The approach of Aristotle of formulating different arguments and comparing them is more like what we are used to. — Valentinus

I keep missing the second part of your posts.
I think this is why I struggle with Plato. My preference is usually for the practical not the abstract.

According to a conventional view, Plato’s philosophy is abstract and utopian, whereas Aristotle’s is empirical, practical, and commonsensical — Britannica: How Plato and Aristotle differ

The Theory of Forms stands or falls on its own merits or demerits - probably falls - but from a point of view of biography, psychology (see another thread about that) I *speculate* that this is a person who has lost a great friend to political violence and ignorance and is saying "We can't just make up justice, truth, right and wrong, is and is-not; we need to apply some wisdom and thought." — Cuthbert

'...biography, psychology (see another thread about that)'
Where ? Plato's bio and psych or generally speaking ?
Again, I hadn't realised that Plato wrote ALL of his Dialogues after the death of Socrates.
So much I don't know.

Re: application of wisdom and thought - yes. How much of the gut is involved ?

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. — Fooloso4

Interesting. I think of it as some kind of a feeling or intuition. Something telling you what feels right or wrong. Not quite the same as Socrates' daimonion but close...

In such a world, what are the values and truths that we can trust? — Cuthbert

Are you suggesting that [the gut] is where our values and truths come from ? — Amity

Can you trust your gut ? I think not but it is a useful starting point.
And sometimes I wish I had listened to it...

I was referring to Plato. He is unique in gathering a record of dialogues with different "schools" of thought as actual discussions — Valentinus

Yes. I knew Plato was unique but didn't really appreciate what it was about the Dialogues that made them so fascinating and rewarding. I have always been confused as to how to get into them, even if I wanted to. I didn't finish reading the Republic - my first attempt more than a few years ago.

Now, it seems I have my foot in the door. I have been inspired not only by @Fooloso4 but other participants. People who have read and know Plato well and who are willing to discuss their thoughts about him and the Phaedo. How it relates to other dialogues. For me, this kind of interaction is exceptional and one of the best reasons for staying with TPF.

For example:
Your: '...gathering a record of dialogues with different "schools" of thought as actual discussions'.'
Together with:

Yes, I was thinking about Protagoras, for example. I was also thinking about the Athenian culture that Plato was unhappy about: the society that put Socrates to death — Cuthbert

But I think it's worth thinking about what questions of his time Plato was answering when he wrote the dialogues. For example: in politics, democracy vs tyranny or aristocracy; in metaphysics, how can things both be and not be at the same time (Parmenides, Zeno); in art, irrational violence vs sublime contemplation (Euripides, the Parthenon) — Cuthbert

I'm saying this in the hope of pointing out the emotional force of Plato's writing which can seem abstract, obscure, dry, outmoded and false out of context. — Cuthbert

I now really want to read Plato's Protagorus and Theaetetus.

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. — Fooloso4

As a result, I downloaded the Librivox audio recordings of both.
Last night I listened to audio 1 of Protagorus, trans. Jowett.
Unlike his Phaedo, this has a clear Introduction which helps with orientation.

However, I am not in any rush to discuss them...just yet. Still digesting Phaedo...

Yes, I was thinking about Protagoras, for example. I was also thinking about the Athenian culture that Plato was unhappy about: the society that put Socrates to death — Cuthbert

Glad you returned.
I had kept your post in mind as something I needed to get back to. But you weren't to know that.

In such a world, what are the values and truths that we can trust? — Cuthbert

Good question - for any world.

The Theory of Forms was not (merely) abstract speculation: it came from the gut. — Cuthbert

Are you suggesting that is where our values and truths come from ?
Or that what Plato wrote came from his gut ?
What do you mean by that ?

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. — Fooloso4

Yes. Good to clarify.
Plato can be interpreted by those who see only what they want to see.
No wonder the guy is so popular and everlasting...
Arousing passions - heated debates - from those who read him as supporting a particular belief system. Perhaps a central pillar of their life.

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. — Fooloso4

Absolutely true...
You know before this, I could take or leave Plato - mostly leave.
Now, I am reading him with less of a jaundiced eye but still somewhat cross-eyed :nerd:

Thanks for returning to the question and providing an excellent and thought-provoking follow-up.

"Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ?
They arise from the real world - we create such - why ? "

This is a viewpoint that Plato is dedicated to challenge. Man is not the measure of all things — Cuthbert

Thought I'd return to this.
The phrase 'man is the measure of all things' was familiar but memory failed me yet again. I thought perhaps Shakespeare.
Think again. And search for information:

Protagoras is known primarily for three claims (1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) (2) that he could make the “worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)” and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not...

