Whether this is true or not, you do not ignore a passage where Socrates says it was shown. ??? — frank

This is something he said many times already. He says he repeats it as an incantation.

You ignored other people's views or had their posts deleted. — Apollodorus

I am not able to delete other people's posts and had nothing to do with them being deleted.

I asked for comments on what was being read, not what you can find on Wiki or elsewhere. It is my opinion that Plato must be read rather than read about.

Thus, at the very close of the defence of immortality, at the point where argument reaches its limit, and is about to give way to eschatological myth, Socrates is seen yet again reaffirming the Hades mythology — Apollodorus

This is entirely consistent with what I have said. The immortality of the soul has not been shown because to do so would go beyond the limits of argument. Of course he reaffirms the mythology. How could he persuade them otherwise?

It looks like you have deliberately chosen another, incomplete translation because it suits your agenda. Sedley & Long’s translation and commentary would have demolished your theory. — Apollodorus

I used the translation I have and online translations I found. If I had used Sedley and Long I would have skipped the introduction.

You responded that you ignore it because he didn't show it. wtf? — frank

Socrates did not show that the soul is immortal. I laid out the arguments. Read what Socrates says to Simmias when he expresses his doubts. Read what he says about the limits of arguments. Read what he says about the evaluation of arguments.

He just finished a myth that included the immortality of the soul and followed it with:

No sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think it is fitting for a man to risk the belief—for the risk is a noble one—that this, or something like this, is true about our souls and their dwelling places … (114d)

As I said, if the immortality of the soul has been demonstrated there would be nothing to risk in believing what has been shown to be true is true.

Myth or silence. — Banno

My first reaction is different audience. With Christianity there was by the time the Tractatus was written more than enough myth.

Actually you used this thread to write an essay. You didn't engage other viewpoints. — frank

Actually, the essay was written over the period of a week. Several times I asked for viewpoints on the section under discussion.

Your approach is odd. It's normal to bring something personal to interpretation, but it's not normal to edit a work based on your views. — frank

I did not edit the work, I pointed to a specific point. Whenever we quote from a text we do not include the whole of the work.

Had it ever occurred to you that you may not have understood the arguments? — frank

Of course, but no one has actually shown where I have misunderstood them. I have repeated asked you to do so,

Why should I give you my translation — Apollodorus

Why should you copy and paste the Greek?

Once again, there are no missing words. I left the words out and I explained why. Instead of addressing that you keep returning to the same uninformed claim.

Why do you think this undermines the assertion of the immortality of the soul? — Wayfarer

I don't. It is the arguments that fail. In the absence of reason he uses myths and charms as a means of persuasion.

Could it not be the case that the exhortation to ‘repeat such things to himself’ is so as not to loose sight of the importance of the ‘care of the soul’? — Wayfarer

But it is in life that he exhorts them to care for their soul. No one knows what happens in death.

I find that a much more cohesive explanation, than the idea that Socrates (and Plato) are covertly signalling doubt about the immortality of the soul. — Wayfarer

We need to follow the arguments are draw conclusions or be persuaded by charms or incantations.



.

Read the essay.

So, why are you using the Grube translation that is obviously faulty? — Apollodorus

You are confused. On the one hand you fault the translation and on the other my omitted part of the translation. Regarding the former, I linked the translation. See for yourself and tell me where it is obviously faulty. As to my choice of omission, see the other thread.

The Grube translation is highly regarded by scholars. Brann's translation says much the same thing.

There is no such thing as the "correct version". Each translator has to make choices. If there were a correct version there would be no need for new translations.

And speaking of transating, why don't you translate the Greek above in your own words? After all, it is, as you say "very clear". Why bother with Sedley and Long or any other translation?

That's precisely why it doesn't seem right to leave out statements like "since the soul is shown to be immortal" from the translation unless you have a good reason or explanation for it, which you don't seem to have. — Apollodorus

Read it in context. The myth is about the soul's immortality. It is followed by the statement above calling the truth of the myth into question. Once again, I do not include it because he did not show the soul's immortality. To repeat that the soul is immortal is to sing the incantation.

