Phaedo and Cratylus

In Phaedo, Socrates claims that a true philosopher should not be afraid of death but should look forward to it. For, in death, the soul is separated from the body, and this separation from the body allows the soul to obtain true knowledge through reason. Socrates argues that the body is incapable of obtaining true knowledge because its senses are deceiving, and according to Socrates, “the soul reasons best when none of these senses troubles it” (Phaedo 65c). Socrates claims that the body is unable to understand things in themselves. The soul is only capable of achieving this. For example, the term “beautiful” in itself cannot be explored by the senses of the body. The body is capable of applying this term to objects saying, “this painting is beautiful because of the arrangement of colors,” but the body is not able to adequately explore the term “beautiful” absent of an object. However, the soul has the ability to examine the term “beautiful” in itself.

This theory that Plato introduces in Phaedo mirrors the theory of names that is presented Cratylus. Plato argues that in obtaining knowledge, or an understanding about something, one should not seek for this knowledge in the object’s name but in the object itself. Now, in the Cratylus, Socrates not does provide a means of achieving this. He claims that this process of gaining true knowledge of an object with the absence of the object’s name is “too large a topic” to be discussed. Well, I am proposing that this theory that is proposed in Phaedo is precisely the answer of how to obtain knowledge about an object absent of its name--you achieve this through the soul.

Da soul and da philosopher's profession

In the Phaedo dialogue, Plato brings up some serious speculation about souls and the afterlife. I say “serious speculation”, not because the subject matter is serious (although it is) but because the arguments and reasoning used by Plato is highly conjectural. For example, Socrates makes use of an old legend in order to state that the “living come into being again from the dead” (pg. 53, 70d). This eventually leads to his “opposites from opposites” argument, which I think everybody thought was ridiculous in class. This is important to note because I find it really interesting how Socrates says “true philosophers make dying their profession, and that to them of all men death is least alarming” (pg. 50, 67e). I’m wondering how the philosopher’s profession could primarily be about a topic that is so indefinite. Philosophy to me seems to be about knowledge, and the philosopher’s profession would be one that pertains to a bit more certainty and conclusiveness than Plato suggests here. However a thing that is entailed in the philosopher’s preparation for death is the nourishment of the soul through doing philosophy, and doing philosophy in of itself has a definite degree of certainty. The only uncertainty is in terming the philosopher’s profession as one of dying and/or preparing for death.

Also, I think Plato would regard the soul as being something more animate and alive, rather than ethereal and mysterious. An example of this would be when he is talking about how the philosopher “frees his soul from association with the body” (pg. 47, 65a). This implies that the soul is a living thing because only living things can be trapped and/or freed. A further example is just in the length of his discussion of the soul. He talks about it a lot, which probably shows that he does not regard it as something beyond his comprehension.

Using Phaedo to Define a Soul

I am going to focus on the discussion in Phaedo that starts at 77b about how the soul can continue to exist after the body has died. By this point Socrates has already established a soul that exists before the body and is used to enable individuals to think they are learning new information, they actually are recalling information that their soul had access to before it was confined to a body.

Throughout 78 and 79 Socrates argues that there are two kinds of substances in the world, the visible and the invisible. He defines the invisible as being noncomposite and unchanging. While at first he just makes the case that forms are in the invisible category he quickly groups souls along with the invisible category. This categorization quickly becomes a problem because Socrates then tries to distinguish different kinds of souls from one another. In doing so he sets up a system of how the soul is supposed to interact with the body. For Socrates the greater the impact the body has on the soul the worse it is for the soul and the soul becomes weighted down and can therefore not reach the level of the forms after death and instead is reincarnated as either an animal or if the individual was good enough a human. In making it so that a soul can inhabit bodies of different species Socrates is making a statement about the nature of the soul. This means that the soul does not have anything to do with reason since that differs on a species basis. This also means that the soul does not contain the inner monologue that an individual has since not all species are capable of language (the inner monologue depends upon language).

As mentioned earlier Socrates thinks that the more of an impact the body has on a soul the more weighed down the soul becomes. This is a problem because of Socrates earlier categorization of souls with the invisible, unchanging, and noncomposite beings. Having the soul in this category was important for Socrates because many people in his time believed that when you died your soul dissipated like a breath and could fade away.

What you end up with is a soul that does not have memory of anything besides forms (because of how language is connected to memory and language is species based), that cannot reason, that does not maintain an inner dialogue, that is weakened by the attachment of a body, and that may or may not be in the same category as forms. Even if the soul is in the same category as forms and is thus unchanging, what you are left with is at most some basic features of the soul as a sort of guiding principle (as discussed in the Republic) that may contain key personality traits (since people become animals that they resemble in personality). I doubt this form of a soul, with so little left to its name, would be much comfort to anyone as a form of eternal life.