Historically, it was in response to Protagoras and his fellow sophists that Plato began the search for transcendent forms or knowledge which could somehow anchor moral judgment. Along with the other Older Sophists and Socrates, Protagoras was part of a shift in philosophical focus from the earlier Presocratic tradition of natural philosophy to an interest in human philosophy...

Plato (427-347 B.C.E.): Protagoras is a leading character in Plato’s dialogue Protagoras and Protagoras’ doctrines are discussed extensively in Plato’s Theaetetus. Plato’s dialogues, however, are a mixture of historical account and artistic license, much in the manner of the comic plays of the period...

Of Protagoras’ ipsissima verba (actual words, as opposed to paraphrases), the most famous is the homo-mensura (man-measure) statement (DK80b1): “Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or “how”] they are, and of things that are not, that [or “how”] they are not.” This precise meaning of this statement, like that of any short extract taken out of context, is far from obvious, although the long discussion of it in Plato’s Theaetetus gives us some sense of how ancient Greek audiences interpreted it. — IEP article: Protagorus

So, Plato gets in on the act again. Telling us about Protagorus. Well, well, well...
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/protagoras.html
and in the Thaetetus:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-theaetetus/

Oh dear...Plato has by the neck grabbed me again.
If only to see...what he sees...how and why...

Protagorus - I had heard about...but no in-depth knowledge...sounds like a cool customer.
Is there a reason he seldom appears on the scene in TPF discussions ?
Too ancient ?

[Apologies for side-track but...]

I think that Plato should have been made a saint a very long time ago for what he did for the Church. — magritte

First reaction to that was a major laugh-out-loud... :rofl:

Significant unhappiness and unwelcome emotion in people is also produced by rumination and 'festering'. — Tom Storm

Yes. Dwelling too much in the past, especially after loss and dealing with grief.
Regrets or anger of previous behaviour/actions by self/others.
What a killer of present possibilities...of happiness...moments of joy...appreciation...

CBT certainly works to help people develop tools and strategies for managing their emotional regulation - a not inconsiderable concern for people dealing with trauma and addiction, an area I have worked in for 30 plus years. — Tom Storm

This type of work must be so challenging and fulfilling when you see positive results.
With regards to addiction - I expect this kind of self-management requires a daily commitment...after being shown how to use tools and strategies...
Fascinating and most worthwhile practice.

So I take it that Plato's literary tricks in the Phaedo and elsewhere, as dutifully imitated — magritte

I don't know that they were 'dutifully imitated'. Why would you think so ?

the authors of the gospels were intended to make all the tales as a cumulative package more life-like, — magritte

Again, I don't know enough about the authors of the gospels. I do seem to remember that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had different perspectives of Jesus. Perhaps that is what makes it more 'life-like'.

The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.[17] Modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[18][19] — Wiki: Gospel

more convincing to naive un-philosophical people who listen to such stories? — magritte

Hmmm. The stories as listened to at that time - would have reached different types of people. Whether or not they were convinced or persuaded to follow the preachers - would require a way of thinking and believing that could include both the naive and the more experienced. The wise and the not so wise.

As read today - by all ages and types of people, it might not be so much about trying to convince of any truth. Certain nuggets of good ways to act...ideas of how best to live life...can be extracted from the whole Book.
Some people follow it because they see it as the work of God.
I see it as the work of men...

Your thoughts ?

Just dropped in for a minute and thought I'd click on your link.

https://www.ihhp.com/meaning-of-emotional-intelligence/ — Shawn

Stopped right in my tracks at this:
'It’s a scientific fact that emotions precede thought'
With nothing to support that claim.

I tend to agree with @Tom Storm

I think the important thing is not the labels so much as being self aware, without going overboard. Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals (although I know that language doesn't work for everyone). The stoics influenced Albert Ellis who created RET, which morphed into CBT and DBT. It's great stuff. — Tom Storm

From my own experience - no science to support this - the emotion/thought process is a bit of a cycle with no clear defining moment as to which comes first.
I guess it depends on the person and situation; the context.

I think what matters is the formation of a helpful attitude and behaviour towards self and others.
Behaviour produced as a combination of thoughts and emotion has consequences.
Others react to our behaviour and v.v.
This can be done with or without taking time to attend or care.
A good or a bad life experience has its effects on wellbeing.
Sometimes it is necessary to change the way we think or feel.
How do we do this usefully - can it simply be willed ? Can we do this alone ?
Well, I think self-regulation takes practice and the ability to stop and reflect on the emotion and why it arises...

So, what matters most is the fact that we can identify emotions and them reflexively promote some kind of 'care' or interest in what's worthwhile to promote for the benefit of those who suffer. At the very least some kind of concern is necessary, in any regards. — Shawn

Yes. I think so...

