I should add, in case it is not obvious, that wine and fertility are about bodily pleasures. And yet, Socrates throughout the dialogue has railed against the pleasures of the body. Here too, the context is "being mastered by pleasure" and the "exchange pleasures for pleasures", but he refers to the rites of the Bacchants "Riddles" and "mysteries" indeed! — Fooloso4

Thanks for further explanation.
Sometimes things need spelling out, even if they might seem obvious to others.

Even when things seem more clear or obvious as we discuss the dialogue, repetition does no harm.
Indeed, I think there are instances of such in the text. To reinforce or to replay the arguments all the better for analysis and assessment of any conclusions.
This helps to consolidate any short term 'Aha, got it!' or 'OK...but not quite there yet' into the long term memory. All the better for later recall. No rebirth required.

Memory recall or retrieval is remembering the information or events that were previously encoded and stored in the brain. Retrieval is the third step in the processing of memory, with first being the encoding of memory and second, being the storage of the memory. Retrieval of the encoded and stored memory is very important because otherwise there is no point in storing information.

I repeat the themes in my posts because it helps keep them in mind as I go.
For example: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/538325

Those familiar with the Republic will recall the story of the ascent from the cave where it was necessary to first look at images of things (beings) before being able to look at things themselves, and then finally looking at images of the sun before looking at the sun itself. — Fooloso4

Yes. I recall that, even if I am not overly familiar with it. Thanks for the memory :cool:
I had thought of it fleetingly in the previous discussion re chains and release. Freedom from the painful fetters - the pain gradually being eased as Socrates rubs his legs. It is a process.
Just like the pain and pleasure of reading a difficult text...

So, people learn through repetition; the repetition builds paths in our brain. Once people have been down the same path a few times, they find the place quicker next time round.

That is why I am struggling and others might find it all too obvious and have a quicker pace.

The thyrsus is the wand, but not all who carry the wand and participate in the rites understand them. They have, as it were, the props and go through the motions, but do not practice philosophy in the right way. And, if any confusion still remains, once again, practicing philosophy in the right way means,
"in truth, moderation and courage and justice". — Fooloso4

Understood. But got a long way to go...thanks for being a guide along the way :sparkle:
Even if you are not an Absolutely Perfect Sage :wink:

— Phaedo 69c

Socrates is talking about the Bacchants, those who have been initiated into the rites of Bacchus, that is, Dionysus; the god of the grape, wine, and fertility. Wearing masks is also part of the rituals. The Socrates' and Plato's masks are significant in this context.

Here too the irony should not be lost. Socrates' talk of phronesis and moderation are in sharp contrast to the divine madness the rituals were intended to induce. But, as the Phaedrus makes clear, Socrates was not opposed to divine madness. There is here, once again, a play of opposites — Fooloso4

Again, interesting information. I didn't know about the Bacchants.

Good to follow the continuing themes as outlined in the OP:

As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories. — Fooloso4

:cool:

The interplay.
The pain and the pleasure.
The chains and release.
Life and death.
Body and spirit.
The tragi-comedy of the human experience...

As I have said before, with the dialogues we need to look not only at what is said but at what is done. — Fooloso4

Indeed. And I have kept that in mind when reading.
It is something I am alert to in real life, including being aware of my own actions and if I follow my own advice. Some things are easier said than done :wink:

Thank you @Fooloso4 for https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/538287
You are right the book you mentioned does sound interesting but expensive !!
Here is another : 'Laughter, Humor, and Comedy in Ancient Philosophy'

The introduction by the editors, Pierre Destrée and Franco V. Trivigno, explains the organization of the book in three sections, on the psychology of laughter, the norms that govern humor, and the way philosophers make use of humor in their works. In fact, there is no sharp division among the chapters, and, as is to be expected, a good deal of overlap.

As the editors note (8), the primary type of humor turns out to be abrasive or polemical, and Plato's treatment of humor in relation to phthonos ("envy," "malice") is a theme that runs throughout.

It is also the focus of the opening chapter, by Trivigno, who observes that "Plato's explicit theorizing about laughter and comedy is . . . focused on particular sorts of laughter that are presented as morally harmful" (13). Laughter poses a double danger: it threatens to become uncontrollable and overwhelms one's judgement, appealing as it does to the lower part of the soul. Furthermore, the pleasure it provides is mixed, as Plato argues in the Philebus, since the envious feel pain at the success of others even as they delight in the anticipation of their failure.

In the Laws, however, Plato contemplates dividing "comedy into two kinds, according to whether it is playful [paizein] or not" (935D), the latter being free of animosity.