Socrates has already shown at 72a - 73a why it is logical to believe in the immortality of soul and rebirth. — Apollodorus

You have not bothered to read what I said about that argument. It does not show that it is logical, but you have to follow the argument to see that. I did. A statement is not an argument.

Obviously, Socrates has no hard proof, but he has presented convincing arguments which are accepted by Cebes while Simmias is still doubting. And even Simmias in the end is nearly fully convinced. — Apollodorus

Yes, Cebes accepts it. He accepts everything Socrates says, even when it should be clear to a thoughtful reader that he should not. In fact, Socrates himself makes it clear that he should not. Both Cebes and Simmias are followers of Pythagoras. They come into the discussion believing in the immortality of the soul. The fact that at the end Simmias is less certain does not show that the arguments convinced him, just the opposite.

On the whole, what the dialogue is showing is that the philosopher should accept a belief only after rationally examining and analyzing it. — Apollodorus

Then why the need for myth? Again, all of this is discussed.

That's the only way to acquire knowledge instead of relying on opinion or belief. — Apollodorus

But in the end all they have is opinion and belief. They do not have knowledge of the fate of the soul.

There is absolutely no need to read too much into the text. — Apollodorus

It is not reading into the text, which was something you were quite anxious to do. It is carefully reading the text. But clearly you think there is no need to read the text at all.

You posted the same thing elsewhere, but did not accuse me of using a "fake translation".

You have accused me before of making things up but when I cited sources you just moved on to something else. That demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity, both intellectual and emotional.

It is from the Grube translation:http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-09-15.2713280635/file

There you cited another translation. My comments:

You neglect to include the following from this translation:

and he ought to repeat such things to himself as if they were magic charms

Whether or not the soul has been shown to be immortal is a basic question of my essay. I show how and why each of the arguments fail. It is because the arguments fail that he used myths to persuade, charms and incantations.

Note how many of the translations you cite include the idea that it is worth the risk to believe. If something has been proven to be true there is no reason to risk believing it is true.

Thank you. I am familiar with some of the secondary literature but chose to read the dialogue itself by itself without recourse to it. My intention was in part to demonstrate how a Platonic dialogue can be read; or at least one way it can be read.

Your wife is right,you are wrong,your thermometer is not the judge. — Zenny

My wife is the judge of whether or not she feels hot, a properly calibrated thermometer does not judge it, simply provides an accurate reading of the temperature.

Your posts and assertions show you value dialectic over intuition. — Zenny

But this is not what you accused me of and not what I responded to. You accused me of worshiping dialectics. I don't. But you are right, I do value dialectic over intuition.

It is evident that you prefer to live in a world of your own making. Good luck to you.

You neglect to include the following from this translation:

and he ought to repeat such things to himself as if they were magic charms

Whether or not the soul has been shown to be immortal is a basic question of my essay. I show how and why each of the arguments fail. It is because the arguments fail that he used myths to persuade, charms and incantations.

Note how many of the translations you cite include the idea that it is worth the risk to believe. If something has been proven to be true there is no reason to risk believing it is true.

Not sure if that adds anything; it's a pretty standard take. Basically, Christianity does a number on what Nietzsche's takes to be "life" and this is not due to later perversions of a corrupt institutional church - it's right there in the words and deeds of Jesus. — Erik

It is not clear what Jesus meant by "Kingdom of God is at hand". Some take it to mean a geopolitical change, but others interpreted it as a change in the person. Paul, on the other hand, is quite clear. The world was at any moment going to undergo a fundamental change with only the saved remaining as "spirit bodies" (I think he gets this from Plato's Phaedo). It, of course, did not happen.

Paul taught that we are born in sin and must be saved. The physical body is a slave to sin. Hence the saved will be "spirit bodies". The Earth will be transformed to Heaven on Earth.

Typically subjectivist. — counterpunch

It is not subjectivist. It reasonably follows from the claim that he is going to doubt everything that he will doubt the Church's authority.

From Meditation IV — counterpunch

These are assumptions and certainly are not indubitable.