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

I skipped over this earlier - not paying attention to the second part.
What did you mean by 'this sort of thing' ?
Stories within a story showing different perspectives ? With the motives of the author(s) in question ? — Amity

I had been wondering if the Bible could be considered as this type or kind of thing...
There are plenty examples of stories within stories in literature as well as religion and philosophy.

So, it was interesting to see @Fooloso4's examples of:

'Kind' is another English term for 'Form'. — Fooloso4

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)

Examples of nested books:

This structure is also found in classic religious and philosophical texts. The structure of The Symposium and Phaedo, attributed to Plato, is of a story within a story within a story. In the Christian Bible, the gospels are retellings of stories from the life and ministry of Jesus. However, they also include within them the stories (parables) that Jesus told.

In more modern philosophical work, Jostein Gaarder's books often feature this device. Examples are The Solitaire Mystery, where the protagonist receives a small book from a baker, in which the baker tells the story of a sailor who tells the story of another sailor, and Sophie's World about a girl who is actually a character in a book that is being read by Hilde, a girl in another dimension. Later on in the book Sophie questions this idea, and realizes that Hilde too could be a character in a story that in turn is being read by another. — Wiki: Story within a story

I agree that it can be difficult to explore such works.
It can be frustrating. You keep wondering what the hell is going on and why. Especially if it uses historical characters...is it authentic, does it have to be ? How do you keep track ?

Reading Plato's Phaedo and participating in the discussion is challenging and worthwhile on so many levels. I've mentioned the personal ones before.
The form, structure and language - they make you think about the intention, key themes and different perspectives; the order of events, the presentation of ideas; the very words and their impact, the imagery.
How did Plato do it - in so many different dialogues - why - and what effect did/does it have...

Same with the Bible.

Socrates says that Mind arranges or orders things. (97c) Is this 'Mind' a particular mind? — Fooloso4

Plato used his particular mind to show other minds and perspectives using argument and myth.
His ideas sprang from his mind - but we can usefully ask, from whence came his inspiration?

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. — Fooloso4

I think I think of soul as spirit which moves you. It needs a force of energy to motivate...and yes, to bring life in a certain kind of way.

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. — Fooloso4

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

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

Perhaps I need to clarify.
I meant I can't grant him that basic assumption on which the argument relies or stands.
Shaky ground.

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

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. — Fooloso4

Interesting. I had wondered if 'safety' could also mean something 'acceptable' to the status quo - those who had sentenced him.
Perhaps it was necessary to convince his students of the divine, and ideal Form - an afterlife - so that they would be protected from danger.
With Socrates as their mentor, they would have come under suspicion...
This in addition to comforting them that he was absolutely fine with dying. No problem...

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. — Fooloso4

Yup. Already grasped that, thanks.

'Kind' is another English term for 'Form'. — Fooloso4

Really ? How so ?
Like this ?

Also in English as a suffix (mankind, etc., also compare godcund "divine"). Other earlier, now obsolete, senses included "character, quality derived from birth" and "manner or way natural or proper to anyone — Etymology dictionary

."

Soul with with a capital indicates the Form rather than a particular soul. — Fooloso4

Yes, I understand the use of capitals. As in:

I think it is Socrates mind ordering things according to kind. It is the kind of thing Mind does. — Fooloso4

Emphasis added
and:

Socrates' soul is of the Kind Soul, but his soul is not the Kind or Form Soul — Fooloso4

Emphasis added.

What I don't understand is why you capitalised the words bolded.
1.Why would you say that is the kind of things Mind as Form does ?
How can an abstract concept act ?
2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ?

I think I have suffered enough confusion for today.

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

I skipped over this earlier - not paying attention to the second part.
What did you mean by 'this sort of thing' ?
Stories within a story showing different perspectives ? With the motives of the author(s) in question ?

It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing?
The unique quality is exposing oneself to argument, no matter the consequence. — Valentinus

Yes. For me, this exposure to argument is the crux of the matter, no matter what particular religious belief or philosophical stance you take.

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. .” (100c-e) — Fooloso4

As @Fooloso4 points out Socrates and his particular mind is unable to give an explanation of the relationship between Forms and things, the unchanging and changing.
Would the Form - 'Mind' be able to ? No. As an abstract concept created by our own minds it can't act.
Only humans can think with their minds and act accordingly to the best of their ability.

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.

Points I find interesting:
1. '...That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else' ( 100c-e).
Why the concern for the 'safest answer' - what did he mean by 'safest' ?

