Plato’s concept of necessity differs from ours. What is by necessity is without nous or intellect. Necessary causes can act contrary to intelligible causes. What is fixed and unchanging cannot serve as the cause of a world of change, contingency, and chance. It should be noted how often necessity occurs in this story. The various cases helps to give us a better sense of the scope of what necessity means and what it entails — Fooloso4

I don't see where Plato's concept differs from ours. What is needed or must be done by the rulers is intelligible. Human needs are only fixed in as much as nature is fixed. If such needs (biological/erotic) are seen as bad for a city, then rules of law need to be initiated. So, needs cause change.

I didn't notice the frequency of the word 'necessity' as I read Book 10. However, I searched for it in the pdf. of the Republic.
It is mentioned 18 times, including some in the Bibliography and the name of the Goddess Necessity'.

I've just read from Book 5 458d about the breeding programme: the selection of mates. Socrates suggests both females and males are driven (naturally) by 'necessity' to have sex with one another.
He asks Glaucon if he thinks the word 'necessities' is right here. G. says they are not geometric necessities but agrees they are erotic ones.

The discussion turns to how unregulated sexual intercourse would not be a 'pious' thing in a city of happy people. And how to solve this problem by breeding humans in their prime. Mating the best to the best is good. The worst to the worst is bad. The offspring of the best to be taken away and reared by special nurses in a separate part of the city. The inferior or disabled will hide in a secret, unknown place.

All of this can only be achieved by subterfuge by the rulers. The 'drugs' of lies and deception by lottery.
All to keep the race of guardians pure.

Just as MU says:

...there is really intelligence behind the scene which creates the appearance of random chance for all those being selected from, and only a distinct class of people are privy to that information. — Metaphysician Undercover

619d He was one of those who had come down from heaven, having lived his previous life in an orderly constitution, sharing in virtue through habit but without philosophy.
Generally speaking, not the least number of the people caught out in this way were souls who came from heaven, and so were untrained in sufferings. The majority of those from the earth, on the other hand, because they had suffered themselves and had seen others doing so, were in no rush to make their choices.

This does not make sense to me. If people were in heaven, then they will already have been judged as good. Even if their virtue is through habit, it is part of their character, formed and informed by life experience and doesn't mean 'without philosophy'.
There is an assumption that they are 'untrained in sufferings'.
However, Life and others within are the trainers. No academic philosophers required. In fact, arguably, they are the least qualified.

Unlike most souls who made their choice based upon the habits of the previous life, (620a) Odysseus now chooses a life of moderation. The suggestion seems to be that although he has chosen last he is an example of someone who has attained phronesis, someone who engaged in philosophy, consistently, in a sound manner. — Fooloso4

I am not sure this is correct. Choices were made by those from heaven. Of different character and ways of thinking. Odysseus' soul made its choice, not because of unthinking habit but:

Remembering its former sufferings, it rejected love of honor, and went around for a long time looking for the life of a private individual who did his own work, and with difficulty it found one lying offsomewhere neglected by the others. When it saw it, it said that it would have done the same even if it had drawn the first-place lot, and chose it gladly.

620d.

This is a set-up to enhance the virtues of philosophy. There seems to be an assumption that the ordinary individual will not be troubled by sufferings or thoughts of being honourable. What kind of love would the ordinary person have? And how would it be regulated...if necessity or rulers required...

I believe we can take modern usage of "necessity", and divide it into two principal categories. We have on the one hand, what is said to be "necessary" as determined by the physical forces of the universe, or the laws of nature. This is the sense which is at the base of determinism. On the other hand we have what is "necessary" as determined by the needs of a free willing being. This is the sense when people desire something as the means to an end, it is needed for that purpose.

We can see, that in much of common, modern usage, it is usually not hard to distinguish the two, it's a pretty straight forward analysis which is required to make that judgement. However, then we have a type of necessity which can be understood as "logical necessity". This is what forces logical conclusions. A thorough analysis will show that this sense of "necessity" is really a subdivision of the sense which is based in the needs of a free willing being, "the means to an end". However, many people will not accept this designation, wanting to assign "logical necessity" more force, making it closer to the sense of "necessity" which is at the base of determinism. However, they generally find that it doesn't quite qualify as a determinist "necessity" because it cannot be shown to be driven by the laws of nature. So they propose another distinct sense of "necessity", a third principal type.

