At Banno’s suggestion I am starting a thread on Plato’s Phaedo.

I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf

but relying on this one: Plato-Phaedo-Focus-Philosophical-Library/dp/0941051692. Certain terms from this edition will be used in place of what is found in the online translation.

EDIT: 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



The dialogue is written as a first hand account but it is not Plato’s account, it is Phaedo’s as told to Echecrates. We soon learn that Plato was not with Socrates on his final day. He was sick. (59b) We do not know the nature of his illness. What would have been so serious as to keep him away? That question will be addressed in due time. But for now we should note that Plato is twice removed. He was not there with Socrates, and there is no indication he was there when Phaedo told Echecrates what he had witnessed. Plato is mentioned in only two places in the dialogues. Here it is his absence rather than his presence that he draws our attention to.

Socrates is doing something he has never done before, writing. He explains it this way:

often in my past life the same dream had visited me, now in one guise, now in another, but always saying the same thing: "Socrates,'' it said, "make music and practise it." Now in earlier times I used to assume that the dream was urging and telling me to do exactly what I was doing: as people shout encouragement to runners, so the dream was telling me to do the very thing that I was doing, to make music, since philosophy is the greatest music. (61a)

He continues:

I reflected that a poet should, if he were really going to be a poet, make stories rather than arguments, and being no teller of tales myself, I therefore used some I had ready to hand …(61b)

Several things need to be noted. First, he calls philosophy the greatest music. Second, he claims that he is not a storyteller. But here he tells a story about a dream from his past life. That it is just a story will become clear.

Unlike Socrates, Plato did write and he is a very capable storyteller, capable of the greatest music. His dialogues are akin to the work of the poets’ plays. What we will hear are not simply arguments but stories. The question arises as to whether this is a comedy or tragedy. Phaedo says that he was not overcome by pity and that Socrates seemed happy (58e) Phaedo reports feeling an unusual blend of pleasure and pain. (59a). As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories.

Thanks for more about the issue of 'suicide'. I am still pondering...

I am thinking of following up with something more diagrammatic, an overview. — Fooloso4

I hope this encourages any other beginner trying to read or follow/participate in the discussion.
I do not know if anyone read it but chose to remain silent. I hope so.
— Fooloso4
I am sure that, given the view count (1.3K) there could well be a few... — Amity

Yes, that might be helpful. As you know, I am not a complete 'beginner'. However, every time there's a book discussion I certainly feel like one as I try to navigate the path to understanding.
Would be great to have a World Wide Map. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy starring Plato and friends.

If you take this path, then this is where you end up. Great scenery but tough hill to climb.
There's a short cut here...for those less able.
Isn't that what Plato did - catering for 2 types of audience - Arguments v Myths ?
What is the final destination - why - what motivation is there to set out in the first place ?
All types of travellers...

So, any cartographers out there ?
Can you draw a picture of the highly structured overview: 'The Examined Life: Notes on Plato's Phaedo' by Sean Hannan (free pdf) ?

He writes in sections and subsections.
For example:
1. Background
a. to f.
2. The Final Conversation Begins (57a- 62e )
a. Setting the Stage
i. to vii.
b. The Highest Art
i. to v.
Etc, etc...

A sample from page 1.

1. Background
a. The Phaedo tells the story of Socrates’ final days. Taking place after the events
depicted in the Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, this dialogue serves as his swansong.
b. Whereas the Apology had a fairly straightforward structure, consisting mainly of
Socrates’ monologues to the citizens of Athens (with a bit of back-and-forth with
Meletus thrown in), the Phaedo is a full-blown dialogue. In fact, it operates as a
dialogue on multiple levels. First we have the framing dialogue, which consists of the
eponymous main character Phaedo’s account of Socrates’ final words, which he gives
to Echecrates and others on his way home from Athens. Then we have the dialogue
recounted by Phaedo, which takes place between Socrates and those who were with
him in his final hours.
c. First, let’s take a closer look at the framing dialogue. Phaedo (the character) is on his
way back from Athens after attending the trial and execution of Socrates. As he
approaches his hometown of Elis in the Peloponnese, he runs into a group of
Pythagoreans, the most vocal of which is Echecrates. These men are dubbed
‘Pythagoreans’ because they follow the teachings of Pythagoras. While most of us are
familiar with his theorem, Pythagoras had much more to say on the topics of
philosophy and mathematics. For our purposes here, we should only note these
Pythagoreans would’ve been especially open to the mathematical examples Phaedo
tells them Socrates made use of in his final conversation—e.g., the difference
between odd and even numbers, etc.
d. We shouldn’t glide past this framing dialogue too swiftly, although it can be easy to
forget it’s there. The fact that Phaedo runs into Pythagoreans is itself potentially
meaningful. It could, among other things, suggest that the version of Socrates’ ideas
he’s sharing with them has already been re-shaped to suit their interests...
— Sean Hannan: Notes on Plato's Phaedo