2. What is considered 'the greatest evil'.
Compare (83c-d) - ' the fact that pleasure and pain trick us into thinking that sensory stimuli are to be treated as truest reality. Pleasure and pain seal the soul shut within its bodily cage'.

with (89d) - 'There is not greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse'.

Here, we return to the issue of pain/pleasure. Socrates' release from the prison fetters. His body and mind soon to be released from the world, the real troublesome world. The human experience can be nothing other than holistic - mingling and divisions all in the mix.

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).

Socrates assumes the existence of the Forms and asks them to be a given (100b).
They are the true causes of qualities and can keep opposites from mixing with one another (102e-103a)
This basic claim will be crucial for his ultimate defence of the soul's immortality. ( Hannan, p31)

Well, given that I can't accept his alleged assumption...it is unlikely that I will accept the conclusion...
I think accepting such matters is by faith... not by reasoned argument.

Socrates' soul is of the Kind Soul, but his soul is not the Kind or Form Soul — Fooloso4

That sounds good. I am not sure what you mean by 'soul' here, though. His mind, his spirit ?
Why the capitals at 'Kind Soul' ?

Can a mind be Kind ?
Or is it the case that Socrates is one of a kind. With a kind of mind that thinks kindly...and carefully.
And that is the whole point...isn't it ?

Unique. As per @Valentinus quote:
'The unique quality is exposing oneself to argument, no matter the consequence...'

However, the consequences do matter, don't they ?

Thanks for listening and quick response.
Nothing on here is a 'pressing need'.

I think one of the more common issues is new members seemingly posting the first thing that comes to their mind, and not really taking the time to get a feel for the forum, etc — Pinprick

For newcomers, rather than a 'Shoutbox' or a 'Symposium' as the first thing you see, I think it would foster a better sense of community and encourage participation if there was some kind of a big 'Welcome' mat hung out. With a clear explanation of how things work.

There are so many wonderful features and functions available but not everyone knows how to use them. Even some 'oldies' are still wrapping their heads around them.

Just look at the format menu along the top of message box you are writing in.
Some are self-explanatory but...
The Quote bubble, the links chain, the @ sign and whatever else is along there ?

It would be more user-friendly if a clear explanation could be given in one place: a 'Welcome' thread.

As things stand we have this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/page/useful-hints-and-tips
which leads to this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6319/useful-hints-and-tips
It could be so much better...

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
Sometimes Mostly, admin and mods do listen and take action or not. Depending.
They do a great job - and this TPF is the only place I would recommend for any newcomers...
Even if there is a lot of harping on and comparisons with the 'old place'.
Still - after all these years... :roll:

Thanks for more about the issue of 'suicide'. I am still pondering...

I am thinking of following up with something more diagrammatic, an overview. — Fooloso4

I hope this encourages any other beginner trying to read or follow/participate in the discussion.
I do not know if anyone read it but chose to remain silent. I hope so.
— Fooloso4
I am sure that, given the view count (1.3K) there could well be a few... — Amity

Yes, that might be helpful. As you know, I am not a complete 'beginner'. However, every time there's a book discussion I certainly feel like one as I try to navigate the path to understanding.
Would be great to have a World Wide Map. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy starring Plato and friends.

If you take this path, then this is where you end up. Great scenery but tough hill to climb.
There's a short cut here...for those less able.
Isn't that what Plato did - catering for 2 types of audience - Arguments v Myths ?
What is the final destination - why - what motivation is there to set out in the first place ?
All types of travellers...

So, any cartographers out there ?
Can you draw a picture of the highly structured overview: 'The Examined Life: Notes on Plato's Phaedo' by Sean Hannan (free pdf) ?

He writes in sections and subsections.
For example:
1. Background
a. to f.
2. The Final Conversation Begins (57a- 62e )
a. Setting the Stage
i. to vii.
b. The Highest Art
i. to v.
Etc, etc...

A sample from page 1.

1. Background
a. The Phaedo tells the story of Socrates’ final days. Taking place after the events
depicted in the Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, this dialogue serves as his swansong.
b. Whereas the Apology had a fairly straightforward structure, consisting mainly of
Socrates’ monologues to the citizens of Athens (with a bit of back-and-forth with
Meletus thrown in), the Phaedo is a full-blown dialogue. In fact, it operates as a
dialogue on multiple levels. First we have the framing dialogue, which consists of the
eponymous main character Phaedo’s account of Socrates’ final words, which he gives
to Echecrates and others on his way home from Athens. Then we have the dialogue
recounted by Phaedo, which takes place between Socrates and those who were with
him in his final hours.
c. First, let’s take a closer look at the framing dialogue. Phaedo (the character) is on his
way back from Athens after attending the trial and execution of Socrates. As he
approaches his hometown of Elis in the Peloponnese, he runs into a group of
Pythagoreans, the most vocal of which is Echecrates. These men are dubbed
‘Pythagoreans’ because they follow the teachings of Pythagoras. While most of us are
familiar with his theorem, Pythagoras had much more to say on the topics of
philosophy and mathematics. For our purposes here, we should only note these
Pythagoreans would’ve been especially open to the mathematical examples Phaedo
tells them Socrates made use of in his final conversation—e.g., the difference
between odd and even numbers, etc.
d. We shouldn’t glide past this framing dialogue too swiftly, although it can be easy to
forget it’s there. The fact that Phaedo runs into Pythagoreans is itself potentially
meaningful. It could, among other things, suggest that the version of Socrates’ ideas
he’s sharing with them has already been re-shaped to suit their interests...
— Sean Hannan: Notes on Plato's Phaedo