The acceptance of this third type of "necessity" produces a lot of confusion, making the judgement of a specific instance of usage much more difficult. Instead of seeing logic as the means to an end, we now have to distinguish the use of logic as distinct from other decision making practises, to place it in a distinct category which some want to portray as closer to being "necessity" in the sense of being driven by the laws of nature than to being "the means to an end". Furthermore, since decision making generally involves some form of logic, it pulls the whole model of "choice" away from the "means to an end" portrayal toward the determinist portrayal.

In reality, a complete and very thorough analysis of "the concept", "necessity", shows that the opposite is what is the case. The "necessity" of determinism is just a special type of "logical necessity", which is a special type of "means to an end" type of "necessity".

We can see, that in Plato's day these distinctions were even less clear than they are today. The concept "|necessity" was young and underdeveloped. But we have to keep in mind, that since the "means to an end" sense is the overarching sense, it is the other sense, the highly specialized determinist sense of "necessary by the laws of nature" which is not yet developed at Plato's time. It is portrayed as "fate". So we see a recognizable representation of "the means to an end" sense of necessity, but the determinist "laws of nature" sense is not well portrayed at all. It is presented as "a lottery". What we call "the laws of nature" present us with one's "lot in life", the circumstances of one's being, and this is presented by Plato as random chance, with some sort of "necessity" lurking beneath it, which drives it. That sense of "necessity" is some how comparable, or related to the "necessity" which is "the means to an end", but the relation is not really intelligible to those people involved in that discussion because they have a primitive understanding about the laws of nature and determinist forces.

What we call "the laws of nature" present us with one's "lot in life", the circumstances of one's being, and this is presented by Plato as random chance, with some sort of "necessity" lurking beneath it, which drives it. That sense of "necessity" is some how comparable, or related to the "necessity" which is "the means to an end", but the relation is not really intelligible to those people involved in that discussion because they have a primitive understanding about the laws of nature and determinist forces. — Metaphysician Undercover

[emphasis added]

Thank you for your post. Interesting to consider. The understanding of the Cosmos. How it was made intelligible by Plato.
As far as possible.

In the eponymous dialogue Timaeus he identifies two kinds of cause, intelligence and necessity, that is, Nous and Ananke. Given the earlier emphasis in the Republic on the Forms, the introduction of ananke is both surprising and significant. Here at the end we must, by necessity, begin again. Forms and their imperfect images do not tell the whole of the story. — Fooloso4

Checking out the Timaeus, I think I begin to understand:

In the Timaeus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe and an explanation of its impressive order and beauty.

The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos, 28a6) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos).

The governing explanatory principle of the account is teleological: the universe as a whole as well as its various parts are so arranged as to produce a vast array of good effects. For Plato this arrangement is not fortuitous, but the outcome of the deliberate intent of Intellect (nous), anthropomorphically represented by the figure of the Craftsman who plans and constructs a world that is as excellent as its nature permits it to be. — SEP - Plato's Timaeus

[ emphasis added]

So, not random but deliberate. 'Necessity' driving it. We might not be convinced by the story of a divinely created universe. However, there is no doubting the force of Plato's imaginative description. How we can enter into it; admire the images and probe its concepts. The process of philosophy is well on its way. Just what he wanted or needed. Intellect and imagination working together in dialogue.
Philosophy and poetry dancing...as one.

