descent of Man)

1.Why would you say that is the kind of things Mind as Form does ? — Amity

I think this points to a problem with regard to Forms and what, if anything, Forms do. Does Beauty make things beautiful? Does Justice make things just? Socrates says that Mind arranges or orders things. (97c) Is this 'Mind' a particular mind?

The problem of Forms as causes is incomplete. It is what he refers to as 'ignorant' or 'uneducated'. It is why he later revises this and re-introduces things like 'fire' and not just Heat as a cause.

2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity

Soul is that which brings life. Here again the distinction is blurred as it was with Snow and snow.

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 ? — Amity

I had been wondering if the Bible could be considered as this type or kind of thing...
There are plenty examples of stories within stories in literature as well as religion and philosophy.

So, it was interesting to see @Fooloso4's examples of:

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

And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit after its kind;
And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind
`Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:'
And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind (Genesis 1)

Examples of nested books:

This structure is also found in classic religious and philosophical texts. The structure of The Symposium and Phaedo, attributed to Plato, is of a story within a story within a story. In the Christian Bible, the gospels are retellings of stories from the life and ministry of Jesus. However, they also include within them the stories (parables) that Jesus told.

In more modern philosophical work, Jostein Gaarder's books often feature this device. Examples are The Solitaire Mystery, where the protagonist receives a small book from a baker, in which the baker tells the story of a sailor who tells the story of another sailor, and Sophie's World about a girl who is actually a character in a book that is being read by Hilde, a girl in another dimension. Later on in the book Sophie questions this idea, and realizes that Hilde too could be a character in a story that in turn is being read by another. — Wiki: Story within a story

I agree that it can be difficult to explore such works.
It can be frustrating. You keep wondering what the hell is going on and why. Especially if it uses historical characters...is it authentic, does it have to be ? How do you keep track ?

Reading Plato's Phaedo and participating in the discussion is challenging and worthwhile on so many levels. I've mentioned the personal ones before.
The form, structure and language - they make you think about the intention, key themes and different perspectives; the order of events, the presentation of ideas; the very words and their impact, the imagery.
How did Plato do it - in so many different dialogues - why - and what effect did/does it have...

Same with the Bible.

Socrates says that Mind arranges or orders things. (97c) Is this 'Mind' a particular mind? — Fooloso4

Plato used his particular mind to show other minds and perspectives using argument and myth.
His ideas sprang from his mind - but we can usefully ask, from whence came his inspiration?

2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ?
— Amity

Soul is that which brings life. Here again the distinction is blurred as it was with Snow and snow. — Fooloso4

I think I think of soul as spirit which moves you. It needs a force of energy to motivate...and yes, to bring life in a certain kind of way.

The structure of The Symposium and Phaedo, attributed to Plato, is of a story within a story within a story. In the Christian Bible, the gospels are retellings of stories from the life and ministry of Jesus. However, they also include within them the stories (parables) that Jesus told. — Wiki: Story within a story

So I take it that Plato's literary tricks in the Phaedo and elsewhere, as craftily imitated by the authors of the gospels were intended to make all the tales as a cumulative package more life-like, more credible therefore more convincing to naive un-philosophical people who listen to such stories?

So I take it that Plato's literary tricks in the Phaedo and elsewhere, as dutifully imitated — magritte

I don't know that they were 'dutifully imitated'. Why would you think so ?

the authors of the gospels were intended to make all the tales as a cumulative package more life-like, — magritte

Again, I don't know enough about the authors of the gospels. I do seem to remember that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had different perspectives of Jesus. Perhaps that is what makes it more 'life-like'.

The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.[17] Modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[18][19] — Wiki: Gospel

more convincing to naive un-philosophical people who listen to such stories? — magritte

Hmmm. The stories as listened to at that time - would have reached different types of people. Whether or not they were convinced or persuaded to follow the preachers - would require a way of thinking and believing that could include both the naive and the more experienced. The wise and the not so wise.