I think @Fooloso4 you have set yourself another challenge - I look forward to whatever draws people in...or connects the dots :cool:

Thanks @Fooloso4 for providing this commentary and replying to comments/questions.

It was an enjoyable challenge trying to make sense of the dialogue and putting all the pieces together. No doubt, there are pieces I left out. Perhaps only those who have a fondness for Plato would find my commentary of interest, but in my opinions the details matter — Fooloso4

I have no particular fondness for Plato - he gives me such a hard time !
You are right, the details matter and, of course, you have left pieces out (otherwise it would be a book !). They possibly contain some less important details...but then again...
I can't help thinking about the issue of 'suicide' which we quickly passed over, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534770
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534835
Perhaps it was discussed later and I missed it ?

All in all, it helped me gain a far greater understanding than I had before.
Admittedly, not difficult given my beginner's starting point.

I trust the thread was worth your while, perhaps in terms of ordering your understanding, perhaps in terms of addressing the various comments here. — Banno

I look forward to a dialogue about this dialogue. — Fooloso4

As noted, I have struggled on a few levels: To read the text, analyse and understand it. At the same time as keeping up with the commentary and comments. Also, discovering the whole spectrum of interpretations...
For me, the pace was about as twice as fast as I would have liked.
I will still keep on...and hope this thread does too...

This thread has taught me to pay more attention to the detail - particularly the objections from the various interlocutors, and the subtlety of some of the distinctions made in the arguments. Also one thing I do commend is your emphasis on interpreting the texts on their own terms and being aware of hidden interpretive agendas. — Wayfarer

Likewise. Also, this:

there's another couple of passages in the Phaedro that I would like to revisit, (although I'm finding it difficult to concentrate on it, as I have many other balls in the air right at the moment.) But I will certainly be appending some more questions and comments on the text. — Wayfarer

I have been following the text and audio files as recommended:

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf — Fooloso4

https://librivox.app/book/4421

Different translations.
So, after audio 2 of the 8 files, I decided to list a rough correspondence to the text :

2. ends at 70b-d > ( c. 20 mins)
3. 70d - 78b > pp 16-26 ( 24m)
4. 78b - 84b > 26-34 ( 21m)
5. 84c - 95a > 34-46 (33m)
6. 95a - 102a > 46-54 (17m)
7. 102b - 108c > 54-63 (21m)
8. > final segment (27m)

I hope this encourages any other beginner trying to read or follow/participate in the discussion.

I do not know if anyone read it but chose to remain silent. I hope so. — Fooloso4

I am sure that, given the view count (1.3K) there could well be a few...

Also, as linked to earlier:

Outline of the Dialogue

The Philosopher and Death (59c-69e)
Three Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality (69e-84b)
The Cyclical Argument (70c-72e)
The Argument from Recollection (72e-78b)
The Affinity Argument (78b-84b)
Objections from Simmias and Cebes, and Socrates’ Response (84c-107b)
The Objections (85c-88c)
Interlude on Misology (89b-91c)
Response to Simmias (91e-95a)
Response to Cebes (95a-107b)
Socrates’ Intellectual History (96a-102a)
The Final Argument (102b-107b)
The Myth about the Afterlife (107c-115a)
Socrates’ Death (115a-118a) — IEP article Plato: Phaedo

* the audio files are great and help identify the tones, especially those of humour...
Best not to read in bed - unless suffering from insomnia - they have a hypnotic quality :yawn:

If You Don't Know Me By Now - Simply Red
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTcu7MCtuTs

Last one.

