Halliwell Sum&Q

 “The Life-and-Death Journey of the Soul: Interpreting the Myth of Er” by Stephen Halliwell

In Stephen Halliwell’s article, Halliwell begins by addressing the questions that arise from the Myth of Er. According to Halliwell Plato “brings the Republic to a close in a visionary mode whose complexity tests the limits of understanding” (445). His main concerns are that the myth attempts to accomplish tasks that are too ambitious. Although he introduces his three concerns regarding the myth, his focus is on exploring the “character of the passage as an elaborative piece of philosophical writing” (445). Therefore, Halliwell’s end goal is to examine the Myth of Er from a philosophical perspective instead of accepting it because of its authority.

Initially, the myth seems to be an image that supports the idea that the just man will receive his just rewards. Er’s soul is able to observe the procedures that occur after death. He is able to see things like the judgment of souls and the souls choosing their next life (446). In essence, the myth is supposed to enhance the idea that justice prevails and that it is a virtue that should be sought after. Even though the story of the myth supports the just man, there are some issues that arise from the structure of the myth. These structural issues are what Halliwell is concerned about when dealing with the interpretation of the myth.

The first structural issue is the ambiguity of the myth. There are parts of the myth that resemble traditional Greek myths, but other parts are completely different. Halliwell deems the Myth of Er to be a reinvented myth so that Plato could use this style of myth “for his own philosophical purposes” (447). Basically, Plato invents a new format of myth to better suit his needs, which does lead to confusion in the interpretation of it. For instance, the myth can be read as a “philosophically transfigured Odyssey” (447) or as an “antipoetic slant” (448). The myth resembles the Odyssey in that in each there is a quest, an end-goal, and many dangers. Eventually the hero of the myth will reach his end goal like Odysseus reaching his home and the soul’s quest for eternal happiness (449). The myth could also be considered antipoetic because it reads more like a history than poetry. The style of the myth seems more historical than poetic. Also, Halliwell makes the point that poetry would usually describe the main character, but Er is not given much description, making it seem less poetic. Therefore, when looking at the word choice or structure of the myth, it reveals that this myth is original in its structure and format.

Although Halliwell has deemed the myth to be antipoetic, he does say there is one part of the myth that is poetic. “The myth of Er…places human life against a background of cosmic order and eternal justice” (450). According to the criteria already set in the Republic, the myth offers an antitragic vision of the world. It does so through the character that chooses to be a tyrant. He chooses to be a tyrant, which condemns him to a life of misery. Therefore, it seems like there is a sense of poetic justice enacted upon the man for attempting to be selfish. We learn that this soul was somewhat virtuous in his first life but was “without philosophy” (451). If this is so, what does this suggest to readers about philosophy? Is it now possible for souls to be put into the category of “incurable” (452) and be forever unredeemable?  Bringing attention to these questions, Halliwell is able to promote that the myth can be read as a philosophical writing.

Now that Halliwell has established that the myth is philosophical, it makes more sense that there are “multiple levels of significance” that can accommodate many different elements. In order to interpret the myth, one has to acknowledge the “shifting layers of meaning”, which include “both literal and nonliteral” (256). Having these realizations, Halliwell tackles the difficulty of philosophizing on “the myth’s controlling themes of soul immortality, eschatological judgment, and reincarnation” (458). The main issue is that the myth promotes that the soul will survive even if there is bodily death. However, in the myth, Plato depicts the souls as “embodied” (459). There is a disconnect between the soul surviving, but also being part of the body. For example, “Er’s soul continues to behave entirely like an incarnate person” (461) although his physical body is not present. In essence this contradiction brings up the question of what the myth is actually suggesting about an afterlife. Is the myth making claims about a literal afterlife or is it an allegory of embodied life (463)?

Halliwell also adds to this confusion by pointing out the concept of choice in the myth. In the myth, souls have the choice to choose their next life, which also suggests that people could potentially be “paying the price” (464) of a former soul. However, Socrates promotes that everything a person does is a result of his own choice. This of course is where the confusion surfaces because the myth seems to suggest otherwise. Halliwell resolves this conflict through an explanation of a “this-worldly” reading of the myth and through philosophy. The myth is philosophical promoting that “the soul’s salvation…is to be found nowhere else than inside its capacity to determine its own ethical self by choosing between good and evil” (469-470). Therefore, in this world, the soul has the ability to make every choice with the knowledge that its choice will impact its outcome in the future.

Halliwell ends his article by bringing to attention that Socrates’ final remark is how the myth “could save us, if we are persuaded by it” (470). Even though there seems to be contradictions in the myth, the purpose of it is to persuade us that the just man gets his just rewards in the afterlife. Therefore, if readers are able to be persuaded into believing this, Plato has accomplished his goal. Regardless of how readers come to believe it, Halliwell is trying to understand and be persuaded from a philosophical sense rather than blindly believing.

1) Does the Myth of Er leave readers satisfied as an ending? Is it acceptable that readers are left with more questions rather than answers?

2) Is the Myth of Er similar to the other myths in the text?

3) Does the soul that chose to be a tyrant have a realistic chance of breaking the cycle?

4) If souls are immortal, why should we try to be just?

5) How convincing is the Myth of Er in swaying readers to be persuaded by it?