Plato’s concept of necessity differs from ours. What is by necessity is without nous or intellect. Necessary causes can act contrary to intelligible causes. — Fooloso4

I wonder if the language of Hesiod plays a part in this:

Thus it is not possible to deceive or elude the mind of Zeus. For not even Iapetus’ son, guileful34 Prometheus, escaped his heavy wrath, but by necessity a great bond holds him down, shrewd though he be. — Hesiod, Theogony, 613, translated by Glenn W. Most

Each soul chooses a daimon and also a pattern of life. (617e) The daimon is the guardian of that life. (620d) Nothing is said about choosing a daimon, on what basis it is chosen, or how closely it reflects the soul that chooses it. — Fooloso4

The relationship between the choosing and the daimon seems to be an assignment by a daughter of Necessity:

“So when all the souls had chosen their lives, according to the draw they approached Lachesis in order and she gave each the spirit (daimon) they had chosen to escort them as protector through their lives and as fulfiller of their choices. — ibid. 620d

The daimon impels a movement forward as well as enforcing the consequences of the choice.

Comparing the myth of Er with Hesiod's Theogony, shows the Fates literally having a darker story in the latter version:

Night bore loathsome Doom and black Fate and Death, and she bore Sleep, and she gave birth to the tribe of Dreams. Second, then, gloomy Night bore Blame and painful Distress, although she had slept with none of the gods, and the Hesperides, who care for the golden, beautiful apples beyond glorious Ocean and the trees bearing this fruit. And she bore (a) Destinies and (b) pitilessly punishing Fates, (a) Clotho (Spinner) and Lachesis (Portion) and Atropos (Inflexible), who give to mortals when they are born both good and evil to have, and (b) who hold fast to the transgressions of both men and gods; and the goddesses never cease from their terrible wrath until they give evil punishment to whoever commits a crime. Deadly Night gave birth to Nemesis (Indignation) too, a woe for mortal human beings; and after her she bore Deceit and Fondness and baneful Old Age, and she bore hard-hearted Strife. — ibid. 211

The role of the daimon emerges as a dynamic belonging to an individual life.

I don't see where Plato's concept differs from ours. — Amity

In the Timaeus necessity is called the wandering or errant cause. (48a) The necessary connection between necessity (ananke) and chance (tyke) is discussed in Plato’s Laws:

Fire, water, earth and air all exist by nature and chance, they say, and none of these exist by artifice. And the bodies that then come after these, those of the earth, sun, moon and stars, have come into being through these four, entirely soulless entities. They move by chance, each according to its particular power, in such a way that they come together, combining somehow with their own, hot with cold, dry with moist, soft with hard and so on for any mixture of opposites that is produced, of necessity, according to chance. In this way, based upon these processes the whole heaven has come into existence and everything under heaven, including animals and indeed all the plants too, and from these all the seasons have arisen, not through intelligence, they say, or through the agency of a god, or through artifice, but, according to them, through nature and chance.

(889b-c) Emphasis added.

The relationship between the choosing and the daimon seems to be an assignment by a daughter of Necessity:

“So when all the souls had chosen their lives, according to the draw they approached Lachesis in order and she gave each the spirit (daimon) they had chosen to escort them as protector through their lives and as fulfiller of their choices.
— ibid. 620d — Paine

Thanks. Following the process has not been easy for me. I confused the 'soul' with the new life and then the choosing of a new 'spirit' (daimon). Soul and life seem to be used interchangeably.
- see underlined bolds below.

I didn't understand the daimon 's role or how the spindle of Necessity fitted in. Also, missed the prophet as intermediary.

From Reeve's translation, 617d:

When the souls arrived, they had to go straight to Lachesis. A sort of spokesman 29 first arranged them in ranks; then, taking lots and models of lives from the lap of Lachesis, he mounted a high platform, and said:
“The word of Lachesis, maiden daughter of Necessity! Ephemeral souls. The beginning of another death-bringing cycle for mortal-kind! Your daimon will not be assigned to you by lot; you will choose him.
The one who has the first lot will be the first to choose a life to which he will be bound by necessity.
Virtue has no master: as he honors or dishonors it, so shall each of you have more or less of it. Responsibility lies with the chooser; the god is blameless.”

After saying that, the spokesman threw the lots out among them all, and each picked up the one that fell next to him—except for Er, who was not allowed. And to the one who picked it up, it was clear what number he had drawn. After that again the spokesman placed the models of lives on the
ground before them—many more of them than those who were present.