Fairground - Simply Red - live in Holland

Brilliant - the whole atmosphere :starstruck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKQtx_I8Kj0

Driving down an endless road
Taking friends or moving alone
Pleasure at the fairground on the way
It's always friends that feel so good
Let's make amends like all good men should
Pleasure at the fairground on the way
Walk around, be free and roam
There's always someone leaving alone
Pleasure at the fairground on the way

And I love the thought of coming home to you
Even if I know we can't make it
Yes, I love the thought of giving hope to you
Just a little ray of light shining through

Love can bend and breathe alone
Until the end it finds you a home
Don't care what the people may say
It's always friends that feel so good
Let's make amends like all good men should
Pleasure at the fairground on the way

And I love the thought of coming home to you
Even if I know we can't make it
Yes, I love the thought of giving hope to you
Just a little ray of light shining through
And I love the thought of coming home to you
Even if I know we can't make it
Yes, I love the thought of giving hope to you
Just a little ray of light shining through

Pleasure at the fairground on the way

And I love the thought of coming home to you
Even if I know we can't make it
Yes, I love the thought of giving hope to you
Just a little ray of light shining through
And I love the thought of coming home to you
Even if I know we can't make it
Yes, I love the thought of giving hope to you
Just a little ray of light shining through

Love the thought
Even if I know we can't make it
Love the thought

Songwriters: M Hucknall

Stars - Simply Red
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izOdvBmTDh0

From Live in Holland concert. Spot the difference...
Fantastic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kL-fJbggkWA

Holding Back the Years - Simply Red - Live in Holland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7GnVHmTiI8

Simply Red played three very special shows at Amsterdam’s Ziggo Dome accompanied by a 40-piece orchestra. The set list beautifully showcased their remarkable career including the classic hits ‘Holding Back The Years’, ‘Stars’, ‘Fairground’ and ‘If You Don’t Know Me By Now’.

On Sky Arts now :cool:
Freesat 147

Another Walt Disney.
Also on music thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540587

A Symposium on Popular Songs is an animated Disney short that originally released to theaters by Buena Vista Distribution on December 19, 1962. It features Ludwig Von Drake lecturing on the state of popular music punctuated by a number of stop-motion musical numbers.
The songs were written by Richard and Robert Sherman, with each song represented a different era in musical history. The brothers considered this one of their favorite Disney assignments.

"The Rutabaga Rag"
"Charleston Charlie"
"Although I Dropped $100,000 (I Found a Million Dollars in your Smile)"
"I'm Blue for You (Boo-Boo-Boo-Boo-Boo)"
"The Boogie Woogie Bakery Man"
"Puppy Love is Here to Stay"
"Rock, Rumble, and Roar"

A Symposium of Popular Songs

A Symposium on Popular Songs is a special cartoon featurette made by Walt Disney Productions in 1962. It features songs that were written by the Sherman Brothers, with music arrangements by Tutti Camarata.

Ludwig Von Drake lectures on the state of popular music punctuated by a number of stop-motion musical numbers.

"The Rutabaga Rag"
"Charleston Charlie"
"Although I Dropped $100,000 (I Found a Million Dollars in your Smile)"
"I'm Blue for You (Boo-Boo-Boo-Boo-Boo)"
"The Boogie Woogie Bakery Man"
"Puppy Love is Here to Stay"
"Rock, Rumble, and Roar"

Nothing but the Tooth - Winnie The Pooh

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3beg5h

Nothing but ice, ice, baby :wink:

I was...
Nothing but...no less than...

Hound-dog-ism.

'You ain't nothing but a...'

...Hound Dog- Elvis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=URayWTkEPYM

...Heartache - the Flirtations
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rMPzgCLNCHs

'brah' ?

You ain't nothing but a heartache...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rMPzgCLNCHs

You ain't nothing but a hedgehog...

this thread is an earnest attempt to engage with the text of Plato's Phaedo, if you are unable or unwilling to do so, take it elsewhere. I invite people to flag posts in this thread that they believe are not strictly on topic and I (or someone else) will moderate them accordingly. — fdrake

Thank you for the deletion of flagged posts and for continued moderation.

Between this and Rowe's criticism it is clear how far apart those who look at the dialogue as a whole with attention to parts are from those who say:

Have you thought of just drawing out the significant ideas instead of providing your interpretation?
— frank — Fooloso4

Indeed. As if what counts as drawing out a significant idea is separate from someone's interpretation :brow:

my approach would be "Straussian": — Fooloso4

I thought as much.

Influential figures are Jacob Klein and Leo Strauss, and his students including Alan Bloom, Stanley Rosen...
— Fooloso4
These are the people I read and whom I have learned the most from. — Fooloso4

I had absorbed this but my recall is rubbish !

The Rosen quote is referenced in the Rowe article in Section X - Hidden Meanings ?
which says more about the Straussian approach and the different versions:

One of the central features of such an approach is its deployment of the concept of (Socratic) irony. It appears that one can never take anything anyone says in a dialogue at face value; to see what we are to make of any statement or proposal, an interpreter has to stand back and ask how it relates to everything else that is said or done in that particular dialogue.