Is Plato still relevant today?

Plato, through the spokesperson of Socrates, makes many assumptions about the world and how it operates, both physically and metaphysically. In Phaedo, Socrates is determined to prove the immortality of the soul and his Theory of Recollection. Mixed in all of this is his discussion about Forms. While Socrates’ theories might have been applicable over two thousand years ago, are they still applicable now?

When Socrates discusses sight, for him, the eyes emit light and they observe things, something we know to be false. Similarly, we know what color consists of, it is the wavelengths in the spectrum of light, a concept unfamiliar to Socrates. Another major issue is his belief in the immortality and reincarnation of the soul. While the concept of immortality of the soul is still an on-going discussion today, there are several flaws with his belief in the reincarnation of souls as it applies to his (completely baffling) Theory of Opposites. If souls are immortal and reincarnated, then there must be an infinite minus one number of souls, or else there would be no room for population growth. However, this still seems to contradict Socrates’ Theory of Opposites, which is all about balance. If that many souls exist, then those that are currently “dead” or not in a current incarnation, would vastly outnumber the amount of “living” souls, and the imbalance would have been even greater in the time of Socrates.

Secondly, I am still not convinced by Socrates’ Theory of Recollection. If all knowledge is already there in the soul and we must simply “remember” it by asking the right questions and pursuing philosophy, there where is the room for innovation and invention? How can a society make strides in new technology, or fiction exist as a genre of literature? Unless there is a Form for imagination that is unlimited (but I’m still not entirely sure how that would work) space travel and each alien species created in the imagination would prove this theory wrong.

If all of this is true, then is Socrates' theories only valid if applied to his socio-cultural environment? Does his philosophy exist in a temporal vacuum limited to Ancient Greece? If not, then how do his concepts of the world hold up to all the knowledge and advancements in today’s society?

Forms and Standards

The question I wish to propose here is this: justification aside, to what effect would Plato’s theory of Forms, as discussed primarily using the terminology of the invisible, rather than the visible, realm such as around Phaedo 79a, contribute to an overall change within a society’s cultural metaphysical understanding? To what extent does this advocacy of a perfect, idealistic afterlife for all the virtuous ones so to speak (namely philosophers as far as this text is concerned) establish a perhaps lessened appreciation for life and of the aspects of living if, as Plato seems to propose, these Forms are to be the standards by which all of existence must be compared?

Emphasis throughout the text of Phaedo is placed at great length upon the two strata of a soul’s existence existing before and after this present reality, yet for the most part it would seem to disregard what otherwise Aristotelian philosophy would tend to cover in much greater detail: life as a human being. Within The Nicomachean Ethics, for example, there is great concern for the actions of an individual morally and ethically speaking insofar as it is possible for a human being. One should strive towards the mean within all his or her actions and behaviors, and yet even though Aristotle briefly alludes to a perfect embodiment of one who attains this ‘golden mean’, this great-souled man, the ideal is not one which is conceived as being attainable practically. The theory of means does not present all who fail as deficient by nature in the same manner as do the Forms of Plato, rather they simply serve to illustrate in an understandable, relatable format the abstract concepts of temperance, magnanimity, the virtuous friendship, etc.

For Socrates at Phaedo 74e offers this question: “whenever someone, on seeing something, realizes that that which he now sees wants to be like some other reality but falls short and cannot be like that other since it is inferior, do we agree that the one who thinks this must have prior knowledge of that to which he says is like, but deficiently so?” Within the argument advocating for the theory of recollection, there are comparisons made between the invisible and visible realms by Plato for the purposes of accepting the former over the latter as the more desirable.

Although even in modern society individuals may happen upon a certain balance between reality and the afterlife, as the duties of civilized life necessitate for such, ultimately Plato’s theory of Forms would appear to haunt one’s experience of daily living. Surely standards cannot be abolished from the psyche of this social creature that is the human being, for coherent communication would seem to require some ideal essence within an object so as to be able to distinguish its most complete form from what may be seen at present. Concerning the notion of equality, Socrates states to Simmias that “it is definitely from the equal things, though they are different from that Equal, that you have derived and grasped the knowledge of equality” (74c). Granted that when measuring the length, depth, breadth, extent, and so forth, one needs a standard by which to measure differences between two objects, and yet could not the Forms, or Heaven to use a modern conceptual term, be no different than our society’s anorexic supermodel, whose ideal nature is no more conventionalist than what is proffered by Hermogenes within the Cratylus?