When Socrates makes fun of his interlocutors, Trivigno suggests, his humor is not hostile but aims at their moral improvement. Whether this counts as playful is perhaps questionable. — Book review by David Konstan

[my bolds]

Again, we see the opposites pain and delight > mixed pleasure.

The very one we’re discussing! — Wayfarer

OK. I thought you were thinking of philosophical interpreters of Plato's Phaedo who dismiss it as 'merely myth' as you expressed:

as a 'myth', by which we mean, something that could never happen. — Wayfarer

And wondered if you had anyone specific in mind.

they're often allegorical presentations of truths which can't be stated directly. Which is convenient for modern intepreters, because they can also be dismissed as 'merely myth'. — Wayfarer

Interesting. Do you have any particular examples in mind ?

Surely the expression that ‘there is an ancient doctrine that we’ve recalled’ signifies something more than here-say, in the context of one who believes that true knowledge is recollection of knowledge obtained before this life. — Wayfarer

What do you think it signifies?
Re any stated belief, how do we know that this is an absolute belief sincerely held ?

I think that the point is: we don't know, even if we think we do...
Even recent past events are seldom recalled perfectly by one person, never mind if more are involved. And as for the recall of a soul events...or knowledge of...any truth...

From the OP:

The question arises as to whether this is a comedy or tragedy. — Fooloso4

Thanks to @Fooloso4 for drawing this to my attention. It meant that I paid more attention and found comedic elements I wouldn't otherwise have done. It surprised me at the time because I had the wrong impression that Plato did not think highly of humour. So, another paradox.
See SEP article on 'Philosophy of Humour':

Plato, the most influential critic of laughter, treated laughter as an emotion that overrides rational self-control. In the Republic (388e), he says that the Guardians of the state should avoid laughter, “for ordinarily when one abandons himself to violent laughter, his condition provokes a violent reaction.” Especially disturbing to Plato were the passages in the Iliad and the Odyssey where Mount Olympus was said to ring with the laughter of the gods. He protested that “if anyone represents men of worth as overpowered by laughter we must not accept it, much less if gods.”

Another of Plato’s objections to laughter is that it is malicious. In Philebus (48–50), he analyzes the enjoyment of comedy as a form of scorn. — John Morreall

Humour compares, I think, to the issue of desire, as a bodily disturbance to be disdained.
However, as mentioned previously, this is not absolute. It includes the idea of temperance. The Goldilocks effect. Keeping the right balance. So, what matters is the quantity and quality of the emotion; the type and motivation, virtuous or vicious.

I have probably missed some of the wry, subtle humour sprinkled throughout. Some are obvious: 'chuckles'. We have to work at noticing. No emoticons here :smile: :sad: :chin: :brow:
In general, it is a way of looking at the human condition; the bitter-sweet connections, the experiences of pain/pleasure.

Listening to the second of the audio files recommended earlier by @Banno
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536659
I woke up in time to hear the last few minutes:

pp15-16 ( 70b-d)

...on just this point, perhaps, one needs no little reassuring and convincing, that when the man has died, his soul exists, and that it possesses some power and wisdom.' (14)
'That's true, Cebes,' said Socrates; 'but then what are we to do?
Would you like us to speculate (15) on these very questions, and see whether this is likely to be the case or not?'
'For my part anyway,' said Cebes, 'I'd gladly hear whatever opinion you have about them.'
'Well,' said Socrates, 'I really don't think anyone listening now, even if he were a comic poet, would say that I'm talking idly, and arguing about things that don't concern me. If you agree, then, we should look into the matter.
'Let's consider it, perhaps, in this way: do the souls of men exist in Hades when they have died, or do they not? Now there's an ancient doctrine, which we've recalled, (16) that they do exist in that world, entering it from this one, and that they re-enter this world and are born again from the dead;

Bracketed numbers within the text refer to the Notes.
I haven't looked there yet. Curious as to why 'speculate' and 'recalled' have been highlighted. I could speculate...that mere or idle 'opinion' had been frowned upon...that 'recall' occurs when thinking in the present about things past, we don't need a re-born soul.

Socrates mentions his scornful and critical 'comic poet' - ? Aristophanes *
Again, we can see why this kind of humour was not appreciated and objected to.
Nevertheless, it is used to good effect in the dialogue(s), helping us to form the picture.

For example: the audience is fearful about death and loss. What happens after death.
Socrates brings in some wry comments that raises chuckles - a release from pent up nervous energy and anxiety. Both Plato and Socrates are more than aware of the human condition - the interplay between body and mind. The need for a sense of humour...

