up to and including 64a. — Fooloso4

Appreciate that :up:

I will take up issues as they occur in the text. — Fooloso4

Great. I look forward to that.

it would be remiss of us not to take advantage of having someone who knows what they are talking about to hand, and this is a text that has implications across our subject. — Banno

Yes, and thanks for suggesting this to @Fooloso4. It is a most welcome surprise.

But mostly I'm looking forward to this reading because I expect the unexpected, the unknown unknown. — Banno

:cool:

Already on the first page I have a question. There is a reference to ‘the ship in which Theseus sailed to Crete’. Is this the same ship which is elsewhere the subject of the famous Ship of Theseus conundrum? Is that conundrum developed in this dialogue? (I suppose I could skip ahead, but I thought I’d ask. And notice that it has direct bearing on @Banno’s question about the nature of identity.)

60b Socrates sat up on his couch and bent his leg and rubbed it with his hand, and while he was rubbing it, he said, “What a strange thing, my friends, that seems to be which men call pleasure! How wonderfully it is related to that which seems to be its opposite, pain, in that they will not both come to a man at the same time, and yet if he pursues the one and captures it he is generally obliged to take the other also, as if the two were joined together in one head. And I think, (60c) he said, “if Aesop had thought of them, he would have made a fable telling how they were at war and God wished to reconcile them, and when he could not do that, he fastened their heads together, and for that reason, when one of them comes to anyone, the other follows after. Just so it seems that in my case, after pain was in my leg on account of the fetter, pleasure appears to have come following after.

This is a gem of the perennial philosophy - that pleasure and pain always accompany one another. Men foolishly chase pleasure and revile pain, not seeing that they are conjoined.

Before I go into detail, I think it probably best to wait for Fooloso4 to comment first... — Amity

Already on the first page I have a question — Wayfarer

Perhaps I am wrong. And the best way would be to post own thoughts and questions first.
Hmmm...
But I have so many :scream:

I intend to stick with the narrative flow. Both those passages are from the first page.

I intend to stick with the narrative flow. Both those passages are from the first page. — Wayfarer

I think that is the way to go. Will post something later re the pain/pleasure issue.

[ My mind goes all over the place - I remember the poignant scene from the film 'Shadowlands' where Jack ( C.S Lewis ) and his wife, Joy shelter from the rain. Joy is dying and wants to talk about it. Jack not so much. He doesn't want to spoil what is a happy moment.

Jack: I’ll manage somehow. Don’t worry about me.
Joy: No, I think it can be better than just managing. What I am trying to say is that the pain then is part of the happiness now. That’s the deal. ]

Again, there seems to be a dismissal of what 'kinds of things that women are given to saying'. Implying that it is an unwanted feminine characteristic — Amity

Socrates despite his many virtues was probably in today’s terms not on board with gender equality. Don’t forget these dialogues hail from 300-400 BC.

On the other hand, some casual misogyny in chats between men brings it bang up to date.

Socrates despite his many virtues was probably in today’s terms not on board with gender equality. Don’t forget these dialogues hail from 300-400 BC. — Wayfarer

I am not forgetting time, place or person.
I don't see Socrates as a perfectly virtuous man, no matter what he says or is alleged to have said.
There is undoubtedly a bias towards males and their 'drunken' discussions - the strength needed in war - the heroic narrative.
Women are invisible but for their tears. It shows a complete blindness to the life and battles of women; their role and strength in keeping things going...providing support and care.

However, I think that Socrates in the business of 'knowing oneself' was concerned with humans; people including women. The vision of a better society with increased wellbeing. That includes acknowledging the opposites or the mingling...of pain and pleasure...of love and war...of life and death.

It would be easy to skim over, or skip this weeping episode but I think it worthwhile to note, especially given the discussion on supposed opposites. Reason v Emotion.
As Foolos4 said: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534374

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

Pass me the wine :party:

A bit of dark humour re suicide and philosophers?

p5 61b

So give Evenus this message, Cebes: say good-bye to him, and tell him, if he's sensible, to come after me as quickly as he can. I'm off today, it seems-by Athenians' orders.'
'What a thing you're urging Evenus to do, Socrates!' said Simmias.
'I've come across the man often before now; and from what I've seen of him, he'll hardly be at all willing to obey you.'
'Why,' he said, 'isn't Evenus a philosopher?'
'I believe so,' said Simmias.
'Then Evenus will be willing, and so will everyone who engages worthily in this business. Perhaps, though, he won't do violence to himself: they say it's forbidden.'...