I think @Fooloso4 you have set yourself another challenge - I look forward to whatever draws people in...or connects the dots :cool:

Plato's own Greek terms were often varied and indeterminate. Plato deliberately did not employ precise or just consistent meanings throughout his works or even within the same dialogue. — magritte

Interesting. Well worth keeping in mind. I expect there exists a Glossary somewhere which might help ? *

the problem of terminology and meaning. — Apollodorus

Which translation are you reading ?
I have read English translations of e.g. original Chinese; 'The Tao Te Ching' being the most recent.
I appreciate the problem of understanding the meaning.
However, good translations of foreign texts will usually include an Introduction, Notes on the text and address problems of interpretation. They discuss other interpretations and meanings and give reasons for their own choice.

I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf

but relying on this one: Plato-Phaedo-Focus-Philosophical-Library/dp/0941051692. Certain terms from this edition will be used in place of what is found in the online translation. — Fooloso4

If you look at the Contents page here:

Plato's Phaedo - this pdf is the translation with notes by David Gallop.
The translation 1
Notes 74
Notes on text and translation 226
Bibliographies 239
Abbreviations 242
Index 244 — Amity

The Notes run from pp 74 - 226.

For me, looking up each and every note as I read the translation stops the flow.
However, if a problem arises or when I have completed the reading, then the Notes should prove useful.
How about the translation(s) you are reading/have read ?

* found this glossary - there might be a better one elsewhere:
https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Ancient%20Philosophy/Glossary.htm#N

Now, can we get on with the job of reading the text ? [ Perhaps comparing translations if and when necessary] ?
That would be nice...

I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf — Fooloso4

Plato's Phaedo - this pdf is the translation with notes by David Gallop.
Contents
The translation 1
Notes 74
Notes on text and translation 226
Bibliographies 239
Abbreviations 242
Index 244

The next section will cover up to and including 64a. — Fooloso4

An easy and short read; the section up to 64a takes us to p8. I hope more people will join in the conversation that @Fooloso4 has started with encouragement from @Banno. Thanks.
It should be quite a ride.
I have decided, against all my natural inclinations, not to search the internet for secondary sources.
Simply to read, think and make connections for myself. Looking forward to @Fooloso4 as a guide to a closer and deeper understanding - who will take and answer relevant questions.

What we will hear are not simply arguments but stories. The question arises as to whether this is a comedy or tragedy. Phaedo says that he was not overcome by pity and that Socrates seemed happy (58e) Phaedo reports feeling an unusual blend of pleasure and pain. (59a). As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories. — Fooloso4

I've read the section, looking out for these elements. I am intrigued already.
The concepts of death, suicide with religious themes. The pain/pleasure aspects - the mix and the separation. The subtle comedic parts.

Before I go into detail, I think it probably best to wait for @Fooloso4 to comment first...
And he might well be waiting for others to join in. I hope people do :sparkle:

Which raises the question, maybe not relevant to this particular passage, why Socrates was accused of atheism, if he saw himself as a disciple of Apollo. But let's park that for now.
— Wayfarer

It would seem that no amount of deference to the gods will free Socrates of the "hatred for logos" that sees him as the corruption of youth. — Valentinus

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

Re: Socrates. I step back from the whole debate about what kind of an -ist he is alleged to have been. What particular spirit led him and how - if he had any god, or religion, it was that of philosophy.
To encourage people to think for themselves in a spirited and rational manner; to base their actions on that rather than follow dead dogma.
He lived and died for that. He followed a different god from that of the status quo.

Re: Plato. From what little understanding I have - he was a brilliant writer who muddied the waters of understanding in different dialogues. Clearly, he made his name and here we are - how many words have been spilled in all the many and conflicting interpretations of his writings.

Some here have already made up their mind and follow Plato from their own 'worldview'.
That's fine. I don't care. Some want to move on quickly once they think they have proved a point.
Again, fine. I don't care.
I will take my own time, even if it is away from this particular thread.
If that means stepping back and looking at other resources - or even abandoning ship - so be it.

I appreciate all the time, patience and effort that @Fooloso4 has given to starting and maintaining this thread. It is quite the challenge.
He continues to be open to re-reading and admitting where he might have misread or misinterpreted.
That says a lot.

Plato's Phaedo is about more than arguing over -isms. For me, Socrates was a spiritual thinker who acted on his belief in the power of philosophy. A heady mix of reason and spirit to move.