In other words, often when one is presented by what is some notion of perfection, that individual is usually compelled to shape his or her life and natural inclinations to resemble what is perfect, usually what seems to be at the cost of their sense of being human, inextricably flawed. For, rather than working towards some noble cause, ideals in beauty, for example, more often strive to root out the many original differences between individuals, much as is often the case with women who are compared to an ideal so as to highlight minute variations and extricate them. As such, would not individuals arguably be seen to lean towards the conclusion that death would be more significant than life given that the afterlife was to be of such a more enticing, desirable caliber?

The soul

In Plato’s dialogue in Phaedo, Socrates discusses the nature of life after death. To me, the idea of immortality means an endless life or existence. I think that in Plato’s Phaedo, the idea of the soul being immortal is from the spiritual perspective, kind of similar or relating to Christianity and other religions, and it becomes one of the main topics of discussion. Socrates begins with talking about the nature of the soul and he describes it as being separate from the body. In 70a, it is implied that the soul is something physical or material because they were talking about the soul being destroyed. In 70b, the discussion moves to questioning what the soul is capable of and it was said that the soul possesses power and wisdom.

I think that these ideas to tie in with his theory of recollection. If the soul is immortal and it is continually being reborn again, then that would explain part of how the soul knows everything. But then why is it that when we are born again we forget everything that the soul has learned and we have to try and recollect everything? This part is explained in Plato’s other works but it isn’t explained here. But honestly I feel unsatisfied with the way the soul is portrayed because it seems incomplete. I don’t understand what the function of the soul is and also if the soul is material, then what is it made of? If the soul is immortal then that means that it can’t be destroyed.

Lastly, here again Socrates begins an argument and fails to complete it. There is no answer to any of these things about the soul and he leaves us with this endless list of questions. I would just like to know what virtue is, what knowledge is, and what the soul is. If Socrates would just finish what he starts I would be a much happier person.

Thoughts on Plato

The first blog I attempted to post was done incorrectly because I created a new blog altogether; after some searching, I found the blog. The following is from that time:

During our reading of Theatetus (PHI 360), the topic of knowledge came into play, both in the metaphysical sense and the theoretical sense. While approaching the concept of knowledge from a theoretical sense, Branden asked whether we can understand knowledge as being quantitative or qualitative. At the time, we didn't spend much time developing that idea out; I hope to do so here.

There seems to be two ways of understanding knowledge that each provide interesting routes. We can either understand the concept and thing-hood of knowledge as a summation of its parts or it can be understood qualitatively. When I say qualitatively, I mean to say knowledge can be understood independent from the examples it provides; this idea, to me, seems similar to the discussion provided by Socrates on the topic of "the good" vs. "a good" in the republic.

I believe that knowledge can only be understood conceptually as being qualitatively; however, just as a scientific theory necessitates hypothesis (and the premises that preclude the hypothesis) that can be tested, so also it seems necessary to evaluate examples of knowledge quantitatively to judge the overall theory of knowledge qualitatively.

Additionally, the concept of knowledge is in and of itself a truth that is capable of standing independently, just as the concept of color can exist without the necessity of providing examples. However, for the sake of ascribing what is and isn't knowledge, it is necessary to judge an opinion as being true or false. It is also necessary to provide an account of what has been stated so that if the opinion is determined as false or true, future philosophers are influenced correctly from the judgement brought upon it.

It is here that the opinion or concept of knowledge is influenced quantitatively by a majority rule. Even so, it seems possible that an error might be made in judging the opinion as either knowledge or ignorance; the repercussions of this seem to be great regardless of the outcome. Even if a false opinion is crushed, a negative outcome occurs from this: the extermination of future statements from the individual who made the opinion (both true and false). John Stuart Mill touches on this much later in the series of time, but I believe it is prudent to know as well.

The Soul

Following up on this week's discussions and texts:

I would suggest that some more discussion of the soul in Plato's Phaedo is called for. Though I am sure we'll get to it in class!

For instance, what do we think the soul is - what is its nature, what is it made of, and what does it do? Does Plato think of it as a source of life, or is it more of an ethereal, mysterious, and spiritual kind of thing (perhaps similar to the Christian sense)?

Also, although I think it's pretty certain that Plato incorporates earlier theories of the soul in the Phaedo (principally the Pythagorean and Heraclitean ones), I wonder what we make of the notion that the soul is subject to the cosmic process of always emerging and fading according to oppositions? That is, on what ground is it right to say that human birth always emerges from death, and that death conversely always comes from life? One alternative a discerning reader might suggest is that the soul should just *be* - that there's not a demonstrable reason for why it's subject to ebb and flow, wax and wane, coming and going. Presumably the eternal motions of the heavens are more like this; in addition, I would suppose that the life of G(g)od(s) is more like this model.

It's not necessary to post in reply to this specific entry - but this is some food for thought.