Plato’s Phaedo

1. Plato’s Phaedo • Dialogue between Socrates and his companions, last day of his life • Literature, not history – tetralogy of dialogues on Trial and Death of Socrates • Dialogue has three themes: • Meaning of philosophical life • Nature/immortality of the soul • Doctrine of Forms (Ideas) • “Platonism”

2. Structure of the Phaedo Part I: philosophical life Preface 57a-59d: settings/frame Prologue 59d-69e: the art of dying Part II Logos 70a-107b: immortality • Initial logoi/mythos • Cyclical Argument 70a-72e • Recollection Argument 72e-77d • Likeness Argument 77d-80b • Mythos 80b-84c: reincarnation • INTERLUDE 84c-91c • Final logoi/mythos • Reply to Simmias 91c-95e • Reply to Cebes: Socrates’ autobiography 95e-99e • Final argument: 100a-107b • Mythos 107c-115a: true earth Part III Epilogue 115a-118a: death

3. Part I: Exploratory Discussions Setting 57a-63e • Frame/Pythagoreans, myth of Theseus 57a f. • Socrates’ situation 59d f. • Xanthippe 59d f. Pleasure and pain 59a, 60b; Socratic music 60c f. Is suicide immoral? 61b ; 2nd “Trial”: is Socrates’ wrong to ‘abandon’ his friends? Is there reason for Socrates to hope in an afterlife? 63c Q’s re: philosophy and living/dying 63e-70a • What is “death”? 64c vs. 67cd vs. 70a; • Is there an art of living/dying? • An art of moral practice? 64c-65a’ • An art of intellectual inquiry? 65b-67b “ • Note: (i) body” = cause of war, 66b-67b(ii) common/honor-based vs. (iii) philosophical morality? 67b-69b Mythos and logos in the dialogue • Can the soul live without mythos?

4. Chief points from Prologue Philosophical life includes awareness of: • 3 concepts of death • Life of askesis (moral and intellectual training) • “art of dying/detachment” and ideal of catharsis (‘purification’, liberation from life driven by passion) • vs. materialism in desire, in thought • Philosophical virtue in conduct (based on reason) and in thought (based on reason, not sense-evidence)

5. Part II: Initial Arguments • Cyclical = biological immortality? • Recollection = cognitive immortality? • Likeness = two worlds of being? • Ends with mythos of reincarnation/ethics

6. If opposites come from opposites And the live and dead are opposites (as are dying/coming-back-to-life) Then the dead come to be from the living; and the living must come from the dead, i.e. souls must continue to exist, so they can be reborn. Criticisms? Cf.70de 71e 72b But note that ‘life’ is not, strictly speaking, a physical property. (Hence = a kind of ‘psyche’) Cyclical Argument

7. If we have knowledge not acquired in this life, we acquired it prior to this life We have such knowledge--knowledge of the Ideas* Therefore our souls existed prior to birth into our bodies *How do we know this? Because we cannot have acquired knowledge of the Forms from sense-perception (cf. also ‘proof’ in Meno 81-85). But what is the argument for this claim? (74-75) Note 73c, 74b, 74e-75c, 75e-76a, 76cd Recollection Argument

8. Critical passage • Do equal sticks and other equal (sense) objects ever seem equal in the same sense as the Equal itself? 74d • Perceptual things • = imperfectly alike • = particulars in space and time • seen differently by different perceivers • Forms • = perfectly equal • = eternal universals • = self-same to reason

9. Two examples of equality Pythagorean theorem: • For all right-angled triangles, the square of the hypoteneuse = the sum of the squares of the sides • How is this equality = different from the similar equality of a physical representation of it? Moral thesis: • “All men are created equal, and possess inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” • How is this equality & these rights different from that of persons in different countries?