As read today - by all ages and types of people, it might not be so much about trying to convince of any truth. Certain nuggets of good ways to act...ideas of how best to live life...can be extracted from the whole Book.
Some people follow it because they see it as the work of God.
I see it as the work of men...

Your thoughts ?

Your thoughts ? — Amity

I think that Plato should have been made a saint a very long time ago for what he did for the Church.

I think that Plato should have been made a saint a very long time ago for what he did for the Church. — magritte

First reaction to that was a major laugh-out-loud... :rofl:

How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity

I answered this yesterday but I should have made the problem clearer. According to Socrates "safe" answer it is Life that brings life to the body.

Then, my friend, we were talking of things that have opposite qualities and naming these after them, but now we say that these opposites themselves, from the presence of which in them things get their name, never can tolerate the coming to be from one another.(103b-c)

According to this the correct answer is the presence of Life makes it living. This gives us the opposites Life and Death.

But after the unnamed man's question and the response Socrates gives above he begins again. According to this new beginning it is not Heat that makes a body hot but fire. (105b-c) We can now see why the new sophisticated answer is not a safe answer. In accord with this new beginning Socrates says:

Answer me then, what is it that, present in a body, makes it living?

Cebes: A soul. (105c)

There are two problems with this. Soul brings life to a body as fire brings heat, but just as the body loses heat when the fire dies, the body loses life when the soul dies. Socrates obscures this problem. He says the fire retreats, or the snow retreats, but these are things not Forms. The snow melts, the fire dies. Second, if there is Soul itself what is its opposite? It can't be body because in the presence of one Form its opposite retreats.

"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 — Cuthbert

Thought I'd return to this.
The phrase 'man is the measure of all things' was familiar but memory failed me yet again. I thought perhaps Shakespeare.
Think again. And search for information:

Protagoras is known primarily for three claims (1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) (2) that he could make the “worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)” and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not...

Historically, it was in response to Protagoras and his fellow sophists that Plato began the search for transcendent forms or knowledge which could somehow anchor moral judgment. Along with the other Older Sophists and Socrates, Protagoras was part of a shift in philosophical focus from the earlier Presocratic tradition of natural philosophy to an interest in human philosophy...

Plato (427-347 B.C.E.): Protagoras is a leading character in Plato’s dialogue Protagoras and Protagoras’ doctrines are discussed extensively in Plato’s Theaetetus. Plato’s dialogues, however, are a mixture of historical account and artistic license, much in the manner of the comic plays of the period...

Of Protagoras’ ipsissima verba (actual words, as opposed to paraphrases), the most famous is the homo-mensura (man-measure) statement (DK80b1): “Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or “how”] they are, and of things that are not, that [or “how”] they are not.” This precise meaning of this statement, like that of any short extract taken out of context, is far from obvious, although the long discussion of it in Plato’s Theaetetus gives us some sense of how ancient Greek audiences interpreted it. — IEP article: Protagorus

So, Plato gets in on the act again. Telling us about Protagorus. Well, well, well...
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/protagoras.html
and in the Thaetetus:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-theaetetus/

Oh dear...Plato has by the neck grabbed me again.
If only to see...what he sees...how and why...

Protagorus - I had heard about...but no in-depth knowledge...sounds like a cool customer.
Is there a reason he seldom appears on the scene in TPF discussions ?
Too ancient ?

[Apologies for side-track but...]

Thanks for returning to the question and providing an excellent and thought-provoking follow-up.

Plato's criticism of Protagoras must be carefully read in context in order to see what he is and is not rejecting.

The Forms are presented as if they are transcendent truths, but they are hypotheses.

Man is the measure does not mean that what any man says is thereby true, but it is, after all, man who measures the arguments made by man. A transcendent standard by which to measure is not available to us.