Note 29: Prophêtês: a prophet. Here in the sense of someone who speaks on behalf of a god.

[emphasis added]
I don't quite understand what is being said here of Virtue. However, this might relate to my earlier confusion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/939791

620d When all the souls had chosen lives, in the same allotted order they went forward to Lachesis. She assigned to each the daimon it had chosen, as guardian of its life and fulfiller of its choices. This daimon first led the soul under the hand of Clotho as it turned the revolving spindle, thus ratifying the allotted fate it had chosen.
After receiving her touch, he led the soul to the spinning of Atropos, to make the spun fate irreversible. Then, without turning around, it went under the throne of Necessity. When it had passed through that, and when the others had also passed through, they all traveled to the plain of Lethe, through burning and choking and terrible heat, for it was empty of trees and earthly vegetation. — As above

[emphasis added]

I need to put the theory of reading slowly and carefully into practice. Especially here.
Even then, I welcome insight, clarification and advice from those more experienced with Plato.

Thank you for further explanation from places other than Book10.

This does not make sense to me. If people were in heaven, then they will already have been judged as good. Even if their virtue is through habit, it is part of their character, formed and informed by life experience and doesn't mean 'without philosophy'. — Amity

One can be brought up with good habits, but that does not mean that philosophy is part of their education. Good habits do not preclude philosophy, but may not be the result of philosophy.

'untrained in sufferings' — Amity

Perhaps given their wealth and good fortune Cephalus and Polemarchus are untrained in suffering. Socrates repeats a common assumption to Cephalus:

... for they say that wealthy people have consolation in abundance.

(329e)

Cephalus agrees and goes on to say:

Indeed, the possession of wealth has a major role to play in ensuring that one does not cheat or deceive someone intentionally ...

(331b)

No academic philosophers required. — Amity

I agree. As I understand it, what is meant by philosophy here is something different. I will have more to say on this in connection to the River of Forgetfulness.

Yes, the choice of the soul does seem to be separated from the work of assignment by Lachesis.

I am not sure how it relates to your previous comment about virtue, but I read the role of 'assignment' in this passage as meaning that much more is required for our life to happen than the initial choice. Those requirements, however, do not allow us to "blame the gods" for our choice.

I read the role of 'assignment' in this passage as meaning that much more is required for our life to happen than the initial choice. Those requirements, however, do not allow us to "blame the gods" for our choice. — Paine

:up: That makes sense.

As I understand it, what is meant by philosophy here is something different. I will have more to say on this in connection to the River of Forgetfulness. — Fooloso4

OK. :up:

I took Lachesis' role to be that once the choice of a daimon and of a life is made by the soul, that choice becomes part of the fate of that soul. There is a connection here with something Socrates tells his friends in the Phaedo:

... all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead.

(64a)

The best preparation for making that fateful choice is something you can do now.

With regard to virtue or excellence, it too is a choice:

... each will have more of her or less of her, as he honours her or dishonours her.

(617e)

I agree with that interpretation. I also agree with your view of Odysseus as a 'repurposed' life.

The distinction between the choice and the "assignment" of fate also has the cosmological dimension of depicting the life we encounter. Just as the Timaeus does in your comment here.

Edited to add @Fooloso4:
The cosmological element is also what I was thinking about above when comparing the three daughters as depicted in Er and in Theogony. Like Homer, Hesiod is preserved and changed at the same time.

Looking back I see that I did not include quotation marks for the passage from the Laws. I have edited it.

The Plain and River of Forgetfulness or Lethe

Because of the heat and harsh conditions of the Plain of Forgetfulness it is necessary for the souls to drink from the River of Heedlessness. (621a) In his closing comments Socrates refers to the river as the river of Forgetfulness rather than the river of Heedlessness. What is the connection between heedlessness and forgetfulness?

Those who are prudent are not heedless. They are made prudent by the study and practice of philosophy.

… by looking to the nature of the soul, and calling the life that leads soul to become more unjust, the worse life, and the one that leads it to become more just, the better life. All other studies he will set aside, for we have seen that in life and after death this is the supreme choice.