Not to mention patience with those who hurl false accusations :brow:

-----

* Edit to add from the Notes, p104:

Socrates' denial that he is 'talking idly' (70cl-2) may be an allusion to Aristophanes' caricature of him in the Clouds. For the gibe cf. Republic 489a, Gorgias 485d-e. As if in answer to charges of 'irrelevance', the close connection between the present inquiry and Socrates' own situation is stressed again and again (7 6b 10-12, 78a1-2, 80d7-8, 84c6-85b9, 89b, 91a-c, 98c-99a).

Amazing, the resources you can find nowadays — Wayfarer

So many ways to skin a soul :halo: :sparkle:

Which raises the question, maybe not relevant to this particular passage, why Socrates was accused of atheism, if he saw himself as a disciple of Apollo. But let's park that for now.
— Wayfarer

It would seem that no amount of deference to the gods will free Socrates of the "hatred for logos" that sees him as the corruption of youth. — Valentinus

Perhaps we can discuss that if we move on to The Apology after this (which would seem a logical progression.) — Wayfarer

Re: Socrates. I step back from the whole debate about what kind of an -ist he is alleged to have been. What particular spirit led him and how - if he had any god, or religion, it was that of philosophy.
To encourage people to think for themselves in a spirited and rational manner; to base their actions on that rather than follow dead dogma.
He lived and died for that. He followed a different god from that of the status quo.

Re: Plato. From what little understanding I have - he was a brilliant writer who muddied the waters of understanding in different dialogues. Clearly, he made his name and here we are - how many words have been spilled in all the many and conflicting interpretations of his writings.

Some here have already made up their mind and follow Plato from their own 'worldview'.
That's fine. I don't care. Some want to move on quickly once they think they have proved a point.
Again, fine. I don't care.
I will take my own time, even if it is away from this particular thread.
If that means stepping back and looking at other resources - or even abandoning ship - so be it.

I appreciate all the time, patience and effort that @Fooloso4 has given to starting and maintaining this thread. It is quite the challenge.
He continues to be open to re-reading and admitting where he might have misread or misinterpreted.
That says a lot.

Plato's Phaedo is about more than arguing over -isms. For me, Socrates was a spiritual thinker who acted on his belief in the power of philosophy. A heady mix of reason and spirit to move.

I am interested enough to look around; head out of the TPF for a while to read and think at my own pace.
I found an Open Yale course on 'Death' - lecturer Prof. Kagan.
https://oyc.yale.edu/NODE/196

Look under 'Sessions', you will see that Lectures 4,6,7,8 and 9 are dedicated to Plato's Phaedo.
Videos, transcripts and audio files are available.
Might be worth a look, I don't know.

Best wishes, everyone :sparkle:

Progress report: *struggling *
Reading from beginning to end, as in a novel, is fine.
However, this text is nested and includes sets of philosophical arguments.
I need to see how everything fits in. Also to look outside the text for help.

So, I looked for an overview and found this helpful
https://iep.utm.edu/phaedo/

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)

References and Further Reading
General Commentaries
The Philosopher and Death (59c-69e)
Three Arguments for the Soul’s Immortality (69e-84b)
Objections from Simmias and Cebes, and Socrates’ Response (84c-107b)
The Myth about the Afterlife (107c-115a)
Socrates’ Death (115a-118a)

Phaedo librivox

It varies moderately from the text being used here, but I found it useful. — Banno

Thanks. It is useful. Especially if suffering from eye strain.
I downloaded the 8 audio files of Jowett's translation.
Listening to the 1st one (17mins) late at night I fell asleep before the end.
I hear that is one way of absorbing material in to the subconscious - well, for language learning anyway.
For philosophy, methinks tis better to time it for daylight hours...
Then again...

considering that "going off topic" isn't generally against the rules, I cleared the mod queue for the thread. I will leave up the exchanges that you used to summon me. — fdrake

I agree that going off-topic to a certain extent can be a valuable and further exploration.
However, this appears to be more a continual pattern of dishonest and disruptive behaviour, even if it seems to be, at first glance, genuine questions or concerns.
Thanks.

If you want to join in, do your best to make it textual. That's gonna hold for everyone. — fdrake

Thank you for quick response :sparkle:

I won't. When he deliberately alters what I have said, as he has done and elsewhere, I no longer respond. — Fooloso4

Good call.
I have had enough and contacted @fdrake via PM.
Also flagged posts.

No one disputes that. — Apollodorus

N.B. I was addressing your post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536374

But that doesn't eliminate the problem of terminology and meaning. — Apollodorus

But Fooloso4 said he reads the dialogues differently every time he reads them and he intends to disregard meanings suggested by Platonists like Plotinus and modern scholars alike. — Apollodorus

Still you focus on @Fooloso4.
I will leave him to address your 'concerns', misunderstandings or misrepresentations - yet again... :roll:

More distraction from actually reading the text.
Why ? Continual thread disruption needs to be addressed - possibly by the mods ?