I am interested enough to look around; head out of the TPF for a while to read and think at my own pace.
I found an Open Yale course on 'Death' - lecturer Prof. Kagan.
https://oyc.yale.edu/NODE/196

Look under 'Sessions', you will see that Lectures 4,6,7,8 and 9 are dedicated to Plato's Phaedo.
Videos, transcripts and audio files are available.
Might be worth a look, I don't know.

Best wishes, everyone :sparkle:

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.

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

There is, however, a scholarly consensus as to the core teachings that can be extracted from the available texts. — Apollodorus

That makes the whole discussion kind of pointless, doesn't it? — Apollodorus

I must intervene here because quite simply you are spoiling the thread with your focus on @Fooloso4.
It is not the case that the discussion is pointless. Perhaps it is to you but not to me, or anyone else who simply wants to read Plato's Phaedo.

Even if there is a degree of scholarly consensus, that is beside the point as far as I am concerned.
I am here to read and think for myself first and foremost. Then to write and exchange thoughts about the extract in question.
As mentioned previously, I had wanted to do this without recourse to secondary sources.
A change for me.
However, given the turn of events, I looked up one of the SEP entries concerning Plato.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/

what we often receive from Plato is a few key ideas together with a series of suggestions and problems about how those ideas are to be interrogated and deployed.

Readers of a Platonic dialogue are drawn into thinking for themselves about the issues raised, if they are to learn what the dialogue itself might be thought to say about them. Many of his works therefore give their readers a strong sense of philosophy as a living and unfinished subject (perhaps one that can never be completed) to which they themselves will have to contribute.

All of Plato's works are in some way meant to leave further work for their readers, but among the ones that most conspicuously fall into this category are: Euthyphro, Laches, Charmides, Euthydemus, Theaetetus, and Parmenides. — SEP article on Plato

[my bolds]

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. — Fooloso4

@Fooloso4 has patiently explained his approach a few times now.
It works for me and, hopefully, for others reading along.
Please respect the spirit, allow a 'thinking for ourselves' without any further side-tracking, thanks.

At the risk of going off piste for a minute. We can get back to discussing Plato's Phaedo whenever, or as soon as...

What is 'Platonism' ? It depends on your view. Some have already offered thoughts but don't give references.
Post your definitions or understanding here, or not. Preferably with links to sources.

Here's the SEP version:

Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental. Platonism in this sense is a contemporary view.

It is obviously related to the views of Plato in important ways, but it is not entirely clear that Plato endorsed this view, as it is defined here.
In order to remain neutral on this question, the term ‘platonism’ is spelled with a lower-case ‘p’. (See entry on Plato.)

The most important figure in the development of modern platonism is Gottlob Frege (1884, 1892, 1893–1903, 1919). The view has also been endorsed by many others, including Kurt Gödel (1964), Bertrand Russell (1912), and W.V.O. Quine (1948, 1951). — SEP article on Platonism

Or I suppose another thread can be started by Platonists or spin-offs ?

In Socrates' culture, belief in the soul was generally accepted, so was axiomatic, one might say. — Wayfarer

Cebes later calls this assumption into question. (70a)

'Dead soul' is an oxymoron. — Wayfarer

It is, that's the point. Based on the argument that the living come from the dead. He skirts around the problem:

the souls of men exist in Hades when they have died ... living people are born again from those who have died ... living people are born from the dead

. If the soul was alive then it would not be true that living things come from dead things.

Stepping outside the framework of strict textual intepretation, consider that the concept of 'equal' represents a fundamental breakthrough in the development of abstract consciousness and reason. — Wayfarer

Does it? If so then more and less and same also represents a fundamental breakthrough in the development of abstract consciousness and reason. Only it may not be so abstract. It is something that can be seen. It is a practical skill. Primates can count.

Number, on the other hand, is not composed of parts (or any parts other than numbers) and neither goes into or out of existence (hence, 'imperishable'.) — Wayfarer

See Jacob Klein's "Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra". Number for the Greeks was always an amount of something. It is the count. It tells us how many.

I take this to mean that although snow melts, wherever snow exists, it instantiates 'the idea of cold', because it has the form of the idea of cold. — Wayfarer

Right, not only the Form Cold has that name, snow too has the name cold. The question is, what happens to the snow? As it melts it becomes less and less cold.

I accept that many people will find the idea of the soul archaic and anachronistic and that these arguments will fail to persuade them otherwise. Indeed there's a lot of people who think Plato has been superseded, that it's all ancient history. — Wayfarer

I still remember my intro to philosophy class as a freshman. The professor told us the week before that next time we were reading Plato's Phaedo and that it proves the immortality of the soul. I was very much looking forward to the class because this was something that interested me and that I thought was important. I was receptive to the idea but not convinced. When reading the dialogue I thought I might have missed something that would be brought out in class. The next week I was disappointed to find that the dialogue did not do what was promised. When we later read the Republic I was for several years convinced the Forms existed and that through transcendent experience could be found.

