The purpose of the text is to stimulate the reader to think, and it does that by being an intricate construction with many implications, some of which are indeterminate in the sense that you can’t be sure of what Plato meant and what Socrates meant, but they are intended to make you, the interpreter, do your thinking for yourself ... I think that it would be better to emphasize that the dialogue has as its primary function the task of stimulating the reader to think for himself, not to find the teaching worked-out for him. — Fooloso4

That happens to be correct. But works of this type were not meant to be studied on your own because in that case you could reach any kind of conclusion that might be diametrically opposed to the author's own outlook. These texts were normally read under the guidance of a qualified teacher.

In any case, precisely because the dialogues are intended to stimulate the reader to think for himself, it doesn't seem proper to tell him from the start to stick to a materialist interpretation of the text. Let the reader decide for himself.

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....

I think that this is correct. It is something that I have been attempting to show. Cebes and Simmias are the image of just such non-philosophical readers and listeners. They have to have their childish fears charmed away by myth and incantations.
By contrast:

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.

It is significant that those who have opposed my interpretation have not said anything about the details of what Socrates says in the dialogue about myths. Instead they point elsewhere.

That's a good question. I don't think it is a step in logical argument, but I do think that Plato intends for the most thoughtful of us to work through the logic of the accounts he gives. In the next section that I will present (probably tomorrow) he will call the "safe answer" he proposes here as a hypothesis , an "ignorant" or "unlearned" answer, and will propose another.

I think the main purpose is rhetorical. It is the pharmakon against misologic. (89d) The truth is, logos or accounts or arguments cannot accomplish what is hoped for, knowledge of the fate of the soul. But this is not a truth they are ready to hear. Socrates does not want them to give up on philosophy so here he resorts to the myth of recollection, with its promise of knowledge and the safe passage of the soul to Hades and back. In the Republic to the story of the ascent from the cave to transcendent knowledge of the whole. This story in particular has inspired generations to pursue philosophy. And, as Nietzsche nicely sums it up, Christianity becomes Platonism for the people.

This story in particular has inspired generations to pursue philosophy. And, as Nietzsche nicely sums it up, Christianity becomes Platonism for the people. — Fooloso4

And everything that Nietzsche said is true, of course. How could it possibly be otherwise?

But I think you have failed to show that the dialogues are "comedy" or that Plotinus, Proclus and other Platonists are inconsistent with Plato.

my approach would be "Straussian": — Fooloso4

I thought as much.

Influential figures are Jacob Klein and Leo Strauss, and his students including Alan Bloom, Stanley Rosen...
— Fooloso4
These are the people I read and whom I have learned the most from. — Fooloso4

I had absorbed this but my recall is rubbish !

The Rosen quote is referenced in the Rowe article in Section X - Hidden Meanings ?
which says more about the Straussian approach and the different versions:

One of the central features of such an approach is its deployment of the concept of (Socratic) irony. It appears that one can never take anything anyone says in a dialogue at face value; to see what we are to make of any statement or proposal, an interpreter has to stand back and ask how it relates to everything else that is said or done in that particular dialogue.

That looks fine, up to a point, and especially as a corrective to overliteral interpretations of the texts that refuse to take notice of context, dramatic or otherwise. The trouble is that this way of proceeding lends itself too easily to abuse. Thus what began in Strauss himself as an interesting method with the potential for plausible readings, not least of the Republic, has hardened, in the hands of some of his epigoni, into the treatment of Plato as an advocate for a conservative politics: — Christopher Rowe

I have returned to the pdf text and Librivox audio files in an effort to catch up.
Just finished listening to audio 3 which corresponds roughly to pp16-26 ( 70d - 78b)
Also to your discussion, here ( about 6 days ago ! )
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924

The first 2 Arguments for the Soul's Immortality:
1. Opposites/Cyclical
2. Recollection

Still thinking about them. But when it comes to comedy - listening to the audio really brings it out.
The request to be reminded of the Recollection proof: 'Not sure that I remember the doctrine !'.

...An overarching question of the dialogue is about teaching and learning. Socrates teaches him how to solve the problem and yet claims it was recollection. This is not the place to get into it, but the difference between Meno’s problem, teaching virtue to someone like Meno who is lacking in virtue and teaching someone geometry is very different — Fooloso4

I had remembered the story of how Socrates helped someone work through a problem but couldn't recall who or where ! And yes, it made me wonder again just how much of this Recollection argument is more about stilling the fears of the 'child within us' - Cebes and Simmias.
Anxiety about losing Socrates continues.
Socrates gives some counselling:
There are plenty of 'charmers' in Greece - incantations to reduce fear.
However, I think the final words at 78b say it best:

And you yourselves must search too, along with one another; you may not easily find anyone more capable of doing this than yourselves.'
'That shall certainly be done,' said Cebes; '

It does help to have a guiding hand...in this world...
Going forward and reaching back even as we speak.