Cebes now asked him: 'How can you say this, Socrates? How can it both be forbidden to do violence to oneself, and be the case that the philosopher would be willing to follow the dying?'

61 e - [Socrates] I myself can speak about them only from hearsay; but what I happen to have heard I don't mind telling you. Indeed, maybe it's specially fitting that someone about to make the journey to the next world should inquire and speculate as to what we imagine that journey to be like; after all, what else should one do during the time till sundown?'

Can you imagine having this kind of conversation in your last hours ?
And why wait until then...

A bit of dark humour re suicide and philosophers? — Amity

Right. He tells him to drop dead!

Being emotionally incontinent is not good ? — Amity

This and:

'kinds of things that women are given to saying'. — Amity

reflect common opinion at that time.

I think it may also be part of the theme of comedy and tragedy. If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched.

Socrates begins not with something he recollects from a previous life or recalls or even his own stories but with “hearsay” :

'Well, I myself can speak about them only from hearsay; but what I happen to have heard I don't mind telling you. Indeed, maybe it's specially fitting that someone about to make the journey to the next world should inquire and speculate as to what we imagine that journey to be like; after all, what else should one do during the time till sundown?' (61d-e)

Inquiry and speculation based on what we imagine it to be based on hearsay. This is the measure by which to evaluate the stories that follow.

… sometimes and for some people, that it is better for a man to be dead than alive, and for those for whom it is better to be dead, perhaps it seems a matter for wonder to you if for these men it isn’t pious to do good to themselves, but they must await another benefactor.' (62a).

Socrates states that it would be better for some to be dead. In that case, it would be better for others to be alive. But he does not make the connection. Instead he moves to a defense of the prohibition against suicide.

Cebes gives a little laugh to which Socrates responds:

Well yes, it would seem unaccountable, put that way. And yet just maybe it does have an account. The account that’s given about these things in the Mysteries …

Socrates does not give an account. He appeals again to hearsay, to what is said in the Mysteries.

… we men are in some sort of prison, and that one ought not to release oneself from it or run away, seems to me a lofty idea and not easy to penetrate; but still, Cebes, this much seems to me well said: it is gods who care for us, and for the gods we men are among their belongings.

Socrates likens life to a prison. In that case it would not be just some men who would be better off dead, but all men who do not wish to be imprisoned. The irony here should not be missed. What Socrates is trying to persuade them of is not simply that death is not so bad, but that the soul will endure and be born again. But if life is a prison, then rebirth would mean to be imprisoned once again after having been freed from life.

Simmias objects:

… why, indeed, should truly wise men want to escape from masters who are better than themselves, and be separated from them lightly? So I think it's at you that Cebes is aiming his argument, because you take so lightly your leaving both ourselves and the gods, who are good rulers by your own admission. (63a)

Socrates responds:

'What you both say is fair, as I take you to mean that I should defend myself against these charges as if in a court of law.' (63 b)

Only Socrates made clear in the Apology that a court of law was not the proper place for him to defend himself. Socrates’ defense begins here, with those who are not hostile to philosophy.

'Very well, then,' he said; 'let me try to defend myself more convincingly before you than I did before the jury. Because if I didn't believe, Simmias and Cebes, that I shall enter the presence,
first, of other gods both wise and good, and next of dead men better than those in this world, then I should be wrong not to be resentful at death; but as it is, be assured that I expect to join the company of good men-although that point I shouldn't affirm with absolute conviction; but that I shall enter the presence of gods who are very good masters, be assured that if there's anything I should affirm on such matters, it is that. So that's why I am not so resentful, but rather am hopeful that there is something in store for those who've died-in fact, as we've long been told, something far better for the good than for the wicked.' (63c)

Socrates says that he is hopeful about something they have long been told, that death is something far better for the good than for the wicked. This is not a recollection of death, but a story that has long been told.

'Now then, with you for my jury I want to give my defence, and show with what good reason, as it seems to me, a man who has truly spent his life in philosophy feels confident when about to die, and is hopeful that, when he has died, he will win very great benefits in the other world.