I have related all of this in order to show that my reading of Plato was not based on pre-existing opinions. If anything, I was far more inclined toward the discovery of mystical truths.

You don't seem to be grasping the issue. The body only exists as an arrangement of parts, you said so yourself, above. — Metaphysician Undercover

The truth of the matter is that there is no interest, desire, or intent to grasp the issue.

Socrates in the dialogue explains how things come to be from their opposites - from cold to hot, from asleep to awake, from being alive to being dead and from being dead to being alive, etc. (71b - d).

If we apply this to this thread, how did it come about?

It came about from its opposite, viz. my thread on Reincarnation.

Someone didn't like my thread because it implied belief in the soul and they commissioned this thread to "demonstrate" - by means of Straussian sophistry and nihilism - that belief in soul is unfounded:

At Banno’s suggestion I am starting a thread on Plato’s Phaedo. — Fooloso4

In other words, this thread is not about Socrates or Plato but about some people's atheist agenda.

@Apollodorus - this thread is an earnest attempt to engage with the text of Plato's Phaedo, if you are unable or unwilling to do so, take it elsewhere. I invite people to flag posts in this thread that they believe are not strictly on topic and I (or someone else) will moderate them accordingly.

If you want to join in, do your best to make it textual. That's gonna hold for everyone.

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.

this thread is an earnest attempt to engage with the text of Plato's Phaedo, if you are unable or unwilling to do so, take it elsewhere. I invite people to flag posts in this thread that they believe are not strictly on topic and I (or someone else) will moderate them accordingly. — fdrake

Thank you for the deletion of flagged posts and for continued moderation.

Plato was neither a realist nor idealist. The terms were not used and do not fit. What we take to be the real world was said to be an image of the Forms. The Forms are independent of the human mind.

Plato couldn't face the event. We are told he was ill, but we can guess why, and if we cannot do so we shouldn't be speculating about his meaning. The completeness of worth is that there is no extension. Any extension diminishes it. Like the homeopath, it is a toxin to reason that we make endurable by dilution. Eternity is simply the homeopathic model of dilution brought to such an extent that the original poison is no longer there at all, but is thought to be therapeutic by having been there. This is the proper relation between event and "form", particular and universal. Which is most real? The toxin of unlimited worth, or the pretense of its cure in its attenuation to oblivion? Worth is the quality of moment, or the completeness of the qualifier. The qualifier cannot be quantified. But reason is the trace of the quantifier. The trace, that is, that effaces all that extends by dilution of any trace of worth.

What if Nurse Ratched had been moved by just one word or gesture to recognize that the main character of the play was as sane as she was? All of a sudden everything he said or did would make sense to her, and not only from then on, but all that he had said or done previously. That is, the space of time and rational extension of it would not limit the transformation of meaning the moment of that recognition is. The act of the moment of that recognition is timeless, not because it extends rationally or temporally from that event, but because the navigation of that extension does not limit or determine the meaning its worth is.

The event of Socrates' death does not set any landmarks upon who he is. No, it is not eternity, but it is more unlimited, and complete, than the full extension of time can contain.

The conventional view was that Phaedo presents four arguments for the soul's immortality, and I see no reason to doubt that Socrates believes them to be true. — Wayfarer

Correct. And nor must we forget that the dialogue's author is Plato who uses his Theory of Recollection to establish the validity of his Theory of Forms.

The basic argument from recollection is as follows:

(A). On seeing something that reminds us of something else, there is a case of recollection (anamnesis) (Phaedo 73c – 74a).
(B). On seeing things that are equal, e.g., sticks, and thinking “these sticks are equal”, we intuitively think of Equality, i.e., the Form of Equal (Phaedo 74a – c).
(C). This cognitive act corresponds to the one described in (A), hence it is a case of recollection (74c – d).
(D.) As we can recollect only things that were previously known to us (73c), the Form of Equal was previously known to us (74d - 75a).
(E). But the knowledge of it was not acquired at any time between birth and the present act of recollection (75a - 76c).
(F). Nor was it acquired at birth (76c - d).
(G). Therefore it was acquired before birth (76c).
(H). Therefore our soul existed before birth, and possessed knowledge or wisdom, including knowledge of the Forms (76c).

It may of course be argued that what Socrates calls “recollection of Forms” is simply the result of pattern recognition produced by neural activity in the brain. However, research has shown that humans are capable of pattern recognition within days of being born and, to some extent, even whilst in the womb, which brings us very close to the concept of knowledge as a result of previous existence (see Ian Stevenson and others).