Plato's own Greek terms were often varied and indeterminate. Plato deliberately did not employ precise or just consistent meanings throughout his works or even within the same dialogue. — magritte

Interesting. Well worth keeping in mind. I expect there exists a Glossary somewhere which might help ? *

the problem of terminology and meaning. — Apollodorus

Which translation are you reading ?
I have read English translations of e.g. original Chinese; 'The Tao Te Ching' being the most recent.
I appreciate the problem of understanding the meaning.
However, good translations of foreign texts will usually include an Introduction, Notes on the text and address problems of interpretation. They discuss other interpretations and meanings and give reasons for their own choice.

I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf

but relying on this one: Plato-Phaedo-Focus-Philosophical-Library/dp/0941051692. Certain terms from this edition will be used in place of what is found in the online translation. — Fooloso4

If you look at the Contents page here:

Plato's Phaedo - this pdf is the translation with notes by David Gallop.
The translation 1
Notes 74
Notes on text and translation 226
Bibliographies 239
Abbreviations 242
Index 244 — Amity

The Notes run from pp 74 - 226.

For me, looking up each and every note as I read the translation stops the flow.
However, if a problem arises or when I have completed the reading, then the Notes should prove useful.
How about the translation(s) you are reading/have read ?

* found this glossary - there might be a better one elsewhere:
https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Ancient%20Philosophy/Glossary.htm#N

Now, can we get on with the job of reading the text ? [ Perhaps comparing translations if and when necessary] ?
That would be nice...

I think this section important - his pleasurable release from painful tight chains.
Death might be seen as a welcome release from the physical body with all its discomforts.
The pain of life v the joy of the afterlife ?*
There is a separation. Not here a mingling as felt by Phaedo.
— Amity

That release on the last day of his life is important. The inclusion of Xanthippe gives sharp relief to her charge that one last party is planned with his friends. The friends' concern about the subject of death is mixed up with the realization that they won't have Socrates to animate them any longer.

Pardon the lateness of my reply. I am working in meatspace presently so I will participate in a delayed fashion. — Valentinus

Your reply is most welcome - indeed any considered replies and comments about the text are - no matter when they arrive on the scene.

The themes of pain/pleasure - chains/release - body/soul - fear/desire - bad/good continue throughout. *
From the OP:

As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories. — Fooloso4

Later: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534374

a comedy or tragedy
— Fooloso4
Both ?
— Amity

Yes. The idea of opposites not being mutually exclusive will come up several times. — Fooloso4

Right now, I am struggling to keep up with the reading, now at:
67c - 76e pp12-25 as covered by @Fooloso4 here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924

* p12 67d

Then doesn't purification turn out to be just what's been mentioned for some while in our discussion--the parting of the soul from the body as far as possible, and the habituating of it to assemble and gather itself together, away from every part of the body, alone by itself, and to live, so far as it can, both in the present and in the hereafter, released from the body, as from fetters?

The weekend is here, the sun is shining, I am going out...having just finished p14.
Way to go... :cool:

There is, however, a scholarly consensus as to the core teachings that can be extracted from the available texts. — Apollodorus

That makes the whole discussion kind of pointless, doesn't it? — Apollodorus

I must intervene here because quite simply you are spoiling the thread with your focus on @Fooloso4.
It is not the case that the discussion is pointless. Perhaps it is to you but not to me, or anyone else who simply wants to read Plato's Phaedo.

Even if there is a degree of scholarly consensus, that is beside the point as far as I am concerned.
I am here to read and think for myself first and foremost. Then to write and exchange thoughts about the extract in question.
As mentioned previously, I had wanted to do this without recourse to secondary sources.
A change for me.
However, given the turn of events, I looked up one of the SEP entries concerning Plato.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/

what we often receive from Plato is a few key ideas together with a series of suggestions and problems about how those ideas are to be interrogated and deployed.

Readers of a Platonic dialogue are drawn into thinking for themselves about the issues raised, if they are to learn what the dialogue itself might be thought to say about them. Many of his works therefore give their readers a strong sense of philosophy as a living and unfinished subject (perhaps one that can never be completed) to which they themselves will have to contribute.

