Part of Plato's "middle period," the Phaedo is understood by most commentators to mark the point where Plato begins to assert his own views over - and perhaps against? - his mentor Socrates. Here two important themes are brought to the fore: the (possible) immortality of the soul and the so-called doctrine of the Forms. Metaphysics here we come! Friday, September 19, 2008
For 9/24: Plato's Phaedo
Part of Plato's "middle period," the Phaedo is understood by most commentators to mark the point where Plato begins to assert his own views over - and perhaps against? - his mentor Socrates. Here two important themes are brought to the fore: the (possible) immortality of the soul and the so-called doctrine of the Forms. Metaphysics here we come! 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Plato's Phaedo for me was a very intense dialogue. Socrates, so close to his own death, explains human immortality in terms of form itself. It struck me that even in facing his inevitable death, Socrates’ only wish seems to be to dismiss all material objects and petty ideas in order to allow his soul to die without worries or fuss. "I am afraid that other people do not realize that the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death. (pp. 55, lines 65-67)" Socrates’ perception of our relationship with the gods struck me as odd. He goes on to say that although positive, the human-gods relationship is similar to a master-slave relationship. Socrates’ also describes the human soul as being caged within one’s body and death as an escape from this imprisonment. My question then, is if the human-gods relationship is so beneficial, why then does Socrates describe the soul as being imprisoned within one’s self? These two ideas seem to contradict one another. If the gods are represented as superior masters, wouldn’t they try to release the soul in some way?
For me, the most interesting aspect of Plato’s Phaedo was when he discussed knowledge and its recollection. At 75e, it is said that “if we acquired knowledge before birth, then lost it at birth, and then later by the use of our senses in connection with those objects we mentioned, we recovered the knowledge we had before, would not what we call learning be the recovery of our own knowledge, and we are right to call this recollection?...Certainly.” What strikes me most about this is that it seems to be saying that learning something for the “first” time and, thus, coming to know it is called recollection because we assume to know it in our past life but forget it at birth. The entire argument, upon my initial reading of it, seems to be built on a somewhat faulty premise; that the soul lives on long after the body has died. It is agreed, at the end of 71d, that “what comes to be from being dead must be being alive” because they have established that, at 71a, “all things come to be in this way, opposites from opposites.” To establish that life comes from death is, I think, a flawed premise for the simple fact that it cannot be established, and premises, by definition, must be established facts. It doesn’t seem accurate to construct an argument on a base that isn’t at all sturdy.
The topic of death is not an easy topic to discuss. We have all dealt with it in some way, a grandmother, grandfather, an aunt, uncle, friend, or even a pet. My questions are why is it taboo to talk about death and how is Socrates so calm and ready for his own death? Socrates Is ok with the idea of dying. This is something that most people would be very scared of. It takes a certain type of person to be ok with death, usually this person devoutly believes in an afterlife. Socrates believed the soul would be freed at death, free from the restraints of life. He makes it seem that death is the best thing anyone can accomplish. This is something I completely disagree with. Life can be suffering but it can also be very enjoyable. Many religious people believe as Socrates did that life is not pleasant and that the afterlife will be more promising. Why can’t heaven be on Earth instead of hell? Could you face death as Socrates does? How would you like to die? Would you like family and friends near you or would you like to be alone? If Socrates is right then death is only a journey and we should not fear death. If Socrates is right and dying will let your soul free, then why live? I love life and see no need to stop living any time soon.
In Phaedo, Plato discusses various different aspects of our human existence. He touches on many points we have discussed before, one of which being his theory of recollection. I do not know if this is me paying too much attention to small words but I wanted to discuss one line in particular. Socrates says, "As I say, lovers of learning know that philosophy gets hold of their soul when it is in that state..."(83a) This quote seems odd to me coming from Socrates. I may be mistaking but I was under the impression that through the theory of recollection there is no such thing as learning. Therefore Socrates surely would not be addressing those that practice philosophy as lovers of learning since there is only recollection, not learning. If Socrates truly means that the soul who practices philosophy is a lover of learning then what would these people be learning? Is it perhaps only philosophers who maintain a good soul, void of bodily connection, have the ability to learn and add to their knowledge before departing this life? If this is in any way true then philosophers would becomes Gods in a way because they have the ability to advance their knowledge. Before Socrates had said that knowledge and virtue was a divine gift from the Gods. Those that have the ability to add to what has been God given must be in some way a god.