In any case, the existence of Forms remains a possibility, quite independently of pre-existence. Certainly, we know from Diotima’s teachings in the Symposium that the Form of the Beautiful does appear to the philosopher who has learned how to look at it.

In connection with learning how to see, Socrates in the Phaedo makes some important observations.

Through the use of our senses, we start regaining our lost knowledge of the Forms (75e).
In normal circumstances, the soul is dragged down into the world of material particulars whose ever-changing nature leaves it disturbed and giddy as if drunk (79c).
But when the soul is detached from the body and the material world, and is alone by itself, it perceives immaterial things that are pure, eternal, and immortal like itself (79d).
Therefore the true philosopher distances himself from the body and turns toward the soul (64e).
The philosopher releases his soul as much as possible from its association with the body (65a).
The Forms cannot be grasped through the bodily senses. Only those who train themselves most and with the greatest precision to think about each thing investigated as an object in its own right, will come closest to knowing each of them (65e).
The man who will hit upon reality is he who attempts to hunt down each real thing alone by itself and unalloyed, by using thought alone by itself and unalloyed, and separated as far as possible from eyes and ears and virtually from his entire body (66a).
To have pure knowledge of something we must be separated from the body and view things by themselves with the soul by itself (66e).
Full wisdom can only be acquired when we are dead because that is the only time when the soul will be alone by itself apart from the body (67a).
However (as philosophy is the practice of being dead, i.e., being detached from the body), we will be closest to knowledge even whilst living if we do not associate with the body except to the extent absolutely necessary, and we retain that state of purity until the God himself releases us (67b).

It can be seen that in order to acquire knowledge of the Forms, in addition to living a pure life, we need to detach ourselves from the body and sensory perception, and try to grasp reality first with our reason and then with our soul (nous).

Detachment from the body, and focus on the soul and on a higher reality by means of our thought alone, and without the assistance of sensory perception, can only refer to a contemplative or meditative state.

So, without going into details, my feeling is that a Buddhist or Hindu may be in a better position to understand Plato than a Straussian atheist.

In any case, some key lessons to draw from the Phaedo are:

Philosophy = Separation from Body
Separation from Body = Death
Death = "Retreating" to or Rejoining the Intelligible World
The Intelligible World = The Realm of Eternal Realities like Soul and Forms
Knowledge of the Realm of Eternal Realities = Knowledge of Reality, including Forms

As already stated, additional pointers occur in other dialogues, such as Symposium:

“It neither comes to be nor perishes, neither waxes nor wanes … nor again will the beautiful appear to him [the philosopher] like a face or hands or any other portion of the body … or piece of knowledge … but itself by itself with itself existing for ever in singularity of form” (Symp. 211a ff.)
“In that state of life above all others, a man finds it truly worth while to live, as he contemplates essential Beauty […] there only will it befall him, as he sees the Beautiful through that which makes it visible, to breed not illusions but true examples of virtue, since his contact is not with illusion but with truth” (211d – 212a).

The Beautiful here stands for the Good or Truth itself and seeing the Good is identical with being with the Good and part of the Good. (As later Platonists would say, being one with the Good.)

Similarly, in the Republic we find the Analogy of the Sun where the Good is compared with the Sun (508a ff.).

Here again, we can learn something from Strauss himself:

Plato never chooses an example at random. The example always means more than just an example … Let us not forget that the Sun is a cosmic God

- On Plato’s Symposium, pp. 201, 277

The analogy can only mean that the Good is a divine being like the Sun. We know that Plato’s theology has a hierarchy of divine beings proceeding from (1) the Gods of the City of Athens to (2) the Cosmic Gods like the Sun to (3) the Supreme God (the Good, the Creator of the Universe, the Universal Intelligence/Consciousness) who is the Ultimate Reality.

Come then, and join me in this further thought, and do not be surprised that those who have attained to this height are not willing to occupy themselves with the affairs of men, but their souls ever feel the upward urge and the yearning for that sojourn above. For this, I take it, is likely if in this point too the likeness of our image holds (Rep. 517c – d).

Where the Republic describes the hierarchy of sensible realities ascending from sensible objects to sight, light, and the source of light (the Sun) itself, and of intelligible realities ascending from intelligible objects to knowledge, truth, and their source (the Good), the Phaedo and the Symposium explain how the true philosopher may learn to obtain the vision of the highest.

In sum, quite aside from the arguments' ultimate validity, and considering that all Platonic logoi can only be pointers, the dialogue certainly presents valuable advice for the philosophical and spiritual life.

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...

Thanks @Fooloso4 for providing this commentary and replying to comments/questions.