All of Plato's works are in some way meant to leave further work for their readers, but among the ones that most conspicuously fall into this category are: Euthyphro, Laches, Charmides, Euthydemus, Theaetetus, and Parmenides. — SEP article on Plato

[my bolds]

I will follow Plato's lead, attending to what is said and done in the the dialogue in the order it occurs. It is only once we have seen the whole that we can see how everything fits together, with each part serving its purpose. — Fooloso4

@Fooloso4 has patiently explained his approach a few times now.
It works for me and, hopefully, for others reading along.
Please respect the spirit, allow a 'thinking for ourselves' without any further side-tracking, thanks.

That, it seems to me, would be a good reason to read it again — Fooloso4

I agree. That was behind my questions re @frank 's deep ( ? ingrained ) images and any changing worldview.

I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different. — Fooloso4

It is the same for me, with any book or film there is always something I missed first time round.

However, some may have fixed views on what the text means.
Responses can be ready-made. Re-heat in microwave for 3 minutes.

I think that was a fuck-off. Fair enough. — frank

If I had meant to say, "Fuck off", I would have. You wouldn't have to think about it.
Your interpretation of my post as such, combined with an unwillingness to answer questions is telling. I'll end it here. For now.

Images from Phaedo have gone deep into my thoughts since I first read it. — frank

What kind of images ?
When did you first read it?
What was your worldview then related to philosophy, religion...? What is it now ?

We can try to put ourselves there. — frank

We could. How would you do that relative to the Phaedo?
Other than do a heap of research, we can read and discuss the text as a glimpse of a certain worldview as seen and portrayed by Plato.

it may be that I need to cut out — frank

Why would you think that ? Is it too difficult to read again with a fresh pair of eyes?
Perhaps you know enough already and wish to explore further.
Clearly, we are all at different levels of understanding. Some might be frustrated at content, interpretation and the process. So be it.

As far as I am aware, the purpose of the thread is to read and discuss Plato's Phaedo.

So I'm like, when are you guys going to relate Wittgenstein to what he's saying about the transcendent vantage point?
Maybe later. — frank

So, I'm like, when are you going to realise what @Fooloso4 is attempting to do here ?

I note you ask questions of me but haven't answered mine:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535717

I don't know what you mean by 'pure thought'. How do you understand it as it pertains to this section of the text ? — Amity

I think the key word is 'nous' - a faculty rather more specific than is described by the general term 'thought'. — Wayfarer

Right now, I am only reading this particular English translation.
That there are more ways of interpreting and understanding I have no doubt.

Informative to read the responses by:
@Fooloso4 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535610
@Valentinus https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535632
@Fooloso4 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535646

I think it is a good practice when you come across something questionable to note it, postpone judgment, keep in mind the circumstances, and see how things develop. With the dialogues it is always important to look not only at what is said but at what is done. — Fooloso4

Understood.
I can postpone final judgement but not at the time of my reading and questioning.
I assess as I go...
This dialogue continues to intrigue and challenge me as I try to focus only on a particular section of text.

The Forms differ from the things of experience but they are not abstract concepts or objects of the mind. They are said to be "things themselves by themselves". This formulation is used with regard to the soul. What this means will be discussed. — Fooloso4

Thanks for clarification. Look forward to seeing what 'things themselves by themselves' actually means.

In that case the soul would not endure separate from the body. — Fooloso4

Correct.

But Beauty is not a concept. It's existence is independent of the mind. Things are beautiful to the extent they are images of Beauty itself — Fooloso4

OK. I still don't understand this...I will wait...

In the Symposium Socrates says that the love of wisdom is eros, desire. Philosophy then cannot be freedom from desire if it is motivated by desire. — Fooloso4

Indeed, I think the importance lies in the quantity and quality of desire.
Philosophy as a human enterprise can be as 'infected' by distractions or obsessions as much as the body. At death, desire is lost.
I guess, even if you believe in an afterlife...depending on what you think has been promised by 'being good' or temperate, it will have been satisfied.

But a problem that must be faced in the Phaedo is fear of death. One has it within their power to live in such a way as to avoid fear of punishment for wrongdoing in death. What about the fear of nothingness? Here the practice may involve meditation along the lines of Epictetus:

Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. — Fooloso4

That is a quote I can relate to.

The only good philosopher is a dead philosopher. — Fooloso4

:smile: Am I speaking to a ghost ?

The question of the soul is the very thing that will be the focus of the discussion. Death may simply be, as Socrates said in the Apology, annihilation. The idea of the soul itself by itself will be questioned. — Fooloso4

So, Plato in giving us an understanding of who Socrates was, gives several versions of what he actually thinks ? Talk about getting to the 'truth'... :roll:

This is at odds with the Republic and the story of knowledge of the Forms. But of course those philosophers who had knowledge of "the Forms themselves by themselves" only existed in a city made in speech. A city that is the soul writ large. An image of the soul found in an image of the city. A fine example of Plato’s poesis. — Fooloso4

Ideas of the soul - of afterlife - of life and death - all 'images' or 'imagination' or mere speculation as in a story...?