10. Claim: ‘reason’ functions on a different level than perception Epistemology: • Does all knowledge derive from sense-perception or is some innate? • Is all knowledge justified by appeal to empirical evidence or is some based on reason alone? • Socrates’ argument: • Knowledge of Forms = ‘triggered’ by perception, but is innate (imperfection argument) • Math, logic, moral knowledge is not justified by induction from experience

11. 1st argument (78b-79e) The compound, changing, visible (e.g. sense-particulars) suffers dissolution/destruction; the simple, unchanging, invisible (e.g. Forms) does not Soul is more like an invisible entity than visible Therefore souls are likely to be unchanging, indissoluble, indestructible. 2nd argument (80a-b) The divine rules, the mortal is ruled Soul rules the body Therefore soul is like the divine, body like the mortal Affinity Argument(s)

12. Affinity Argument(s) Why claim ‘soul’ = • One vs. many? • Simple vs. composite? • ‘Ideal’ vs. ‘physical’? Is ‘soul’ = self? • Actual (imperfect) • Ideal-rational (goal) • Striving/will? Metaphysics of Free will • Does free will imply a non-physical kind of being? • Is the power to initiate action = a kind of creation?

13. Is reincarnation more or less possible than resurrection? than heaven & hell? Is soul separate from body (64c) or embodied throughout it (67d)? If soul is entirely separate, how can it ‘rule’ the body (80ab)? If soul is permeated(81c) by the corporeal, how can it be separate? How can it be reborn? How is soul the agent of its own imprisonment (82e)? Its own liberation? (Prologue) Two interpretations of reincarnation: (i) literal-mythical: soul-substance (ii) symbolic-ethical: character-formation Puzzles re: reincarnation

14. Dualism “soul” = real, albeit not physical entity “soul” = unity-basis of thought, action “soul” can’t be reduced to its physical basis Person = “soul” not body If (E) non-physical properties, must there (E) non-physical substances possessing them? Problems Isn’t there evidence properties or functions of “soul” depend on body? Can soul be “permeated” = driven by the physical? Does dualism mean separate existence? emergent powers? How is the soul ‘akin’ to the Forms (79d)? Plato/Pythagoreans on Mind/Body:

15. If Y depends on X & X is destroyed, Y must be also. Soul/mind :: body as harmony (harmonia) :: lyre. The harmony, though “invisible,” depends on the lyre and its strings, which are visible, composite, destructible, so that if the lyre is destroyed, so too is the harmony. Therefore if the body is destroyed, so too must be the soul/mind. This proves the impossibility of the immortality of the soul, according to Simmias. It challenges Socrates’ most basic claim, that it is not irrational to be a theist re the soul. Simmias’ Harmony Argument

16. Y can survive X, but this does not imply Y lives forever, e.g. the weaver can survive his cloak, but this does not imply he lives forever. Soul/mind is to the body as a weaver is to his cloak, i.e. he is separate from it, and can ‘outlive’ his body, perhaps through many reincarnations. But at the end, the soul/mind, just like the weaver, must also perish. This suggests a way in which soul as a life-principle is an ‘higher’ aspect of living things. But if it is true, ‘soul’ and ‘body’ are functionally interdependent. Cebes’ Weaver Argument

17. Simmias and Cebes evoke the Minotaur = Fear of Death Socrates must rally his friends emotionally, to ‘stand firm in the argument’ (need philosophical courage) The danger = power of misology, “philosophical cynicism” Analogy to misanthropy (“interpersonal cynicism”) Interlude: Misology,Misanthropy

18. Materialism “soul” or mental life = dependent on physical “soul” = experienced process of thought, action, perception “soul” = caused/explained by events in the body (i.e in brain, nervous system) “soul” = property of physical being Problems “soul” seems independent of body in some ways “soul” = unity = center of thought and perception, free choice and action If “soul” can be reduced to body/brain, what is moral life? “soul” = seems different from physical properties Simmias on Mind & Body:

19. Admits his arguments may be driven by the desire to win, we should question them 3 arguments (91c-92d): conflict between Harmony Theory and Recollection Argument (92e-94b): key argument = conflict between idea of good and wicked people, vs. Harmony Theory (92e-94b): conflict between idea of self-rule vs. Harmony Theory Socrates vs. Simmias

20. Socrates’ Autobiography 95b-100a • 1st: natural scientist, materialist, focus on the causes of becoming (96b) • 2nd: reflection on mathematics: shifts focus to “what is?” (96c-97b) • 3rd: natural theology; focus on ‘good’; but disillusioned with theological explanation (97c-98d) • 4th: Dialectic and “Forms” - focus on reasons in human action contrasts of natural causal, mathematical conceptual, rational theological & rational historical explanation