This is Descartes rescuing his "certain truth" that he exist, from the oblivion of solipsism with reference to God. — counterpunch

He cannot rescue his certain truth by appeal to something that is not a certain truth. He has already rejected this route:

But how can I know there is not something different from those things that I have just considered, of which one cannot have the slightest doubt? Is there not some God, or some other being by name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself?

Descartes took his motto from Ovid:

He who lived well hid himself well.

You are not able to see through his rhetoric. You are not alone. But even in his own time not everyone was fooled.

.

When your hot do you dispute that? — Zenny

Good example! My wife says she is hot or cold and wants to turn the temperature up and down. The thermostat, however, is set at a specific temperature. 70 degrees F is the temperature whether she feels hot or cold.

Maybe you are too young or too sheltered to have ever found that your intuitive certainty about something turned out to be wrong, but it happens all the time.

Is it your intuitive certainty that led you to conclude that I am a worshiper of dialectics? If you had actually read the essay on Plato's Phaedo that you said you did you would know that this is false.

if I'm eternal — Zenny

Well I'm not dealing in "ifs" here. — Zenny

Having a feeling of eternity does not mean you are eternal. You want to believe otherwise.

But you want more than just the comfort of your beliefs. You asked me why I am unsure of eternity, and then, on the basis of your feeling, tried to persuade me of eternity.

You conflate a feeling of eternity with life after death. For all you know, that feeling will die along with you.

Nope,of course not. — Zenny

What are you denying? I am not questioning whether you have this feeling, I am questioning whether it goes beyond that, that there is an eternity that is more than just your feeling. If I have a feeling I am going to win the lottery, I cannot be mistaken that I have this feeling, but that does not mean I will win the lottery.

Again, your feeling has nothing to do with what might happen when you die. You seem to have lost track of your own argument.

I've already stated some can be mistaken — Zenny

Do you include the feeling or experience or intuition of eternity in things about which one might be mistaken?

he seemed to be trying to hand the authority of reason to the church. — frank

I posted something right before yours that addresses this. He is trying to appease the Church. The authority is the self that thinks.

He was obviously addressing his philosophical ideas to them. — frank

Right. They had the authority to ban his writings and lock him up.

Because one you don't feel that yourself,so its disingenuous to tell me. — Zenny

I said: "if you feel". That has nothing to do with what I do or do not feel. Some people do have a feeling of being able to fly. When acted on it can be fatal. Having a feeling does not mean that feeling is anything more than a feeling, whether it is the feeling you can fly or competently do philosophy or whatever.

because you're wrong, and offer no evidence, or even argument that you're right — counterpunch

No argument needed. If he begins by doubting everything that includes doubting the Church. Of course he makes it appear otherwise.

From the Second Meditation:

Archimedes, in order that he might draw the terrestrial globe out of its place, and transport it elsewhere, demanded only that one point should be fixed and immoveable; in the same way I shall have the right to conceive high hopes if I am happy enough to discover one thing only which is certain
and indubitable.

But how can I know there is not something different from those things that I have just considered, of which one cannot have the slightest doubt? Is there not some God, or some other being by name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself?

I myself, am I not at least something?

But what then am I? A thing which thinks.

This is his Archimedean point. The one thing that is fixed and immovable, the one thing certain and indubitable, he exists and is a thinking thing. It is not the Church or God but the thinking self that is the starting point from which all that is certain and indubitable follows.

OK. Follow this closely, if you feel eternity then you feel you are forever. You feel you are not your material body. Thus death is not the materialist "nothingness". — Zenny

Follow this closely, if you feel you can jump out the window and fly then you feel you can, but you can't. Try it.

If Descartes doubted the authority of the Church, he was very quiet about it, and no-one heard him. — counterpunch

You misunderstood my point.The Church was the final authority on all matters philosophical and scientific. To challenge this authority was to risk the fate of Galileo. Descartes begins by doubting everything, which means doubting the teachings of the Church. He replaces the authority of the Church with the authority of the thinking self and reason

Read my post. You can experience a feeling of eternity. — Zenny

Your feeling has nothing to do with what might happen when you die. You seem to have lost track of your own argument.