It was an enjoyable challenge trying to make sense of the dialogue and putting all the pieces together. No doubt, there are pieces I left out. Perhaps only those who have a fondness for Plato would find my commentary of interest, but in my opinions the details matter — Fooloso4

I have no particular fondness for Plato - he gives me such a hard time !
You are right, the details matter and, of course, you have left pieces out (otherwise it would be a book !). They possibly contain some less important details...but then again...
I can't help thinking about the issue of 'suicide' which we quickly passed over, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534770
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534835
Perhaps it was discussed later and I missed it ?

All in all, it helped me gain a far greater understanding than I had before.
Admittedly, not difficult given my beginner's starting point.

I trust the thread was worth your while, perhaps in terms of ordering your understanding, perhaps in terms of addressing the various comments here. — Banno

I look forward to a dialogue about this dialogue. — Fooloso4

As noted, I have struggled on a few levels: To read the text, analyse and understand it. At the same time as keeping up with the commentary and comments. Also, discovering the whole spectrum of interpretations...
For me, the pace was about as twice as fast as I would have liked.
I will still keep on...and hope this thread does too...

This thread has taught me to pay more attention to the detail - particularly the objections from the various interlocutors, and the subtlety of some of the distinctions made in the arguments. Also one thing I do commend is your emphasis on interpreting the texts on their own terms and being aware of hidden interpretive agendas. — Wayfarer

Likewise. Also, this:

there's another couple of passages in the Phaedro that I would like to revisit, (although I'm finding it difficult to concentrate on it, as I have many other balls in the air right at the moment.) But I will certainly be appending some more questions and comments on the text. — Wayfarer

I have been following the text and audio files as recommended:

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf — Fooloso4

https://librivox.app/book/4421

Different translations.
So, after audio 2 of the 8 files, I decided to list a rough correspondence to the text :

2. ends at 70b-d > ( c. 20 mins)
3. 70d - 78b > pp 16-26 ( 24m)
4. 78b - 84b > 26-34 ( 21m)
5. 84c - 95a > 34-46 (33m)
6. 95a - 102a > 46-54 (17m)
7. 102b - 108c > 54-63 (21m)
8. > final segment (27m)

I hope this encourages any other beginner trying to read or follow/participate in the discussion.

I do not know if anyone read it but chose to remain silent. I hope so. — Fooloso4

I am sure that, given the view count (1.3K) there could well be a few...

Also, as linked to earlier:

Outline of the Dialogue

The Philosopher and Death (59c-69e)
Three Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality (69e-84b)
The Cyclical Argument (70c-72e)
The Argument from Recollection (72e-78b)
The Affinity Argument (78b-84b)
Objections from Simmias and Cebes, and Socrates’ Response (84c-107b)
The Objections (85c-88c)
Interlude on Misology (89b-91c)
Response to Simmias (91e-95a)
Response to Cebes (95a-107b)
Socrates’ Intellectual History (96a-102a)
The Final Argument (102b-107b)
The Myth about the Afterlife (107c-115a)
Socrates’ Death (115a-118a) — IEP article Plato: Phaedo

* the audio files are great and help identify the tones, especially those of humour...
Best not to read in bed - unless suffering from insomnia - they have a hypnotic quality :yawn:

I am enjoying this discussion so much. All the different points of view which lead to more intriguing questions. More food for thought:

Plato was not willing to go as far as Socrates did. He preferred to address the public at large through his written dialogues rather than conducting dialogues in the agora.

He did not write abstruse philosophical treatises but engaging philosophical dialogues meant to appeal to a less philosophically inclined audience. The dialogues are, most of the time, prefaced by a sort of mise en scène in which the reader learns who the participants to the dialogue are, when, where and how they presently met, and what made them start their dialogue.

The participants are historical and fictional characters. Whether historical or fictional, they meet in historical or plausible settings, and the prefatory mises en scène contain only some incidental anachronisms.

Plato wanted his dialogues to look like genuine, spontaneous dialogues accurately preserved. How much of these stories and dialogues is fictional? It is hard to tell, but he surely invented a great deal of them. References to traditional myths and mythical characters occur throughout the dialogues.

However, starting with the Protagoras and Gorgias, which are usually regarded as the last of his early writings, Plato begins to season his dialogues with self-contained, fantastical narratives that we usually label his ‘myths’. His myths are meant, among other things, to make philosophy more accessible. — SEP article: Plato's Myths

For Plato we should live according to what reason is able to deduce from what we regard as reliable evidence. This is what real philosophers, like Socrates, do. But the non-philosophers are reluctant to ground their lives on logic and arguments. They have to be persuaded. One means of persuasion is myth. Myth inculcates beliefs. It is efficient in making the less philosophically inclined, as well as children (cf. Republic 377a ff.), believe noble things....