While reading Plato’s Phaedo I was most interested by Socrates’ ability to be lackadaisical in regards to his soon approaching death. His argument to his friends as to why he does not resent dying is because he has already been in practice. As a philosopher, Socrates, does not have attachments to worldly things such as possessions, reputation, money, people, etc. By not allowing himself to be caught up in the pains and pleasures of the body he is able to focus all his energy on knowledge and the search for wisdom, truth. The philosopher that frees the soul from association from the body as much as possible while alive is preparing for death when the soul will be separated from the body and will be free from the body’s demands to be materialistic and can then be free to be in pure knowledge and presence with the gods. “And indeed the soul reasons best when none of these senses troubles it, neither hearing nor sight, nor pain nor pleasure, but when it is most by itself, taking leave of the body and as far as possible having no contact or association with it in its search for reality.” (p.102, 65c). This opening discussion in the dialogue struck me distinctly because it related to the allegory of the cave in Plato’s Republic which many of us read in Philosophy and Responsibility. If I remember correctly it was explained to me that the philosophers were outside of the cave seeing reality for what it was because they were so unattached to all things material in our world, the inside of the cave. The people in the cave could not be detached like the philosophers because they put too high a priority on all things and concepts over wisdom and truth and made themselves unable to accept that what truth they think they knew may not be reality at all. Those outside the cave were able to see beyond what governments tell them and find real truth and therefore listen to their souls and not their body’s demands, preparing them for death where they will be ultimately pure and hold wisdom.
Phaedo was my favorite of Plato's texts so far. multiple aspects of education are found in this text; physics, math, religion, psychology, etc. In Phaedo they all seem to exist harmoniously, each discipline feeds off the next, unlike today. The part on knowledge of the "equal" sent me into a daydream. I have always believed that mathematics is our gateway into the universe (though I hate it). with Socrates' statement about out innate understanding of equality, I realized that we do know things regardless of whether we are educated at all or not. These things could be called the foundation of human knowledge. We know equality to inequality, more to less, up to down. We don't know them through words, but through ideas. These ideas, when translated into the language of numbers, become math. It's as if we understand mathematics (the forms and theories behind it) before we are taught it, which would mean (in my mind), that the first thing we are born into this world with would be a knowledge, however finite, of the universe. Yeah I got carried a way a bit, but hopefully it makes some sense. that's what went through my mind when reading Phaedo.
I thought that Socrates description of death as: "that the body comes to be separated by itself apart form the soul, and the soul comes to be separated by itself apart from the body..." was extremely interesting. When he continues to talk about how the body is essentially not good- and that there is freedom in death, it brings up a huge question: Is dying bad? Is dying only sad because the people left behind are left to deal with the earthly things, like pain, sadness, etc?
Later on- I loved his rational about dying; on page 109, when he talks about death being the opposite of life- and how death is a result of living, and life is the result of dying, and there is a sense of an everlasting and continuous cycle of living and dying...which may or may not exist- but it is interesting to think about.
Personally, I think Socrates is curious about death- and dies with a forward-looking approach to his death- he does not die with a regretful and sorrowful mindset- he is open to the next place...the next opportunity to to examine life...
Later on, the references to the Odyssey reverberated greatly within my mind while reading. Last semester while reading the Odyssey, it seems to people in Odysseus' homeland that he has died, because he is not present with them, and there is no contact with him etc... and there is also that feeling while reading Odysseus' internal struggle, he continues to speak about his fighting soul (which would imply separation of his soul and his physical body) which raises the question of "is Odysseus dead?" and from that "death" does he experience rebirth- or a new life...which would couple itself well with the approach that Socrates mentions before his death (the idea that I mentioned before)
I also liked the idea of the soul being deathless...that caused me to stop and think about the whole death issue...do we actually die? or is it more of a stepping or a transferring of ourselves into the next layer...another universe in which we become the strangers that walk by us every day...alive in one place...dead in another? this thought was provoked by one of Socrates last lines: "utter a prayer to the gods that the journey from here to yonder may be fortunate..." (p 153, 117c)
this was a great book, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it- and it has brought to mind many things that often go without thought, i loved the direction that it let my mind wander!!
Post a Comment