This was a long one. Phaedo is dealing with a question, and I believe it is something like, “How is the Immortality of the Soul proven?” But the organizing principle of this work is an account of the conversation between Socrates and his disciples before he drank the cup of hemlock at sundown on the day of his execution. Phaedo is relating this conversation to other disciples that were not there after the fact, he being an eye witness to these things.
Many topics are covered to get at this question of the immortality of the soul.
Not all the reasoning stands on what I would consider true premises, but this far into Plato and I am awed at the general care and line by line reasoning that he presents in his dialogues. It is no wonder that “Socratic” teaching is considered so powerful: it is!
On to my notes from my reading:
Unlike previous dialogues, this one now begins to build a lot upon Plato’s idea of Forms. This means I need to spend some real time understanding and thinking about this key idea in his philosophy. See a separate blog on Plato’s Forms.
There is a great deal of the use of opposites and contradictions in this discussion. A thing cannot be two opposite things at the same time. Thus the soul cannot both be living and dead, etc. This is a powerful way to define and discuss an idea.
“That is why I am not so resentful, because I have good hope that some future awaits men after death, as we have been told for years, a much better future for the good than for the wicked.” (63 c)
“I want to make my argument before you, my judges, as to why I think that a man who has truly spent his life in philosophy is probably right to be of good cheer in the face of death and to be very hopeful that after death he will attain the greatest blessings yonder.” (64 a)
Given the nature of discussing the soul, I found a good deal of dichotomy in his discussion of the soul and body. He obviously held to some form of what become the Gnostic idea that the body (especially its passions) was captivated by evil and that the soul, being pure spirit, was good and would be better if removed from the influence of the body. Christianity thoroughly rejects this of course.
“…if we are ever to have pure knowledge, we must escape from the body and observe things in themselves with the soul by itself.” (66 e)
I marked in my copy at that point, “This dichotomy is his most destructive doctrine.”
Plato seems to believe the soul is set in its “size” but does not explain well how one can add to or diminish from their soul in life.
He also forms a view of soul reincarnation or soul movement that causes some difficulty during his discussion. Again, not Christian, nor can it be Christianized. We shall be resurrected, not moved from body to body.
It is also noteworthy in my reading so far how often he uses Homer for his arguments. The Greek mind was thoroughly suffused with Homer’s texts.
In Plato’s dictionary, “natural science” was the study of causes for everything.
“…if there is anything beautiful besides the Beautiful itself, it is beautiful for no other reason than that it shares in that Beautiful.” (100 c)
Even if it did not actually happen, I found the account of Socrates actual moments of death to be touching in their simplicity, calmness, and love for those about him. I am confident that death by hemlock would not be quite so easy. You can read more at this site.
I tend to be the one giving my Dad books to read, but occasionally he gives one to me. In this case, his recommendation meant a lot. As a life long lover of all things aeronautic, the fact that my Dad wanted me to read this was enough to cause me to do so with interest. And it repaid me well.
Speaking of Books 