Descartes however, wet his pants - and concocted a skeptical argument for subjectivism to flatter the Church's emphasis of the spiritual over the mundane — counterpunch

Descartes' doubt gave him the cover to doubt the authority of the Church.

@fishfry

I am not going to continue playing a part in another of your political rants, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to facts.

Perhaps you will have the decency to allow this thread to get back on topic.

I am criticizing those who in the past year constantly called policy by the name of science. — fishfry

For the majority of the past year your man Trump was in office. You know, the guy who tried to get the National Weather Service to back up his claims about the path of a hurricane to make him look less stupid than he is.

A test run of man-made bioweapon — fishfry

What evidence do you have of that? Again, you hear part of something and make up your own story or blindly believe conspiracy theories as if the are "alternative facts". Even if it came from a lab that does mean it was deliberately released as a test run of a bio-weapon.

I did not say she got what she deserved. I questioned your comparison to what happened to a man who was killed by having his neck kneeled on for over nine minutes.

Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire article. — fishfry

Then why make claims about what you didn't read?

Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility. — fishfry

And why do you think that is?

Science works by saying, "Let's keep an open mind and look at the facts." Not, "Let's decide on one conclusion in spite of available facts, and deplatform and smear anyone who dares to differ." That's anti-science, and that is what happened over the past year. — fishfry

In addition to not bothering to read the article you linked to it seems you have not bothered to find out the facts either.

Fauci is a political hack who changed his mind and flipflopped with the wind. Fauci is anti-science. — fishfry

It was the political hack who was elected President who suppressed the facts and forced Fauci to play by his rules. He is not anti-science and has the credentials to prove it.

A year ago, when people suggested a lab origin, they were deplatformed, fired from their scientific jobs, and labeled conspiracy theorists. That's politics, not science. — fishfry

What evidence did they have? What did Tom Cotton know? You admit that the origin is unknown. What someone "suggests" in this situation is irresponsible without solid evidence. That evidence is, by your own admission, not available.

You'd have made a good German. And if she deserved everything she got. didn't George Floyd? — fishfry

And you'd have make a piss-poor philosopher. Was she tased to death?

Who said eternity doesn't involve time? It means continuous unending time.
And why can't that be experienced? — Zenny

You cannot experience a minute in less that a minute, or an hour in less than an hour, or 100 years in less than a hundred years. For the same reason you cannot experience eternity in less time.

This piece lacks credibility:

Now that it’s largely accepted that the disease escaped a Chinese laboratory, have any of those above issued a correction or so much as an update?

First of all, it may be widely accepted by readers of the Federalist, but it is not widely accepted by those who have the expertise and information to have an informed opinion. Second, there is at this point no reason to issue a correction, there is not conclusive evidence that it did come from a lab. Third, Fauci did issue an update. He said he is no longer convinced that it could not have come from a lab and thinks that more investigation is needed.

I found nothing in the article about "systematic suppression" of the origins of the virus.

Both you and whoever wrote this piece seem to not understand how science works. Did Tom Cotton have sufficient evidence to declare in February 2020 that the virus came from a lab? Without such evidence his claim was irresponsible. Fauci's response is both reasonable and responsible. Follow the evidence.

This is what Politifact has posted on its website:

Editor’s note, May 17, 2021: When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes.

The story has not been "retracted". That makes it seem as if Politifact now says that it did originate in lab. It too is waiting on the evidence.

I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question. — fishfry

That seems to be exactly what you are doing.

You suggest he experienced eternity or hunkered for it? — Zenny

I suggest you read the posts. You have time. It's long but won't take an eternity.

I followed that thread before i joined.
Plato does seem mighty keen on "proving" eternity? — Zenny

If you followed the thread with sufficient attention you would not have asked the question.

I just completed a long essay in several parts on Plato's Phaedo. Read it and get back to me if you want to discuss Plato.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1

What if it is? And what if it's not?

I have had no such intuition or feeling or experience.

Not every intuition or feeling or experience I have had turned out to be reliable.