I don't think particulars as substances is compatible with Descartes' mechanistic view. Descartes does not deal with such things as prime matter and substantial change.

final cause has yet to be jettisoned from science because it's embedded in biology. — frank

Are you claiming that final causes are embedded in Descartes' biology? He does, after all, regard animal bodies as machines, automata.

But perhaps I have missed your point.

Aquinas' physics is Aristotelian. It includes formal and final causes. In addition, his use of the term substance is different from Descartes. For Aquinas a substance is a thing. He uses the example of Socrates as a substance. For Descartes substances are not particulars, there are two substances, thinking and extended.

Some thoughts:

Descartes also did work in natural philosophy, optics, mechanics, physics, medicine, and so on. By regarding the physical world as mechanistic he jettisons final causes as well as the idea that mind or reason or God guides the course of things.

Recognition of the validity of thinking outside the Bible. — Mww

Descartes, like all educated people of his age, knew the Bible. I think he used the Bible to do something that was at once consistent with it and contrary to it.

The sayings of Jesus, New Testament and the doctrine of the Trinity are three different things. Jesus would have been appalled to find that he was deified. He made a clear distinction between himself, a human being and God. The New Testament is largely the work of Paul and John. The Trinity is a later invention. The idea that Jesus was the same ousia or being or substance as God and the Trinity were made official Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.

There have been many attempts to provide a rational explanation of the Trinity. All have failed, but this has not dissuaded believers.

I wanted to follow up on my comment about Euclid. Cartesian coordinates lined Euclidean geometry and algebra. Descartes sees it as a method for solving for any unknown. Symbols replace things.

I suppose there’s all kinds of ways to distinguish one from another, right? — Mww

One question that occured to me but I did not pursue it before is, why does he want to distinguish them?

@Valentinus

I edited my original response but did not know if you saw it. Just thought of another also on Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman. "The Being of the Beautiful", by Seth Benardete.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo5971393.html

The question that unifies these three dialogues is: who is the philosopher? The Statesman asks, who is the statesman? The Sophist, who is the Sophist? The Theaetetus, what is knowledge? There is no dialogue The Philosopher. It is up to the reader to ask, who is the philosopher. Perhaps he is discovered somewhere between these three other questions.


It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing?
— Valentinus

One that comes to mind is, "How Philosophy Became Socratic: A Study of Plato's Protagoras, Charmades, and Republic" by Laurence Lampert
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo8725147.html

He takes the dialogue in their dramatic chronology, how old Socrates was when the dialogue took place.

[Edit] Another is Plato's Trilogy : Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman, by Jacob Klein

There is an important distinction to be made. Determining that it came from a lab still does not tell us if it is natural or synthetic in origin. It might have been from contact with an infected animal or from the virus extracted from the animal or from something manufactured in the lab.

There are related questions such as whether the research was being done to understand viruses or to create and protect against biological or biochemical weapons.

Amity Ha ha! I think you've caught me out speculating now. (Remembering an earlier reminder to stick to the text....). — Cuthbert

I encourage you to continue the discussion. It is directly related to the text. Perhaps not what you had in mind but one meaning of from the gut is something known without being taught, inborn knowledge or recollection.

Is it the same to define a term, as it is to declare how it is meant to be understood? — Mww

I think there is some truth to this, but first an objection. How a term is meant to be understood is by definition a definition. He does make a distinction though:

But these are utterly simple notions, which don’t on their own give us knowledge of anything that exists ...

I take his point to be that we do not gain knowledge by analysis of definitions. It is in this regard a rejection of the method of Euclid.

But how he uses the term 'thought' is not "self-evident" or "sufficiently self-explanatory". His use of the term 'thought' includes sensory awareness. Can the mind/body distinction be made if sensory awareness is a matter of thought? He elsewhere claims the "substantial union" of mind and body. This is problematic because he identifies himself as mind or soul, in which case the body is other than one's self. The union then would a union of self and other.

Plato's criticism of Protagoras must be carefully read in context in order to see what he is and is not rejecting.

The Forms are presented as if they are transcendent truths, but they are hypotheses.

Man is the measure does not mean that what any man says is thereby true, but it is, after all, man who measures the arguments made by man. A transcendent standard by which to measure is not available to us.

From the Meditations:

Well, then, what am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses. (Second Meditation)

One thing I find odd about the Principles is that he says it is not necessary to define terms (10) but he says this right after defining thought (9). It may just be a response to critics who did exactly what some here are doing.