And if these things are not true then rather than great hope there is a danger of a loss of hope. Knowledge of the just, the beautiful, and the good hang on the fate of the soul. — Fooloso4

Yes, it comes back to the story of hope that Socrates is giving to his audience. Does he actually believe what he is saying, or is it simply a matter of consolation...
If Socrates wants to inspire and for philosophy to continue, then he must offer hope in the very act of practising philosophy.

He [Plato] believed all that and at the same time was one of the most poetic and mythically inclined philosophers of all time. Quite a contradiction. — Cuthbert

Yes. I am trying to keep in mind that Plato is the one who wrote this dialogue even as he draws attention to the fact that he wasn't there, apparently due to illness. He has Phaedo narrate the events as he recalls them.

Interesting that there is a reliance on someone's memory for the 'truth', or is it a myth (both ?) of what happened. Also, that Plato in choice of content and method brings his own 'worldview', including bias. The danger is recognised that it might not always coincide with that of the historical Socrates.

I always wonder to what extent I can put down the lens of my own worldview and see through the eyes of someone like Plato. — frank

Indeed, the way we view the world is coloured by our knowledge, experience and beliefs.

Instead of saying that sinful flesh stands in my way, I say my worldview distorts the truth. — frank

There is more than one worldview or perspective. Even within a single person, there are tensions and conflict. Changes throughout our lives can alter our perspectives, or not.

My intention in this thread was to concentrate only on the particular sections as we proceed through the Phaedo. Also, of course, to listen to other points of view; some might call this 'mere opinion'. Interesting to read other interpretations...
Dialogue is as important here as it was to Plato and Socrates.

Does pure thought reveal to us that there is an unexplored landscape right in front of us? What do you say? — frank

I don't know what you mean by 'pure thought'. How do you understand it as it pertains to this section of the text ?

From 64a - 67c, pp. 8-12.

For me, reading this is both compelling and non-compelling.

Compelling: following the arguments put forward by Socrates to Simmias. Considering the purpose of philosophy. The importance of discovering what life and death is really all about. Philosophy as preparation for death. The questions of duality. Is it even possible to be a 'genuine' philosopher if it means turning away from body to soul ( or mind ) - to isolate oneself or by gathering in the company of like-minded souls only ?

I think not. However, I am not sure that that is what Socrates is saying. He qualifies everything with 'as far as possible'. Nevertheless, there is a focus on abstract concepts such as 'Beauty' compared to the experience of seeing things that are beautiful (65d)

'Well now, what about things of this sort, Simmias? Do we say that there is something just, or nothing?'
'Yes, we most certainly do!'
'And again, something beautiful, and good?'
'Of course.'
'Now did you ever yet see any such things with your eyes?'
'Certainly not.'

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone. This line drawn between sense experience and rational thought - I don't find compelling. There is an interaction.

Just as in the distinction between 'pure philosophers' who have a special knowledge of truth via the reasoning soul compared to the hoi polloi 'infected' (67a) as they are by bodily concerns or pleasures.
It seems that the 'true believers' * - the intellect having been purified (67c) - alone have access to the benefits of the hereafter:

" Such are the things, I think, Simmias, that all who are rightly called lovers of knowledge must say to one another, and must believe.* Don't you agree?'
'Emphatically, Socrates.

'there's plenty of hope for one who arrives where I'm going, that there, if anywhere, he will adequately possess the object that's been our great concern in life gone by; and thus the journey now appointed for me may also be made with good hope by any other man who regards his intellect as prepared, by having been, in a manner, purified'

(67c)

This all starts from the premise, the definition of death as: 'nothing but the separation of the soul from the body' (64c); 'the release and parting of the soul from body' (67d)

What is the 'soul' ?
Is it the reasoning mind alone ?
I think, if there is such a thing, it would involve the bodily senses - even if they are not always 'true' in the sense of correct.

When does the soul attain the truth? Because plainly, whenever it sets about examining anything in company with the body, it is completely taken in by it.' 'That's true.'
'So isn't it in reasoning, if anywhere at all, that any of the things that are become manifest to it?'
'Yes'

(65c)

What are 'the things that are' or 'that which is' - things that exist ?
Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ?
They arise from the real world - we create such - why ? To give ourselves something to think about.
Philosophy can be just as much an impure distraction as anything else...

Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

I don't know but it reminded me of something else - perhaps the Stoics. Something like it is only because of death that we appreciate life...i.e. it gives perspective as to what really matters.
How to live life well. Keeping death in mind...