Yes, I was thinking about Protagoras, for example. I was also thinking about the Athenian culture that Plato was unhappy about: the society that put Socrates to death. It was imperious and arrogant, me-centred, politically corrupt, post-truth ('making the better argument appear the worse'), violently opposed to alternative points of view, following the mob wherever the mob leads. It was also producing some of the greatest works of art and philosophy ever made. The Theory of Forms was not (merely) abstract speculation: it came from the gut. In such a world, what are the values and truths that we can trust?

Plato's criticism of Protagoras must be carefully read in context in order to see what he is and is not rejecting.

The Forms are presented as if they are transcendent truths, but they are hypotheses. — Fooloso4

Yes. Good to clarify.
Plato can be interpreted by those who see only what they want to see.
No wonder the guy is so popular and everlasting...
Arousing passions - heated debates - from those who read him as supporting a particular belief system. Perhaps a central pillar of their life.

Man is the measure does not mean that what any man says is thereby true, but it is, after all, man who measures the arguments made by man. A transcendent standard by which to measure is not available to us. — Fooloso4

Absolutely true...
You know before this, I could take or leave Plato - mostly leave.
Now, I am reading him with less of a jaundiced eye but still somewhat cross-eyed :nerd:

Yes, I was thinking about Protagoras, for example. I was also thinking about the Athenian culture that Plato was unhappy about: the society that put Socrates to death — Cuthbert

Glad you returned.
I had kept your post in mind as something I needed to get back to. But you weren't to know that.

In such a world, what are the values and truths that we can trust? — Cuthbert

Good question - for any world.

The Theory of Forms was not (merely) abstract speculation: it came from the gut. — Cuthbert

Are you suggesting that is where our values and truths come from ?
Or that what Plato wrote came from his gut ?
What do you mean by that ?

Ha ha! I think you've caught me out speculating now. (Remembering an earlier reminder to stick to the text....). But I think it's worth thinking about what questions of his time Plato was answering when he wrote the dialogues. For example: in politics, democracy vs tyranny or aristocracy; in metaphysics, how can things both be and not be at the same time (Parmenides, Zeno); in art, irrational violence vs sublime contemplation (Euripides, the Parthenon). The Theory of Forms stands or falls on its own merits or demerits - probably falls - but from a point of view of biography, psychology (see another thread about that) I *speculate* that this is a person who has lost a great friend to political violence and ignorance and is saying "We can't just make up justice, truth, right and wrong, is and is-not; we need to apply some wisdom and thought." I'm saying this in the hope of pointing out the emotional force of Plato's writing which can seem abstract, obscure, dry, outmoded and false out of context.

Amity Ha ha! I think you've caught me out speculating now. (Remembering an earlier reminder to stick to the text....). — Cuthbert

I encourage you to continue the discussion. It is directly related to the text. Perhaps not what you had in mind but one meaning of from the gut is something known without being taught, inborn knowledge or recollection.

@Valentinus

I edited my original response but did not know if you saw it. Just thought of another also on Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman. "The Being of the Beautiful", by Seth Benardete.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo5971393.html

The question that unifies these three dialogues is: who is the philosopher? The Statesman asks, who is the statesman? The Sophist, who is the Sophist? The Theaetetus, what is knowledge? There is no dialogue The Philosopher. It is up to the reader to ask, who is the philosopher. Perhaps he is discovered somewhere between these three other questions.


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 ? — Amity

I was referring to Plato. He is unique in gathering a record of dialogues with different "schools" of thought as actual discussions. The approach of Aristotle of formulating different arguments and comparing them is more like what we are used to.

Thank you for the suggestions. Theaetetus is of great interest to me.

I was referring to Plato. He is unique in gathering a record of dialogues with different "schools" of thought as actual discussions — Valentinus

Yes. I knew Plato was unique but didn't really appreciate what it was about the Dialogues that made them so fascinating and rewarding. I have always been confused as to how to get into them, even if I wanted to. I didn't finish reading the Republic - my first attempt more than a few years ago.