How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity

I answered this yesterday but I should have made the problem clearer. According to Socrates "safe" answer it is Life that brings life to the body.

Then, my friend, we were talking of things that have opposite qualities and naming these after them, but now we say that these opposites themselves, from the presence of which in them things get their name, never can tolerate the coming to be from one another.(103b-c)

According to this the correct answer is the presence of Life makes it living. This gives us the opposites Life and Death.

But after the unnamed man's question and the response Socrates gives above he begins again. According to this new beginning it is not Heat that makes a body hot but fire. (105b-c) We can now see why the new sophisticated answer is not a safe answer. In accord with this new beginning Socrates says:

Answer me then, what is it that, present in a body, makes it living?

Cebes: A soul. (105c)

There are two problems with this. Soul brings life to a body as fire brings heat, but just as the body loses heat when the fire dies, the body loses life when the soul dies. Socrates obscures this problem. He says the fire retreats, or the snow retreats, but these are things not Forms. The snow melts, the fire dies. Second, if there is Soul itself what is its opposite? It can't be body because in the presence of one Form its opposite retreats.

The statement in question is from "Discourse on The Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences".

In Part 1 he says:

From my childhood they fed me books, and because people convinced me that these could give me clear and certain knowledge of everything useful in life, I was extremely eager to learn them. But no sooner had I completed the whole course of study that normally takes one straight into the
ranks of the ‘learned’ than I completely changed my mind about what this education could do for me·. For I found myself tangled in so many doubts and errors that I came to think that my attempts to become educated had done me no good except to give me a steadily widening view of my
ignorance!

Descartes first stated intention is to break with the past. To begin again without reliance on what others have said.

Part 4 begins:

I don’t know whether I should tell you of the first meditations that I had there, for they are perhaps too metaphysical [here= ‘abstract’] and uncommon for everyone’s taste. But I have to report on them if you are to judge whether the foundations I have chosen are firm enough. I had long been aware that in practical life one sometimes has to act on opinions that one knows to be quite uncertain just as if they were unquestionably •true (I remarked on this above). But now that I wanted to devote myself solely to the search for truth, I thought I needed to do the exact opposite—to reject as if it were absolutely •false everything regarding which I could imagine the least doubt, so as to see whether this left me with anything entirely indubitable to believe.

'I' occurs 10 times in this paragraph, 'myself' and 'me' occur once each.

He begins anew with himself.

I decided to pretend that everything that had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams ...

Emphasis added.

But no sooner had I embarked on this project than I noticed that while I was trying in this way to think everything to be false it had to be the case that I, who was thinking this, was something.

Emphasis added.

He only pretends to doubt because as a practical matter one cannot doubt everything. In matters of knowledge or science Descartes replaces the doubted authority of the "learned" with "I" or one who uses the method of rightly conducting one’s reason.

Yes, I did understand that it was the basic assumption and condition of the argument not the conclusion — Amity

I know you did. I was drawing out the point.

I meant I can't grant him that basic assumption on which the argument relies or stands.
Shaky ground. — Amity

I agree. I think he himself says as much.

I think any conclusion or belief that the soul is immortal can't be deduced by argument.
Rather it is a matter of faith. — Amity

Right, and the myths are intended to strengthen that faith.

Perhaps it was necessary to convince his students of the divine, and ideal Form - an afterlife - so that they would be protected from danger. — Amity

Do you mean the danger of being run out or sentenced to death? Or some other danger? Misologic?

With Socrates as their mentor, they would have come under suspicion... — Amity

I take it you meant danger in the first sense. I think it may also apply in other ways.

Like this ? — Amity

Also like this:

And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit after its kind;

And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind

`Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:'

And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind (Genesis 1)

And this:

The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. (Darwin, The Descent of Man)

1.Why would you say that is the kind of things Mind as Form does ? — Amity

I think this points to a problem with regard to Forms and what, if anything, Forms do. Does Beauty make things beautiful? Does Justice make things just? Socrates says that Mind arranges or orders things. (97c) Is this 'Mind' a particular mind?

The problem of Forms as causes is incomplete. It is what he refers to as 'ignorant' or 'uneducated'. It is why he later revises this and re-introduces things like 'fire' and not just Heat as a cause.

2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity

Soul is that which brings life. Here again the distinction is blurred as it was with Snow and snow.

@Banno

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. — Fooloso4

A few more thoughts:

Wittgenstein's concept of language is far more restrictive than Plato's.