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim?

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

Philosophers are trying to see life, to gain a vantage point on it. It would appear that the only vantage point is in death.

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

I don't know but it reminded me of something else - perhaps the Stoics. Something like it is only because of death that we appreciate life...i.e. it gives perspective as to what really matters.
How to live life well. Keeping death in mind...

Or it could be that the 'dying' refers to philosophers giving less oxygen to mundane matters. Paying more attention to the mental than the physical.

Or...the aim to attain a higher self by killing off the base instincts.

Or...living life in the moment so that there are no regrets or fears at point of death.

Or...practising arguments - so that the better man wins by killing any apparent conflicting reasons...or wrong conclusions.

Or...playing devil's advocate - pretending not to be alive to the better argument.

None of the above.

I think he is just trying to encourage his anxious young men that because they are philosophical they will be ready to die when the time comes. Not to fear it or to grieve his passing. He is setting an example of how to approach death with the right attitude.

So that's why I am not so resentful, but rather am hopeful that there is something in store for those who've died-in fact, as we've long been told, something far better for the good than for the wicked.' (63c) — Fooloso4

Perhaps that is why he sent his wife way...the tears...the lamenting...he wanted a positive message to be held in lasting memory.

If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched. — Fooloso4

No. It's a tragicomedy. The tears are there in joy and despair.

AH - thank you.

The next section will cover up to 67c.

I don't know but it reminded me of something else - perhaps the Stoics. — Amity

I will have something to say about this in the next section. Part of the Stoic practice of philosophy involved meditations on death.

I think he is just trying to encourage his anxious young men that because they are philosophical they will be ready to die when the time comes. Not to fear it or to grieve his passing. He is setting an example of how to approach death with the right attitude. — Amity

I agree. His arguments are rhetorical, intended to persuade, give them courage, and alleviate their fears.

If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched.
— Fooloso4

No. It's a tragicomedy. — Amity

A tragedy is about the protagonist's downfall. But instead of the end of his life being a downfall
Socrates makes it seem as if it is a journey of hope. A happy ending and new beginning.

But I think you are right. No life is either one or the other, but a mixture.

. What Socrates is trying to persuade them of is not simply that death is not so bad, but that the soul will endure and be born again. But if life is a prison, then rebirth would mean to be imprisoned once again after having been freed from life. — Fooloso4

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

That they're examples of the Ur-religion of the Ancient Greeks, relfected in Orphism, which was ultimately grounded in the pre-historic Indo-European mythology of the endless caravan of reincarnation and the fallen state of mortal man. Death in this context is a return to the source of life more than the ending of it all. The philosopher, being purified, being a 'good man', has nothing to fear at death because he will be 'joining the company of good men'. Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour.

Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

And it couldn't have hurt that Socrates was over 70. All 'death prep' aside, I wonder how he would have taken the news at 35...

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. — Dylan Thomas

I ask a wreath which will not crush my head.
And there is no hurry about it;
I shall have, doubtless, a boom after my funeral,
Seeing that long standing increases all things
regardless of quality.

Ezra Pound

That they're examples of the Ur-religion of the Ancient Greeks, — Wayfarer

Socrates does make use of mythologies as a means of persuasion, both stories of old and new ones he makes up, but this does not mean that he is persuaded by these stories. Regarding knowledge he demands logos not muthos, that is, not simply stories but the ability to give an account of what is said that can be defended against elenchus.

Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that this is part of it.

From 64a - 67c, pp. 8-12.

For me, reading this is both compelling and non-compelling.

Compelling: following the arguments put forward by Socrates to Simmias. Considering the purpose of philosophy. The importance of discovering what life and death is really all about. Philosophy as preparation for death. The questions of duality. Is it even possible to be a 'genuine' philosopher if it means turning away from body to soul ( or mind ) - to isolate oneself or by gathering in the company of like-minded souls only ?

I think not. However, I am not sure that that is what Socrates is saying. He qualifies everything with 'as far as possible'. Nevertheless, there is a focus on abstract concepts such as 'Beauty' compared to the experience of seeing things that are beautiful (65d)

'Well now, what about things of this sort, Simmias? Do we say that there is something just, or nothing?'
'Yes, we most certainly do!'
'And again, something beautiful, and good?'
'Of course.'
'Now did you ever yet see any such things with your eyes?'
'Certainly not.'