Now, it seems I have my foot in the door. I have been inspired not only by @Fooloso4 but other participants. People who have read and know Plato well and who are willing to discuss their thoughts about him and the Phaedo. How it relates to other dialogues. For me, this kind of interaction is exceptional and one of the best reasons for staying with TPF.

For example:
Your: '...gathering a record of dialogues with different "schools" of thought as actual discussions'.'
Together with:

Yes, I was thinking about Protagoras, for example. I was also thinking about the Athenian culture that Plato was unhappy about: the society that put Socrates to death — Cuthbert

But I think it's worth thinking about what questions of his time Plato was answering when he wrote the dialogues. For example: in politics, democracy vs tyranny or aristocracy; in metaphysics, how can things both be and not be at the same time (Parmenides, Zeno); in art, irrational violence vs sublime contemplation (Euripides, the Parthenon) — Cuthbert

I'm saying this in the hope of pointing out the emotional force of Plato's writing which can seem abstract, obscure, dry, outmoded and false out of context. — Cuthbert

I now really want to read Plato's Protagorus and Theaetetus.

Plato's criticism of Protagoras must be carefully read in context in order to see what he is and is not rejecting.
The Forms are presented as if they are transcendent truths, but they are hypotheses. — Fooloso4

As a result, I downloaded the Librivox audio recordings of both.
Last night I listened to audio 1 of Protagorus, trans. Jowett.
Unlike his Phaedo, this has a clear Introduction which helps with orientation.

However, I am not in any rush to discuss them...just yet. Still digesting Phaedo...

The Theory of Forms stands or falls on its own merits or demerits - probably falls - but from a point of view of biography, psychology (see another thread about that) I *speculate* that this is a person who has lost a great friend to political violence and ignorance and is saying "We can't just make up justice, truth, right and wrong, is and is-not; we need to apply some wisdom and thought." — Cuthbert

'...biography, psychology (see another thread about that)'
Where ? Plato's bio and psych or generally speaking ?
Again, I hadn't realised that Plato wrote ALL of his Dialogues after the death of Socrates.
So much I don't know.

Re: application of wisdom and thought - yes. How much of the gut is involved ?

It is directly related to the text. Perhaps not what you had in mind but one meaning of from the gut is something known without being taught, inborn knowledge or recollection. — Fooloso4

Interesting. I think of it as some kind of a feeling or intuition. Something telling you what feels right or wrong. Not quite the same as Socrates' daimonion but close...

In such a world, what are the values and truths that we can trust? — Cuthbert

Are you suggesting that [the gut] is where our values and truths come from ? — Amity

Can you trust your gut ? I think not but it is a useful starting point.
And sometimes I wish I had listened to it...

The approach of Aristotle of formulating different arguments and comparing them is more like what we are used to. — Valentinus

I keep missing the second part of your posts.
I think this is why I struggle with Plato. My preference is usually for the practical not the abstract.

According to a conventional view, Plato’s philosophy is abstract and utopian, whereas Aristotle’s is empirical, practical, and commonsensical — Britannica: How Plato and Aristotle differ

I have compiled the separate commentary posts in order that it may be read together:

1. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1


2. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534860


3. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535343


4. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924


5. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536573


6. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537114


7. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537698


8. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/538481


9. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/539501


10. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540733

Rather a good analysis of the argument for the soul’s immortality in Phaedo. Nothing new but brings out some points well.

https://dan-shea.medium.com/the-final-argument-for-the-immortality-of-the-soul-in-platos-phaedo-7be1b4d137d6

The problem with the analysis is that it misses the distinction between forms and particulars. It is the form that cannot admit its opposite and so "flees", not the particular. Socrates uses the example of Snow/snow. The form Snow does not perish but the snow on the ground does not " flee" at the approach of heat it perishes. In the same way, the form Soul cannot admit death and flees, but a particular soul perishes.