Or it could be that the 'dying' refers to philosophers giving less oxygen to mundane matters. Paying more attention to the mental than the physical.

Or...the aim to attain a higher self by killing off the base instincts.

Or...living life in the moment so that there are no regrets or fears at point of death.

Or...practising arguments - so that the better man wins by killing any apparent conflicting reasons...or wrong conclusions.

Or...playing devil's advocate - pretending not to be alive to the better argument.

None of the above.

I think he is just trying to encourage his anxious young men that because they are philosophical they will be ready to die when the time comes. Not to fear it or to grieve his passing. He is setting an example of how to approach death with the right attitude.

So that's why I am not so resentful, but rather am hopeful that there is something in store for those who've died-in fact, as we've long been told, something far better for the good than for the wicked.' (63c) — Fooloso4

Perhaps that is why he sent his wife way...the tears...the lamenting...he wanted a positive message to be held in lasting memory.

If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched. — Fooloso4

No. It's a tragicomedy. The tears are there in joy and despair.

A bit of dark humour re suicide and philosophers?

p5 61b

So give Evenus this message, Cebes: say good-bye to him, and tell him, if he's sensible, to come after me as quickly as he can. I'm off today, it seems-by Athenians' orders.'
'What a thing you're urging Evenus to do, Socrates!' said Simmias.
'I've come across the man often before now; and from what I've seen of him, he'll hardly be at all willing to obey you.'
'Why,' he said, 'isn't Evenus a philosopher?'
'I believe so,' said Simmias.
'Then Evenus will be willing, and so will everyone who engages worthily in this business. Perhaps, though, he won't do violence to himself: they say it's forbidden.'...

Cebes now asked him: 'How can you say this, Socrates? How can it both be forbidden to do violence to oneself, and be the case that the philosopher would be willing to follow the dying?'

61 e - [Socrates] I myself can speak about them only from hearsay; but what I happen to have heard I don't mind telling you. Indeed, maybe it's specially fitting that someone about to make the journey to the next world should inquire and speculate as to what we imagine that journey to be like; after all, what else should one do during the time till sundown?'

Can you imagine having this kind of conversation in your last hours ?
And why wait until then...

On the other hand, some casual misogyny in chats between men brings it bang up to date. — Cuthbert

I get what you are saying.

However, I am not sure that any parts of the dialogue written by Plato are 'casual'.
There is so much there - I don't think a word is ever wasted - we could be here forever...

Socrates despite his many virtues was probably in today’s terms not on board with gender equality. Don’t forget these dialogues hail from 300-400 BC. — Wayfarer

I am not forgetting time, place or person.
I don't see Socrates as a perfectly virtuous man, no matter what he says or is alleged to have said.
There is undoubtedly a bias towards males and their 'drunken' discussions - the strength needed in war - the heroic narrative.
Women are invisible but for their tears. It shows a complete blindness to the life and battles of women; their role and strength in keeping things going...providing support and care.

However, I think that Socrates in the business of 'knowing oneself' was concerned with humans; people including women. The vision of a better society with increased wellbeing. That includes acknowledging the opposites or the mingling...of pain and pleasure...of love and war...of life and death.

It would be easy to skim over, or skip this weeping episode but I think it worthwhile to note, especially given the discussion on supposed opposites. Reason v Emotion.
As Foolos4 said: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534374

The idea of opposites not being mutually exclusive will come up several times. — Fooloso4

Pass me the wine :party:

p1 59a Phaedo speaking:

That's why I wasn't visited at all by the pity that would seem natural for someone present at a scene of sorrow, nor again by the pleasure from our being occupied, as usual, with philosophy-because the discussion was, in fact, of that sort - but a simply extraordinary feeling was upon me, a sort of strange mixture of pleasure and pain combined, as I reflected that Socrates was shortly going to die. All of us there were affected in much the same way, now laughing, now in tears, one of us quite exceptionally so, Apollodorus-1 think you know the man and his manner.