Myth can embody in its narrative an abstract philosophical doctrine. In the Phaedo, Plato develops the so-called theory of recollection (72e–78b). The theory is there expounded in rather abstract terms. The eschatological myth of the Phaedo depicts the fate of souls in the other world, but it does not “dramatize” the theory of recollection. — As above

I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf — Fooloso4

Thanks for this. I have downloaded it and hope to read along with you and others.

We soon learn that Plato was not with Socrates on his final day. He was sick. (59b)... What would have been so serious as to keep him away?...But for now we should note that Plato is twice removed...Here it is his absence rather than his presence that he draws our attention to. — Fooloso4

Ah, how intriguing. The dialogue sounds like a Russian doll. What kind of illness...hmm...physical, mental...a broken leg causing great pain...

Socrates is doing something he has never done before, writing — Fooloso4

Really ?

the same dream had visited me, now in one guise, now in another, but always saying the same thing: — Fooloso4

I've just been discussing dreams elsewhere in the forum - the fact that strange figures flit in and out and we can have weird conversations with them. Again, I once talked about dreams as a source of inspiration which led to real life problems being solved. Dreams are a bit of a mystery.

So, whose voice would be it be ? That of his daemonion ? Some kind of a spirit ?

the dream was telling me to do the very thing that I was doing, to make music, since philosophy is the greatest music. (61a) — Fooloso4

But why would it need to do that, or Socrates assume that - if it is a source of inspiration, then Socrates already has it in spades.

I reflected that a poet should, if he were really going to be a poet, make stories rather than arguments, and being no teller of tales myself, I therefore used some I had ready to hand …(61b) — Fooloso4

Does S. then see himself as a poet, even as he makes arguments ?
Why, if he was being encouraged to 'make music and practise it' - or rhythmic lyrics - would he dismiss his own talent and rely on second-hand material?

But here he tells a story about a dream from his past life. That it is just a story will become clear. — Fooloso4

Oh, hot damn...this is beginning to sound like Dallas. Bobby in the shower. Everything that had happened previously - Bobby dying - was only his wife's dream...
So, we don't get to read any of Socrates' poems then ?

What we will hear are not simply arguments but stories. — Fooloso4

I am looking forward to seeing how this all pans out...soap opera meets political drama ?

a comedy or tragedy — Fooloso4

Both ?

Phaedo says that he was not overcome by pity and that Socrates seemed happy (58e) Phaedo reports feeling an unusual blend of pleasure and pain. (59a). As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories. — Fooloso4

A bitter-sweet play.

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 ?

The best and safest hypothesis according to Socrates is the hypothesis of kinds (eidos or Forms). Two “shares in the reality” of Twoness, one in the reality of Oneness. — Fooloso4

I think that perhaps two in "a half and another half are two" do not refer to some form of Twoness of the number two but to two as individuals, each being "a half"?

to acquire clear knowledge ...
[1] either he must learn or discover the truth about these matters,
[2] or if that is impossible, he must take whatever human doctrine is best and hardest to disprove and, embarking upon it as upon a raft, sail upon it through life in the midst of dangers,
[3] unless he can sail upon some stronger vessel, some divine revelation — Phaedo 85c-d

This epistemic approach might appear to match the powers and methods of the three parts of the tripartite soul. The tuning might then be finding the right balance among the three parts, however way Plato might think that possible.

To know a Form, Socrates has already proposed that [2] cannot possibly be sufficient, with only [3] having any chance of success as anamnesis gained through prodding one's own inner soul/mind and not as originating based on samples of individuals hypothetically grouped from the outside world.

when knowledge comes in such a way, it is recollection? What I mean is this: If a man, when he has heard or seen or in any other way perceived a thing, knows not only that thing, but also has a perception of some other thing, the knowledge of which is not the same, but different, are we not right in saying that he recollects the thing of which he has the perception? — Phaedo 73c

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?

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.

The problem may be that others are only too quick to proclaim what is all too obvious and not pace themselves slowly enough to attend to the details that can turn the obvious into something quite different. — Fooloso4

Have you considered that "others" possibly includes yourself?

The OP says “The question arises as to whether this [Phaedo] is a comedy or a tragedy”.

IMO the discussion so far has failed to show that Phaedo is a “comedy”.

If anything, it is a tragedy (τραγῳδία tragodia) in the traditional sense of drama invoking an accompanying catharsis, or a "pain [that] awakens pleasure", for the audience, with a very clear spiritual message.

In your own words, "Plato did write and he is a very capable storyteller, capable of the greatest music. His dialogues are akin to the work of the poets’ plays".

The fact is Plato is far greater than a "very capable storyteller" or "poet", as stressed time and again by later Platonists. So, the real question is for what reason you choose to deny this.