The salient passage

“You have spoken up like a man,” he said, “but you do not observe the difference between the present doctrine and what we said before. We said before that in the case of concrete things opposites are generated from opposites; whereas now we say that the abstract concept of an opposite can never become its own opposite, either in us or in the world about us. Then we were talking about things which possess opposite qualities and are called after them, but now about those very opposites the immanence of which gives the things their names. We say that these latter can never be generated from each other.”

At the same time he looked at Cebes and said: “And you—are you troubled by any of our friends' objections?”

“No,” said Cebes, “not this time; though I confess that objections often do trouble me.”

“Well, we are quite agreed,” said Socrates, “upon this, that an opposite can never be its own opposite.”

“Entirely agreed,” said Cebes.

“Now,” said he, “see if you agree with me in what follows: Is there something that you call heat and something you call cold?”

“Yes.”

“Are they the same as snow and fire?”

[103d] “No, not at all.”
“But heat is a different thing from fire and cold differs from snow?”

“Yes.”

“Yet I fancy you believe that snow, if (to employ the form of phrase we used before) it admits heat, will no longer be what it was, namely snow, and also warm, but will either withdraw when heat approaches it or will cease to exist.”

“Certainly.”

“And similarly fire, when cold approaches it, will either withdraw or perish. It will never succeed in admitting cold and being still fire, [103e] as it was before, and also cold.”

“That is true,” said he.

“The fact is,” said he, “in some such cases, that not only the abstract idea itself has a right to the same name through all time, but also something else, which is not the idea, but which always, whenever it exists, has the form of the idea." — Phaedo 103b-103e

My gloss on this, is that 'concrete things', or individual particulars, are always a mixture, whereas the forms, or the ideas of things, are not. The form cannot admit opposites because it's not compounded, whereas individual particulars are compounded from essence and accidental properties. But

'On some such cases, that not only the abstract idea itself has a right to the same name through all time, but also something else, which is not the idea, but which always, whenever it exists, has the form of the idea.' So Socrates, whilst not the same as the idea, has or is the form of the soul, which is immortal. This or that instance of snow will melt (perish) but the idea of cold cannot perish.

//ps//And besides, if any names in Western culture live on, surely Socrates is among them. In that sense he’s certainly immortal, even if the person of Socrates is no longer.//

What is translated here as the "abstract idea" is the form. The passage continues with the example of Odd. The "something else" that has the name of the form is in this example three. Three is odd but not the Odd itself, that is, not the form or "abstract idea". Three never admits Even.

“So the soul will never admit the opposite of that which it brings along, as we agree from what has been said?” (105d)

The soul brings along Life. The opposite of what the soul brings along is Death. In accord with what has been said, snow brings Cold and three Odd. Snow cannot admit Hot without being destroyed. Three cannot admit Even and remain three. In the same way, soul cannot admit Death and remain soul.

Just as Cold and Odd retreat but not the snow or three, Life retreats but not the soul. Death comes and the soul perishes or is destroyed.

I can’t see how the reading supports that. The body perishes or is destroyed but I simply don’t see how this passage admits this of the soul, also.

So, are you saying that Plato's argument for the immortality of the soul, as explained by Socrates, fails, or that he is not actually arguing for the immortality of the soul?

Isn't it just as plausible to say that the soul, which is immortal, is withdrawn from the body at death, meaning that, the body is what perishes?

I can’t see how the reading supports that. The body perishes or is destroyed but I simply don’t see how this passage admits this of the soul, also. — Wayfarer

I don't agree with F's interpretation, but I don't think this sort of attitude is called for. There's no reason we can't just exchange perspectives in a civil manner, Wayfarer.

there was nothing uncivil in what I said. Simply putting another view.

there was nothing uncivil in what I said. Simply putting another view. — Wayfarer

You actually directly disagreed, that's more than just "putting another view."