Plato addresses the psychology or character of the individual.

Plato and Wittgenstein have different temperments

Mind as Form is not the same as a particular mind. Does the Form cause the particular or is it the particular that creates the Form ? I think the latter, others will disagree. — Amity

I think it is Socrates mind ordering things according to kind. It is the kind of thing Mind does. I don't think this is meant to be the intelligible order of the whole. It is a hypothesis by which he makes that order intelligible.

Why the concern for the 'safest answer' - what did he mean by 'safest' ? — Amity

Good question. He begins the story of his second sailing by saying how confused he was by looking at things themselves. His hypotheses are his way of bringing order to things. A second sailing means when the wind dies down and you must oar the boat, move it forward under your own power.

A philosopher who blames arguments rather than himself must 'spend the rest of his life hating and reviling reasoned discussion and so be deprived of truth and knowledge of reality' (90d). — Amity

He begins this statement by saying:

when there is a true and reliable argument and one that can be understood

This is important because the arguments for the immortality of the soul may not be true and reliable
arguments. In other words, sometimes the argument is to blame. The philosopher has a responsibility to the argument, and this includes having reasonable expectations about what argument is capable of. If the philosopher comes to hate reasoned discussion because it cannot do what he expects of it it is the philosopher and not the argument that is to blame.

Well, given that I can't accept his alleged assumption...I think accepting such matters is by faith... not by reasoned argument. — Amity

After saying he assumes the Form he goes on to say:

If you grant me these and agree that they exist ...

The acceptance of the assumption does not come as the result of reasoned argument, it is used as a condition for it.

I am not sure what you mean by 'soul' here, though. His mind, his spirit ? — Amity

This raises a couple of problems that become clear when he introduces number. In the division between the body and soul where is the activity of thought? If it is in the soul then the soul cannot be one thing because thought is the activity of Mind. Soul would the be composite, a combination of Soul and Mind and the argument that it cannot be destroyed because it is one thing and not composite fails.

Why the capitals at 'Kind Soul' ? — Amity

'Kind' is another English term for 'Form'. The Greek

eidos

means both. Soul with with a capital indicates the Form rather than a particular soul.

Or is it the case that Socrates is one of a kind. — Amity

This has a double meaning: Socrates is one (a particular) of the the Kind Man, but also unique. Through much of the dialogue no distinction is made between Socrates and his soul. Is he then of the Kind/Form Soul or Man? Is the fate of his soul the same as the fate of the man?

The two uses of 'kind' in English are related. Kind means both the kind of thing something is, that is, its nature or species and something whose nature or disposition is what we describe as kind.

It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing? — Valentinus

One that comes to mind is, "How Philosophy Became Socratic: A Study of Plato's Protagoras, Charmades, and Republic" by Laurence Lampert
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo8725147.html

He takes the dialogue in their dramatic chronology, how old Socrates was when the dialogue took place.

[Edit] Another is Plato's Trilogy : Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman, by Jacob Klein

I read the dialogues as conversations between themselves. — Valentinus

There are certain continuities that connect them. There are a few passages in the Phaedo that I compare with the Republic. I think the similarities are intentional but the differences are what shed light.

Although I think they are intended to read one against another, I also think they all stand on their own.

This comes up in the Phaedo in the discussion about 'snow' as being 'a kind' on the one hand, and 'an instance' on the other. — Wayfarer

I discuss this. It is important because the same thing occurs with Soul/soul. At the approach of Heat Snow retreats but the stuff melts. Analogously, at the approach of Death Soul retreats but the soul of the man is destroyed.

So it's a question about the relationship between universals and particulars — Wayfarer

Right. Socrates' soul is of the Kind Soul, but his soul is not the Kind or Form Soul

The relationship between "universals and particulars" is mixed up — Valentinus

I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful. That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else.” (100c-e)

I think the reference to 'our people at home' is clearly a reference to non-philosophers — Wayfarer

In the beginning of the paragraph he says "the multitude" and then toward the end "our people at home". I don't know if he is making a distinction between them. It may be some reference to something related to Thebes.

'know very well' that philosophers 'deserve death' — Wayfarer

Two ways in which he may have meant this, and possibly both -

The ascetic life, a life without pleasure, is not worth living
There was a distrust of philosophers

I do not know if Socrates says in any of the other dialogues that the philosopher desires death. I think it may have something to do with the theme of both fear of death and their despair over Socrates death. He tells that this is what philosophers want all along.


.

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.

.