Thus what began in Strauss himself as an interesting method with the potential for plausible readings, not least of the Republic, has hardened, in the hands of some of his epigoni, into the treatment of Plato as an advocate for a conservative politics: — Christopher Rowe

I agree. One time I shared my concern about this with Rosen. He said that this is why he deliberately tried to distance himself from the "Straussians". More recently there has been a split between "East Coast" and "West Coast" Straussians over the conservative activism of those on the west/right. Whereas Rosen emphasizes the unresolved problems, they have convinced themselves that they have the answers. It is remarkable how Strauss has engendered such a wide, varying, and opposing set of views.

But when it comes to comedy - listening to the audio really brings it out.
The request to be reminded of the Recollection proof: 'Not sure that I remember the doctrine !'. — Amity

I am glad you caught that. Plato's playfulness goes unnoticed by those searching for his doctrines,

Socrates gives some counselling:
There are plenty of 'charmers' in Greece - incantations to reduce fear.
However, I think the final words at 78b say it best:

And you yourselves must search too, along with one another; you may not easily find anyone more capable of doing this than yourselves.'
'That shall certainly be done,' said Cebes; ' — Amity

And to be clear, Socrates is talking about myths and those involved in the cults of mystical rites. Some here are advocating that we pay attention to them but ignore what Socrates says about them. If they are to be looked at, it should be from this perspective if looking at them is intended to shed light on the dialogue.

I learned a lot.
The absence of Plato in the discussion is very strange set against the work to make the dialogues a report of what Socrates said. There is something about the distance from what happened that frames the dialogues.

Then why the need for myth? Again, all of this is discussed. — Fooloso4

Not "discussed", more like misinterpreted.

Plato is using mythos and logos but nowhere does he suggest that one should be reduced to the other.

Socrates’ account of Hades is simply given to complete his interlocutors’ understanding of the issue and to contrast it with Aeschylus’ Telephus:

“So it turns out that the journey is not as Aeschylus’ Telephus says. He says that a straightforward “path” leads to Hades, whereas it seems to me to be neither straightforward nor single …” 108a

Very clear and it requires no reading into whatsoever, unless you want to put a spin on it.

and he ought to repeat such things to himself as if they were magic charms — Fooloso4

Why do you think this undermines the assertion of the immortality of the soul? Soon afterwards, Socrates says a man ‘should be in good cheer’ about his life, if he ‘has rejected the pleasures and ornaments of the body, thinking they are alien to him and more likely to do him harm than good’ (114e). And then exhorts Crito to follow his instructions carefully, so that he too might enjoy a similar fate.

Could it not be the case that the exhortation to ‘repeat such things to himself’ is so as not to loose sight of the importance of the ‘care of the soul’? (Perhaps even as a mantra.) I find that a much more cohesive explanation, than the idea that Socrates (and Plato) are covertly signalling doubt about the immortality of the soul.

Could it not be the case that the exhortation to ‘repeat such things to himself’ is so as not to loose sight of the importance of the ‘care of the soul’? I find that a much more cohesive explanation, than the idea that Socrates (and Plato) are covertly signalling doubt about the immortality of the soul. — Wayfarer

Absolutely. This is also suggested by Simmias' habit of forgetting things.

I can understand that @Fooloso4 is an atheist and all that, but his "interpretation" is simply an unacceptable farce.

Why do you think this undermines the assertion of the immortality of the soul? — Wayfarer

I don't. It is the arguments that fail. In the absence of reason he uses myths and charms as a means of persuasion.

Could it not be the case that the exhortation to ‘repeat such things to himself’ is so as not to loose sight of the importance of the ‘care of the soul’? — Wayfarer

But it is in life that he exhorts them to care for their soul. No one knows what happens in death.

I find that a much more cohesive explanation, than the idea that Socrates (and Plato) are covertly signalling doubt about the immortality of the soul. — Wayfarer

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



.

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

I am not able to delete other people's posts and had nothing to do with them being deleted.

