You neglect to include the following from this translation:

and he ought to repeat such things to himself as if they were magic charms

Whether or not the soul has been shown to be immortal is a basic question of my essay. I show how and why each of the arguments fail. It is because the arguments fail that he used myths to persuade, charms and incantations.

Note how many of the translations you cite include the idea that it is worth the risk to believe. If something has been proven to be true there is no reason to risk believing it is true.

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

I followed the text, and only your commentary on it, for which I offer respect. Silently.

Thank you. I am familiar with some of the secondary literature but chose to read the dialogue itself by itself without recourse to it. My intention was in part to demonstrate how a Platonic dialogue can be read; or at least one way it can be read.

Whether or not the soul has been shown to be immortal is a basic question of my essay. — Fooloso4

That's precisely why it doesn't seem right to leave out statements like "since the soul is shown to be immortal" from the translation unless you have a good reason or explanation for it, which you don't seem to have.

Why does the statement "the soul is shown to be immortal" bother you so much as to exclude it from the translation? Freudian slip, perhaps? And it isn't for the first time that you "misread" the text.

Socrates has already shown at 72a - 73a why it is logical to believe in the immortality of soul and rebirth.

Socrates says:
"We agree in this way too that living people have come to be from the dead no less than dead people from the living" 72a

Cebes agrees:
"... and in my opinion what you're saying is completely true" 72d

To which Socrates responds:
"I think that is exactly how it is" 72d

Simmias continues to doubt:
"But Cebes, what are the proofs for this?" 73a

etc.

Obviously, Socrates has no hard proof, but he has presented convincing arguments which are accepted by Cebes while Simmias is still doubting. And even Simmias in the end is nearly fully convinced.

On the whole, what the dialogue is showing is that the philosopher should accept a belief only after rationally examining and analyzing it. That's the only way to acquire knowledge instead of relying on opinion or belief. But some will never be totally convinced. That is all. There is absolutely no need to read too much into the text.

That's precisely why it doesn't seem right to leave out statements like "since the soul is shown to be immortal" from the translation unless you have a good reason or explanation for it, which you don't seem to have. — Apollodorus

Read it in context. The myth is about the soul's immortality. It is followed by the statement above calling the truth of the myth into question. Once again, I do not include it because he did not show the soul's immortality. To repeat that the soul is immortal is to sing the incantation.

Socrates has already shown at 72a - 73a why it is logical to believe in the immortality of soul and rebirth. — Apollodorus

You have not bothered to read what I said about that argument. It does not show that it is logical, but you have to follow the argument to see that. I did. A statement is not an argument.

Obviously, Socrates has no hard proof, but he has presented convincing arguments which are accepted by Cebes while Simmias is still doubting. And even Simmias in the end is nearly fully convinced. — Apollodorus

Yes, Cebes accepts it. He accepts everything Socrates says, even when it should be clear to a thoughtful reader that he should not. In fact, Socrates himself makes it clear that he should not. Both Cebes and Simmias are followers of Pythagoras. They come into the discussion believing in the immortality of the soul. The fact that at the end Simmias is less certain does not show that the arguments convinced him, just the opposite.

On the whole, what the dialogue is showing is that the philosopher should accept a belief only after rationally examining and analyzing it. — Apollodorus

Then why the need for myth? Again, all of this is discussed.

That's the only way to acquire knowledge instead of relying on opinion or belief. — Apollodorus

But in the end all they have is opinion and belief. They do not have knowledge of the fate of the soul.

There is absolutely no need to read too much into the text. — Apollodorus

It is not reading into the text, which was something you were quite anxious to do. It is carefully reading the text. But clearly you think there is no need to read the text at all.

Once again, I do not include it because he did not show the soul's immortality. — Fooloso4

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

But in the end all they have is opinion and belief. They do not have knowledge of the fate of the soul. — Fooloso4

They do have an account of the fate of the soul which Cebes agrees with and even Socrates says that it may not be exactly like that but it's worth insisting that either the described situation or something similar is true.

Nowhere does he reject the account. He concludes with the remark:

"Now as for you, Simmias, Cebes and you others, you will each make the journey [to Hades] some time hereafter" 115a

Why would Socrates conclude with that remark if he didn't believe in his own account?

Read the essay.

We need to follow the arguments are draw conclusions or be persuaded by charms or incantations. — Fooloso4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't see those. Sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In their Introduction, Sedley & Long say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Simmias laughed and said, “By Zeus, [64b] Socrates, I don't feel much like laughing just now, but you made me laugh. For I think the multitude, if they heard what you just said about the philosophers, would say you were quite right, and our people at home would agree entirely with you that philosophers desire death, and they would add that they know very well that the philosophers deserve it.”

“And they would be speaking the truth, Simmias, except in the matter of knowing very well. For they do not know in what way the real philosophers desire death, nor in what way they deserve death, nor what kind of a death it is.

Emphasis added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He begins this statement by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the capitals at 'Kind Soul' ? — Amity

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

eidos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup. Already grasped that, thanks.

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

Really ? How so ?
Like this ?

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

."

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

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

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

Emphasis added
and:

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

Emphasis added.

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

I think I have suffered enough confusion for today.

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

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

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

I agree. I think he himself says as much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like this ? — Amity

Also like this:

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

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

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

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

And this:

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

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

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

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

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

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