That looks fine, up to a point, and especially as a corrective to overliteral interpretations of the texts that refuse to take notice of context, dramatic or otherwise. The trouble is that this way of proceeding lends itself too easily to abuse. Thus what began in Strauss himself as an interesting method with the potential for plausible readings, not least of the Republic, has hardened, in the hands of some of his epigoni, into the treatment of Plato as an advocate for a conservative politics: — Christopher Rowe

I have returned to the pdf text and Librivox audio files in an effort to catch up.
Just finished listening to audio 3 which corresponds roughly to pp16-26 ( 70d - 78b)
Also to your discussion, here ( about 6 days ago ! )
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924

The first 2 Arguments for the Soul's Immortality:
1. Opposites/Cyclical
2. Recollection

Still thinking about them. But when it comes to comedy - listening to the audio really brings it out.
The request to be reminded of the Recollection proof: 'Not sure that I remember the doctrine !'.

...An overarching question of the dialogue is about teaching and learning. Socrates teaches him how to solve the problem and yet claims it was recollection. This is not the place to get into it, but the difference between Meno’s problem, teaching virtue to someone like Meno who is lacking in virtue and teaching someone geometry is very different — Fooloso4

I had remembered the story of how Socrates helped someone work through a problem but couldn't recall who or where ! And yes, it made me wonder again just how much of this Recollection argument is more about stilling the fears of the 'child within us' - Cebes and Simmias.
Anxiety about losing Socrates continues.
Socrates gives some counselling:
There are plenty of 'charmers' in Greece - incantations to reduce fear.
However, I think the final words at 78b say it best:

And you yourselves must search too, along with one another; you may not easily find anyone more capable of doing this than yourselves.'
'That shall certainly be done,' said Cebes; '

It does help to have a guiding hand...in this world...
Going forward and reaching back even as we speak.

This discussion has taken me beyond reading the text. Before I return, one last step out...

Reading Rowe's article, I understand that interpretations of Plato's dialogues lie on a spectrum; the neoplatonist and a reductionist analytical approach being at opposite ends.
The approach taken by @Fooloso4 is analytical; with fine attention to detail.
However, there is no reduction to argument and counterargument alone.
There is much more colour...

...with the dialogues we need to look not only at what is said but at what is done. — Fooloso4

I appreciate that even with his level of expertise, it is not only a challenge to decipher the dialogue but to present and discuss any understanding.

The article excerpts I found useful :
VIII. The Problems of Cherry-Picking

A second problem with both the Neoplatonist and the analytical approach is that their choice of contexts and issues, and indeed of dialogues, to privilege over others is too obviously dictated by their own preoccupations...

Neoplatonizing accounts catch something of the larger picture in which this critique is framed while either missing the critique itself altogether or representing it one-sidedly in terms of oppositions between soul and body, human and divine, descent and ascent.

Such oppositions clearly are Platonic, but they are at one end of a spectrum that also includes, and more frequently, a carefully reasoned, hand-to-hand engagement with people and their ideas: an engagement that presents alternatives that look to this life as much as to anything beyond it.

For their part, analytical interpreters may end up failing even more spectacularly to capture the passionate tone of the Platonic dialogues, by reducing them—at least by implication—to a locus for quasi-academic 26 argument and counterargument. — Christopher Rowe

IX. Two Worlds or One?

The last section has implicitly proposed a compromise on another of the dividing lines between interpreters of Plato.

On the one hand there are those who think he believes in another world, over and above this world of ours, inhabited as it were by the ideal forms and by gods and other purified souls, to which it is our business to make our own way, even in this life, by (as Socrates puts it in the Phaedo) “practising for death.” Such a reading 27 accompanies a literal interpretation of the eschatological myths, which are there, on this view, to terrify us into changing our ways if we cannot be persuaded by argument.

But there is also another view of Plato’s position, namely that the talk of another world is at bottom metaphorical and that the myths in question are chiefly allegories of this life. What is clear is that there are grounds, in Plato’s texts, for both readings; the problem for the interpreter is to know how to make room for both. — Christopher Rowe

To zoom out a little.
For those interested in interpretations. 'Methodologies for Reading Plato' :

Such an open-ended type of interpretation has its representatives among two radically different groups: among philosophical interpreters, for whom it makes Plato a philosopher much like them—more interested in, or expecting more from, arguments than in or from conclusions;

and among literary interpreters, who insist on the literary and dramatic form of Plato’s works and argue that we can no more read off his intentions from what he puts in the mouths of his characters than we can infer what an Aeschylus thought from what he has his Clytemnestra or Cassandra say.