I asked for comments on what was being read, not what you can find on Wiki or elsewhere. It is my opinion that Plato must be read rather than read about.

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 — Apollodorus

This is entirely consistent with what I have said. The immortality of the soul has not been shown because to do so would go beyond the limits of argument. Of course he reaffirms the mythology. How could he persuade them otherwise?

Well, I brought it up because myths were being discussed and there is a dialogue devoted to them.

I read the dialogues as conversations between themselves. They disagree with each other. Some things become more important in one place than in another. But Plato himself puts them side by side. Like they need each other.

Your thoughts ? — Amity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, Plato does not want the reader to just accept the arguments, but to examine and evaluate them. Why would he give the examples of three/Odd, snow/Cold, fire/Hot, if not to draw a parallel with soul/Life?

At 106a Socrates asks whether three things would be imperishable if Odd is imperishable and whether snow would slip away unmelted rather than admit Hot. Cebes agrees that the three things and the snow would be imperishable. Should we? We know that snow melts and having three of something does not mean I will always have these three things.

He is trying to convince Cebes and Simmias of the immortality of the soul. Cebes is convinced. Simmias is not so sure. Argument has its limits. It cannot determine what happens to us when we die. This raises the problem misologic, the hatred of argument, which can occur when someone expects too much from argument. (89d)

I think you got it all wrong. As I said, I'm here to learn.

And what I've learned from your comments is that Straussian esotericism isn't always the best approach to reading Plato.

There is a limit to how much you can reasonably read into a passage or text without running the risk of leaving evidence and reason behind and going down an endless rabbit hole from where it may be difficult to retrieve a sense of reality.

Sometimes it seems more prudent to just adhere to a prima facie reading than insisting on evidence-free interpretation and wild speculation that doesn't lead anywhere.

I think you got it all wrong. As I said, I'm here to learn. — Apollodorus

What you say and what you do are obviously not the same. Or do you think learning involves repeated deliberate misrepresentation? Or is it the incessant attempt to push forward your own interpretation? Or is it the belligerent attempt to discredit someone you have not read and do not know anything about? You know nothing about what you misleadingly call "Straussian esotericism" and yet in your desire to learn you simply dismiss it.

Or perhaps when you say you are here to learn you mean ignoring Plato as well. Your prima facie is at odds with what Socrates says:

we must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us (Republic 394d)

Several times I have traced the arguments in the text, connecting one statement with the next, but in your interest to learn you have simply ignored them. Preferring to take statements out of context as if the whole of the problem is contained in an isolated statement.

Or perhaps when you say you are here to learn you mean ignoring Plato as well. — Fooloso4

Wayfarer says it's better to just respect one another's viewpoints. You can show respect for Apo's views.

I have already discussed Plato's use of myths. As to whether the soul has been shown to be immortal see my responses above to Wayfarer.

Too broad a view and we are using Plato as a scene of personal exposition? Too close and we're cherry-picking?

Here's a cherry: at the end of Lysis, does Socrates say "..., we still don't know what friendship is?" or "..., we still don't know which one the friend is?" Your answer will determine what kind of Platonist you are.

The question of who the friend is cannot be answered apart from the question of what friendship is. But what is at issue in practical not theoretical, the goal is not to find the definition of friendship but the ability to identify a friend in distinction from someone we may call a friend.

David Bolotin gives an alternative "perhaps more literal" translation of the closing words in the footnotes to his translation:

"we have not yet become able to discover" . This final phrase may also be translated as follows: but we have not yet been able to discover that he who is a friend is [i.e., exists]" (Plato's Dialogue on Friendship)

The dialogue ends in aporia. It is up to us to determine who, if anyone, is our friend.

Have you determined that I am any kind of Platonist?

The soul participates in the body as much as any object participates in itself. Something without parts can't subsist on it's own. The world is what is real. Plato brought up interesting ideas for his time but he is quite cooky. If dualism is true, maybe the soul vanishes when the body dies. There is obviously an unbreakable connection between body and soul. Only the resurrection of the body can insure immortal existence

It was meant thusly. Sartre writes of being and nothing spread like ripples to compose the universe. The Ideas of Plato are in the world and in us. They are transcendental. There is nothing transcendent

Every part of that argument is wrong — Gregory

Well, you can always email Plato and suggest he write another dialogue. Ideally in 21st-century English or in Mandarin, as the case may be.

Perhaps he can also explain that there is no "shift from ‘soul’ to ‘one soul’ and 'a soul'" :smile: