This means prophetic powers that are not less than theirs, that is Apollo, not from some other master. — Fooloso4

I thought so because the Greek text doesn't have that ambiguity.

[85β] λυπούμενα ᾁδειν οὔτε οἱ κύκνοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἅτε οἶμαι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ὄντες, μαντικοί τέ εἰσι καὶ προειδότες τὰ ἐν Ἅιδου ἀγαθὰ ᾁδουσι καὶ τέρπονται ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν διαφερόντως ἢ ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν χρόνῳ. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡγοῦμαι ὁμόδουλός τε εἶναι τῶν κύκνων καὶ ἱερὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ χεῖρον ἐκείνων τὴν μαντικὴν ἔχειν παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου, οὐδὲ δυσθυμότερον αὐτῶν τοῦ βίου ἀπαλλάττεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τούτου γ᾽ ἕνεκα λέγειν τε χρὴ καὶ ἐρωτᾶν ὅτι ἂν βούλησθε, ἕως ἂν Ἀθηναίων ἐῶσιν ἄνδρες ἕνδεκα.

Anyway, that clarifies it.

In 85B, Socrates likens himself to the followers of Apollo but speaks for himself at the same time. — Valentinus

In the Apology:

"And now I wish to prophesy to you, O ye who have condemned me; for I am now at the time when men most do prophesy, the time just before death. (39c)

He speaks here in his own name.

Agree. 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.

There is one other comparison I simply can't help but make with regard to the early Buddhist texts:

he is a weakling who does not test in every way what is said about them and persevere until he is worn out by studying them on every side. For he must do one of two things; either he must learn or discover the truth about these matters, 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, unless he can sail upon some stronger vessel, some divine revelation, and make his voyage more safely and securely. — Phaedrus 85c-d

The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' — The Simile of the Raft

Very interesting. Maybe we can discuss a few other points as well, once this has come to a conclusion. (Hopefully soon.)

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.

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

Looks a fascinating course. Amazing, the resources you can find nowadays. Best.

Amazing, the resources you can find nowadays — Wayfarer

So many ways to skin a soul :halo: :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. — Wayfarer

A major theme of the dialogue is phronesis. If Socrates was an atheist how prudent would it be for him to admit it? His concern is threefold: what this would mean for him, what it would mean for others, and what it would mean for philosophy if he openly professed atheism. We have seen what it meant for Socrates. What it means for philosophy is a perennial problem. There are always those ready to condemn and censor. What it means for others depends on the person. This is something Socrates will address.

Homer for the Greeks has been made divine, a god, apotheosis — Fooloso4

Why do you think this?

https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/07/05/homer-divine-not-human/

And this article convinced you that the ancient Greeks, in general, believed Homer was divine?

No. That was simply the first thing that came up on search. For a more scholarly source:
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3f59n8b0&chunk.id=d0e3428&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e3009&brand=ucpress

Per Moses Finley,

"No other poet, no literary figure in all history for that matter, occupied a place in the life of his people such as Homer's. He was their pre-eminent symbol of nationhood, the unimpeachable authority on their earliest history, and a decisive figure in the creation of their pantheon, as well as their most widely quoted poet."

They honored Homer out the wazoo, that's true. They didn't actually think he had been made into a god.

See pm.

You're in conflict with one of the greatest classicists of the 20th Century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socrates is not being presented as believing Homer is divine.

Do you understand that?

Socrates is not being presented as believing Homer is divine.

Do you understand that? — frank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting. Do you have any particular examples in mind ?

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

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

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

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

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

Nietzsche said ... — Fooloso4

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

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

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

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

So, where is the "irony"?

I guess a verbal flourish can be difficult to translate.

I don't know what to say about that.

:up:

But, as the Phaedrus makes clear, Socrates was not opposed to divine madness. There is here, once again, a play of opposites. — Fooloso4

Well, if Socrates was not opposed to divine madness, why would he be opposed to the Bacchic rites?

And, anyway, at 72c and 72d he vindicates the doctrine of rebirth and of learning as recollection does he not?

So, the text does seem to have a spiritual message after all, and it isn't only "comedy"?

I guess a verbal flourish can be difficult to translate. — frank

Sure. But he wasn't translating. He was reading Gallop's English translation.

1. How did he misread that?

2. Why was he so quick to read so much into his own misreading?