But one problem faced by both of these approaches, as by the skeptics of the New Academy, is that of explaining why, if they are right, certain ideas keep recurring in the corpus...

...Platonic metaphysics, that backbone of historical Platonism, also looks comfortably at home in an ethical context, insofar as it places a reconfigured goodness, beauty, and justice within the very structure of things—however it may be that Plato thought that trick could be pulled. Indeed, without that context (and without its inventive elaboration and re-elaboration by successions of Platonists and idealists), it can look as unmotivated as it appeared to an unsympathetic Aristotle.
— Christopher Rowe

Just a few snippets from this article which has 12 short sections !
OK enough already... back to the text...

It is something that I have been attempting to show — Fooloso4

Yes. I have been attempting to understand and slowly getting there.
I think most careful readers and followers of this discussion can see and appreciate your approach to this.

It is significant that those who have opposed my interpretation have not said anything about the details of what Socrates says in the dialogue about myths. Instead they point elsewhere. — Fooloso4

Yes. It is unfortunate.
However, interesting questions have been raised and I have learned more than I would have if I had just stuck to the text.
I am trying to do both. Not easy.
Hopefully this will lead to a better understanding :sparkle:

At the risk of going off piste for a minute. We can get back to discussing Plato's Phaedo whenever, or as soon as...

What is 'Platonism' ? It depends on your view. Some have already offered thoughts but don't give references.
Post your definitions or understanding here, or not. Preferably with links to sources.

Here's the SEP version:

Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental. Platonism in this sense is a contemporary view.

It is obviously related to the views of Plato in important ways, but it is not entirely clear that Plato endorsed this view, as it is defined here.
In order to remain neutral on this question, the term ‘platonism’ is spelled with a lower-case ‘p’. (See entry on Plato.)

The most important figure in the development of modern platonism is Gottlob Frege (1884, 1892, 1893–1903, 1919). The view has also been endorsed by many others, including Kurt Gödel (1964), Bertrand Russell (1912), and W.V.O. Quine (1948, 1951). — SEP article on Platonism

Or I suppose another thread can be started by Platonists or spin-offs ?

33 - LAST JUDGMENTS: PLATO, POETRY AND MYTH
Peter Adamson

Plato criticized both the epic poetry of Homer and Hesiod, and the tragic and comic poets. Yet he invented myths of his own. So what was his attitude towards literature and myth? Peter tackles this question in a final episode on Plato.

Audio Player - c. 20mins.
https://historyofphilosophy.net/plato-myth
The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps - King's College London.

Excellent, easy to listen to - knowledgeable with light touches of humour. Er.
I think the bit about Phaedo is roughly 12min in. But the whole thing including the background to the music at start is enjoyable :cool:

I am enjoying this discussion so much. All the different points of view which lead to more intriguing questions. More food for thought:

Plato was not willing to go as far as Socrates did. He preferred to address the public at large through his written dialogues rather than conducting dialogues in the agora.

He did not write abstruse philosophical treatises but engaging philosophical dialogues meant to appeal to a less philosophically inclined audience. The dialogues are, most of the time, prefaced by a sort of mise en scène in which the reader learns who the participants to the dialogue are, when, where and how they presently met, and what made them start their dialogue.

The participants are historical and fictional characters. Whether historical or fictional, they meet in historical or plausible settings, and the prefatory mises en scène contain only some incidental anachronisms.

Plato wanted his dialogues to look like genuine, spontaneous dialogues accurately preserved. How much of these stories and dialogues is fictional? It is hard to tell, but he surely invented a great deal of them. References to traditional myths and mythical characters occur throughout the dialogues.

However, starting with the Protagoras and Gorgias, which are usually regarded as the last of his early writings, Plato begins to season his dialogues with self-contained, fantastical narratives that we usually label his ‘myths’. His myths are meant, among other things, to make philosophy more accessible. — SEP article: Plato's Myths

For Plato we should live according to what reason is able to deduce from what we regard as reliable evidence. This is what real philosophers, like Socrates, do. But the non-philosophers are reluctant to ground their lives on logic and arguments. They have to be persuaded. One means of persuasion is myth. Myth inculcates beliefs. It is efficient in making the less philosophically inclined, as well as children (cf. Republic 377a ff.), believe noble things....


Myth can embody in its narrative an abstract philosophical doctrine. In the Phaedo, Plato develops the so-called theory of recollection (72e–78b). The theory is there expounded in rather abstract terms. The eschatological myth of the Phaedo depicts the fate of souls in the other world, but it does not “dramatize” the theory of recollection. — As above