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?

The idea of opposites not being mutually exclusive will come up several times. — Fooloso4

Death might be seen as a welcome release from the physical body with all its discomforts.
The pain of life v the joy of the afterlife ?*
There is a separation. Not here a mingling as felt by Phaedo. — Amity

the 'argument from opposites' (70c-72e).
It seems to operate on the presumption that 'the opposites' - those given include larger and smaller, weaker and stronger, faster and slower, the beautiful and the ugly, and of course the living and the dead - are intrinsic to the whole process of generation and decay. Also there's a correlative relationship, in that one gives rise to the other - what was smaller becomes larger, what is weaker becomes stronger, and so on. — Wayfarer

Plato gets much justifiable but undeserved grief for setting up formal and informal pairs as opposites and for being illogical in their resolution. But back in antiquity Parmenidean proto-logic was a huge advance over hand waving and its details fall far short of our modern elementary logic. Much that is obvious to us was a work in progress for Plato.

The question at issue in the contrast between upward and downward [~transcendental] models is this: whether the unity of opposites exists in the opposites or whether it transcends them. Plato in the Sophist tries [~correctly] to have both [~one for intermingling of Forms and one for participation of particulars in Forms]: the forms remain transcendent while now being the abode of opposites. Aristotle sees in this an opening for a revised, dynamic notion of species and genera. Hegel, it could be argued, tries to join sameness and difference in his own [~i.e. illogical] way. — Scott Austin (2010)

Heraclitean pairs of contraries are different than strictly formal Parmenidean contradictions. Parmenidean negation and Socratic elenchus don't work for informal overlapping interacting pairs. Plato was well aware of the logical difficulties, and for the most part presents them to the reader as a challenge for better suggestions of resolution. We haven't advanced quite enough yet to fully do that. Just try a few and see.

33 - LAST JUDGMENTS: PLATO, POETRY AND MYTH
Peter Adamson

Plato criticized both the epic poetry of Homer and Hesiod, and the tragic and comic poets. Yet he invented myths of his own. So what was his attitude towards literature and myth? Peter tackles this question in a final episode on Plato.

Audio Player - c. 20mins.
https://historyofphilosophy.net/plato-myth
The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps - King's College London.

Excellent, easy to listen to - knowledgeable with light touches of humour. Er.
I think the bit about Phaedo is roughly 12min in. But the whole thing including the background to the music at start is enjoyable :cool:

This discussion has taken me beyond reading the text. Before I return, one last step out...

Reading Rowe's article, I understand that interpretations of Plato's dialogues lie on a spectrum; the neoplatonist and a reductionist analytical approach being at opposite ends.
The approach taken by @Fooloso4 is analytical; with fine attention to detail.
However, there is no reduction to argument and counterargument alone.
There is much more colour...

...with the dialogues we need to look not only at what is said but at what is done. — Fooloso4

I appreciate that even with his level of expertise, it is not only a challenge to decipher the dialogue but to present and discuss any understanding.

The article excerpts I found useful :
VIII. The Problems of Cherry-Picking

A second problem with both the Neoplatonist and the analytical approach is that their choice of contexts and issues, and indeed of dialogues, to privilege over others is too obviously dictated by their own preoccupations...

Neoplatonizing accounts catch something of the larger picture in which this critique is framed while either missing the critique itself altogether or representing it one-sidedly in terms of oppositions between soul and body, human and divine, descent and ascent.

Such oppositions clearly are Platonic, but they are at one end of a spectrum that also includes, and more frequently, a carefully reasoned, hand-to-hand engagement with people and their ideas: an engagement that presents alternatives that look to this life as much as to anything beyond it.

For their part, analytical interpreters may end up failing even more spectacularly to capture the passionate tone of the Platonic dialogues, by reducing them—at least by implication—to a locus for quasi-academic 26 argument and counterargument. — Christopher Rowe

IX. Two Worlds or One?

The last section has implicitly proposed a compromise on another of the dividing lines between interpreters of Plato.

On the one hand there are those who think he believes in another world, over and above this world of ours, inhabited as it were by the ideal forms and by gods and other purified souls, to which it is our business to make our own way, even in this life, by (as Socrates puts it in the Phaedo) “practising for death.” Such a reading 27 accompanies a literal interpretation of the eschatological myths, which are there, on this view, to terrify us into changing our ways if we cannot be persuaded by argument.

But there is also another view of Plato’s position, namely that the talk of another world is at bottom metaphorical and that the myths in question are chiefly allegories of this life. What is clear is that there are grounds, in Plato’s texts, for both readings; the problem for the interpreter is to know how to make room for both. — Christopher Rowe