21. Plato’s Theory of Forms • If we say, “something is F,” F is the name of a Form, F-ness. (101b) • “Socrates is rectangular” • A particular thing is (a) called F and (b) is F by virtue of “participation” in F-ness. (101c) • How is Socrates ‘just’? • The Form, F-ness, is itself perfectly F but things “fall short.” • How does the rectangle “fall short”? • The USA “fall short” of justice? Form of Plato: • Forms = abstract, non-empirical meanings/objects • Do they ‘explain’ moral and mathematical truths/knowledge? • Compare Socrates’ What is X? quest for ‘real defns’

22. Plato’s Theory of Forms Forms and Language Forms, Knowledge and Reality If we say, “something is F,” x participates in the Form, F-ness e.g. “Socrates is just” Because of this, the world has an essential structure, which things strive to be The sophists are mistaken to say “there is no universal knowledge” We can know the Forms = universal laws of reason If we say something is called F, F is the name of a Form, F-ness • “Socrates’ face is circular” • Because of this, language is not ambiguous, e.g. ‘white,’ ‘circle,’ ‘swan,’ ‘just’ • The sophists are mistaken to say “all words are ambiguous”

23. Plato’s Theory of Forms (see link off syllabus) Arguments for Forms Arguments vs. Forms Reification Forms = concepts, not real Population What are there Forms of? 3rd Man If there is a Form of M, and that is itself M, then… Ambiguity If Forms existed, conception of them would be confused by their relation to sense-particulars • Universals • If there are ideal universals… • Imperfection argument (see also Phaedo 74-75): • If there is K of ideal universals & K that sense-particulars “fall short” of them… • Knowledge argument: • if K of necessary & universal truths, & this can’t derive from sense-evidence, then…

24. Final Argument: 100a-107b • Forms (Ideas) exist 100b • X is called f (e.g. beautiful), b/c it participates in F-ness (Beauty Itself) • The f-quality in us is never not-f, nor is F-ness ever not-f, but it either (a) retreats or (b) is destroyed when its opposite approaches 102d • If life is in us, it is b/c we participate in the Form of Life • The life-quality in us cannot be not-alive; it retreats or is destroyed • Natures are like this, e.g. snow/Cold; fire/Hotness; triads/Odd 103e • Natures also do not admit their opposites--e.g. snow cannot be hot, fire is never cold, triads are never even 104b • Soul-nature always brings the character of Life 105c • Soul-nature can never be dead--it is deathless 105e • The deathless = indestructible 106d • Therefore soul is immortal 107a

25. Mythos of the True Earth • True earth = ideal image or norm for actual, imperfect earth • Mythos = pictures earth, human destiny in light of the Good

26. Death Scene • How to reconcile the death of the man, Socrates, with the immortality of his soul? • Hemlock = in reality more painful than depicted here • Final words = thanks for a fulfilling life, or for being ‘cured’ of it?

27. Argumentative Essay Format • Introduction: what is the problem? What is your thesis? What will you argue? • Argument: • Presentation of Argument you will discuss • Critical discussion of Argument • Additional argument (s) • Conclusion: Brief summary of what you have shown.

28. Mind Body Paper Format • Introduction: what is the problem? What is your thesis? What will you argue? • Argument: • Presentation of Simmias’ argument • Critical discussion of Socrates’ 2nd or 3rd argument against it – does he refute it? Explain why/why not • Additional argument (s) for or vs. “irrationality” of belief in immortality of the soul • Conclusion: Brief summary of what you have shown.

29. Theory of Forms Format • Introduction: what is the problem? What is your thesis? What will you argue? • Argument: • Presentation of Recollection/Perfection arguments for Forms • Critical discussion of 1-2 arguments vs. Forms – do they refute it? Explain why/why not • Additional argument (s) for or vs. existence of ”Transcendent Ideas” as objects of knowledge and real universals • Conclusion: Brief summary of what you have shown.