So, here pain and pleasure are mixed together - blending the feelings and senses of reflecting on death and loss of Socrates even as they enjoy the philosophical discussion. Noting that some people are more emotionally affected than others - perhaps a criticism of a lack of rationality ? Being emotionally incontinent is not good ?

p3 60a

On entering we found Socrates, just released, and Xanthippe-you know her-holding his little boy and sitting beside him. When she saw us, Xanthippe broke out and said just the kinds of thing that women are given to saying: 'So this is the very last time, Socrates, that your good friends will speak to you and you to them.' At which Socrates looked at Crito and said: 'Crito, someone had better take her home.' So she was taken away by some of Crito's people, calling out and lamenting;

Again, there seems to be a dismissal of what 'kinds of things that women are given to saying'. Implying that it is an unwanted feminine characteristic. And yet, his wife would be the one to carry on and look after their son. I think she is misrepresented here - she has been the provider of finance. She has been there with her care. Living with Socrates and his absences would require a practical wisdom...at the very least.

p3-4 60b

Socrates, meanwhile, sat up on the bed, bent his leg, and rubbed it down with his hand. As he rubbed it, he said: 'What an odd thing it seems, friends, this state that men call "pleasant"; and how curiously it's related to its supposed opposite, "painful": to think that the pair of them refuse to visit a man together, yet if anybody pursues one of them and catches it, he's always pretty well bound to catch the other as well, as if the two of them were attached to a single head...
This is just what seems to be happening in my own case: there was discomfort in my leg because of the fetter, and now the pleasant seems to have come to succeed it.'

I think this section important - his pleasurable release from painful tight chains.
Death might be seen as a welcome release from the physical body with all its discomforts.
The pain of life v the joy of the afterlife ?*
There is a separation. Not here a mingling as felt by Phaedo.

* not convinced that is is how Socrates would see life though, nor about any joy in afterlife.
Although Phaedo seems to think that even in Hell, Socrates would be fine.
58e

I felt assured that even while on his way to Hades he would not go without divine providence, and that when he arrived there he would fare well, if ever any man did

I intend to stick with the narrative flow. Both those passages are from the first page. — Wayfarer

I think that is the way to go. Will post something later re the pain/pleasure issue.

[ My mind goes all over the place - I remember the poignant scene from the film 'Shadowlands' where Jack ( C.S Lewis ) and his wife, Joy shelter from the rain. Joy is dying and wants to talk about it. Jack not so much. He doesn't want to spoil what is a happy moment.

Jack: I’ll manage somehow. Don’t worry about me.
Joy: No, I think it can be better than just managing. What I am trying to say is that the pain then is part of the happiness now. That’s the deal. ]

Before I go into detail, I think it probably best to wait for Fooloso4 to comment first... — Amity

Already on the first page I have a question — Wayfarer

Perhaps I am wrong. And the best way would be to post own thoughts and questions first.
Hmmm...
But I have so many :scream:

it would be remiss of us not to take advantage of having someone who knows what they are talking about to hand, and this is a text that has implications across our subject. — Banno

Yes, and thanks for suggesting this to @Fooloso4. It is a most welcome surprise.

But mostly I'm looking forward to this reading because I expect the unexpected, the unknown unknown. — Banno

:cool:

I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf — Fooloso4

Plato's Phaedo - this pdf is the translation with notes by David Gallop.
Contents
The translation 1
Notes 74
Notes on text and translation 226
Bibliographies 239
Abbreviations 242
Index 244

The next section will cover up to and including 64a. — Fooloso4

An easy and short read; the section up to 64a takes us to p8. I hope more people will join in the conversation that @Fooloso4 has started with encouragement from @Banno. Thanks.
It should be quite a ride.
I have decided, against all my natural inclinations, not to search the internet for secondary sources.
Simply to read, think and make connections for myself. Looking forward to @Fooloso4 as a guide to a closer and deeper understanding - who will take and answer relevant questions.

What we will hear are not simply arguments but stories. The question arises as to whether this is a comedy or tragedy. Phaedo says that he was not overcome by pity and that Socrates seemed happy (58e) Phaedo reports feeling an unusual blend of pleasure and pain. (59a). As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories. — Fooloso4

I've read the section, looking out for these elements. I am intrigued already.
The concepts of death, suicide with religious themes. The pain/pleasure aspects - the mix and the separation. The subtle comedic parts.

Before I go into detail, I think it probably best to wait for @Fooloso4 to comment first...
And he might well be waiting for others to join in. I hope people do :sparkle:

up to and including 64a. — Fooloso4

Appreciate that :up:

moving forward and backwards with the eventual goal of seeing the whole. — Fooloso4

To read to get the gist, for simple pleasure - followed by a slower, more analytical read. Perhaps zooming in on something I find interesting or puzzling. Sounds about right for me.
Look forward to hearing more from you, as and when...

Thanks. I will disappear for a while to read the Phaedo...
Do you recommend only reading up to a certain point before discussion, or what ?

for laurie. — 180 Proof

Someone special...?

I haven't listened to the Cranberries in such a long time. I'd forgotten how beautiful the sound.

Strangely, given recent discussions, the next video started playing:

'Dreams' - the Cranberries (4:14)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc6ulrb2foQ