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone. This line drawn between sense experience and rational thought - I don't find compelling. There is an interaction.

Just as in the distinction between 'pure philosophers' who have a special knowledge of truth via the reasoning soul compared to the hoi polloi 'infected' (67a) as they are by bodily concerns or pleasures.
It seems that the 'true believers' * - the intellect having been purified (67c) - alone have access to the benefits of the hereafter:

" Such are the things, I think, Simmias, that all who are rightly called lovers of knowledge must say to one another, and must believe.* Don't you agree?'
'Emphatically, Socrates.

'there's plenty of hope for one who arrives where I'm going, that there, if anywhere, he will adequately possess the object that's been our great concern in life gone by; and thus the journey now appointed for me may also be made with good hope by any other man who regards his intellect as prepared, by having been, in a manner, purified'

(67c)

This all starts from the premise, the definition of death as: 'nothing but the separation of the soul from the body' (64c); 'the release and parting of the soul from body' (67d)

What is the 'soul' ?
Is it the reasoning mind alone ?
I think, if there is such a thing, it would involve the bodily senses - even if they are not always 'true' in the sense of correct.

When does the soul attain the truth? Because plainly, whenever it sets about examining anything in company with the body, it is completely taken in by it.' 'That's true.'
'So isn't it in reasoning, if anywhere at all, that any of the things that are become manifest to it?'
'Yes'

(65c)

What are 'the things that are' or 'that which is' - things that exist ?
Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ?
They arise from the real world - we create such - why ? To give ourselves something to think about.
Philosophy can be just as much an impure distraction as anything else...

The questions of duality. Is it even possible to be a 'genuine' philosopher if it means turning away from body to soul ( or mind ) ... I think not. — Amity

I agree.

However, I am not sure that that is what Socrates is saying. — Amity

Some readers are all too quick to reject. We need 'as far as possible' to figure out what he means. This often requires going beyond isolated statements. I think it is a good practice when you come across something questionable to note it, postpone judgment, keep in mind the circumstances, and see how things develop. With the dialogues it is always important to look not only at what is said but at what is done.

He qualifies everything with 'as far as possible'. — Amity

Socrates' many qualifications are important. How far is it possible to turn away from the body? The qualification 'it seems' and its variations are frequent.

Nevertheless, there is a focus on abstract concepts such as 'Beauty' compared to the experience of seeing things that are beautiful — Amity

The Forms differ from the things of experience but they are not abstract concepts or objects of the mind. They are said to be "things themselves by themselves". This formulation is used with regard to the soul. What this means will be discussed.

What is the 'soul' ? — Amity

Good question.Socrates gets Simmias to agree before they even raise the question.

I think, if there is such a thing, it would involve the bodily senses — Amity

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

What are 'the things that are' or 'that which is' - things that exist ? — Amity

The Forms.

Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ? — Amity

Concepts do not exist by themselves. They require thought or mind. But Beauty is not a concept. It's existence is independent of the mind. Things are beautiful to the extent they are images of Beauty itself.

Philosophy can be just as much an impure distraction as anything else... — Amity

In the Symposium Socrates says that the love of wisdom is eros, desire. Philosophy then cannot be freedom from desire if it is motivated by desire.

I think the key word is 'nous' — Wayfarer

“nous” is the contracted form of “noos” which is also used in the sense of “heart” or “soul”, i.e. that part of the self that uses a more direct or intuitive form of perception or understanding.

A useful way to look at it is:

1. eikasia or “imagination”, “image forming” related to sense perception.
2. pistis or “belief”, related to the things we perceive or imagine.
3. dianoia or “thinking”, apprehending by means of thought processes.
4. noesis or “intuition”, understanding, wisdom.

Obviously, these levels of knowledge are more or less fluid forms/functions of mind or consciousness, they are not tight compartments.

The individual nous is in turn illumined by the Cosmic Nous or Divine Mind. So, there is a continuum extending from Ultimate Reality all the way down to the lowest levels of experience or existence.

However the general point of nous as 'the faculty which sees what truly is', is certainly relevant across all the dialogues[/quote]

Correct.

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone.
— Amity

I think the key word is 'nous' - — Wayfarer

Amity is right. The passage under discussion is not about noesis but rather dianoia, thought or reason.