(618e)

Philosophy is about self-knowledge. Forgetfulness is forgetting yourself. To act heedlessly is to forget yourself. Human wisdom, knowledge of ignorance, is not the divine knowledge of the gods. It is, more moderately, phronesis not sophia.

Socrates tells Glaucon:

“And that, dear Glaucon, is how the story was saved and not lost, and it may save us too if we heed its advice, and we shall safely cross over the River of Forgetfulness without defiling our soul.

(621b-c)

Socrates began the story by saying:

Once upon a time …

(614b)

Starting with this fairytale opening and by telling us that the body of Er, unlike the other bodies, had not begun to decompose, we have reason to doubt the truth of the story. But

… knowing things as they actually are. (595b) — Fooloso4

is limited by things as we can actually know them. We cannot know things as they are after we die but we can come to know ourselves as we actually are. The mythological truth lies in recollecting and heeding the message of the story. In this way we may be saved.

Because of the heat and harsh conditions of the Plain of Forgetfulness it is necessary for the souls to drink from the River of Heedlessness. (621a) In his closing comments Socrates refers to the river as the river of Forgetfulness rather than the river of Heedlessness. — Fooloso4

This differs from other translations. From Reeves:

They camped, since evening was coming on, beside the river of forgetfulness, whose water no vessel can hold. All of them had to drink a certain measure of this water. But those not saved by wisdom drank more than the measure.

there they camped at eventide by the River of Forgetfulness,2 whose waters no vessel can contain. They were all required to drink a measure of the water, and those who were not saved by their good sense drank more than the measure, and each one as he drank forgot all things. — Perseus Tufts - Plato's Republic, Book 10, Section 621a

No mention of a River of Heedlessness.

What is the connection between heedlessness and forgetfulness? — Fooloso4

Why does it matter if it is the same river? The same water.

Those who are prudent are not heedless. They are made prudent by the study and practice of philosophy. — Fooloso4

Are you sure about that? Doesn't it depend on the definition?

Forgetfulness is forgetting yourself. To act heedlessly is to forget yourself. — Fooloso4

Are you sure about that? Doesn't it depend on the definition?

we can come to know ourselves as we actually are. — Fooloso4

Hmmm. The word 'actually' bothers me. It can mean 'according to one's beliefs, views or feelings'.

There is no certainty that we can be so thoroughly objective.

The mythological truth lies in recollecting and heeding the message of the story. In this way we may be saved. — Fooloso4

If there is a 'mythological truth', it can vary according to person and interpretation. Not all myths or stories are heeded or recollected. Historical myths, even if remembered, will not always 'save' people.
Whatever that means? What is the message from either Plato or Socrates?
To be good, to care, to think, to be wise, to be just, to study and practise philosophy?
Does knowing ourselves save us from ourselves?

To ask silly questions about confusing texts? Like:
If no vessel can hold the river's water, then how can it be properly measured? What is a 'certain measure'? Handfuls are of different size and capacity. Some water slipping through fingers.
And what if they drink from different parts of the river. Will some become heedless rather than forgetful? Or are they already heedless?

To be 'saved by wisdom' or 'good sense' - does it take philosophy? Or are some born with it? Re-born?
How wise is it to keep reading Plato - as opposed to any other philosophical, religious, psychological texts or works of literature? Knowledge of the sciences? How to live and be as well as possible.

Just a quick note on the Greek: the place next to the river is called a plain: "τῆς Λήθης πεδίον"

πεδίον (pedion) is defined in the lexicon as: flat, level, on or of the plain. Jones and Preddy translate this word directly:

And then, without turning round, it went beneath the throne of Necessity, and after passing through it, when the rest had also passed through, they all made their way to the plain of Lethe through terrifying choking fire: for the place was empty of trees and anything else that grows in the earth. — ibid. 621a

Edit to add:
By way of description, there is mention of the 'river of carelessness': τὸν Ἀμέλητα ποταμόν.

Ἀμέλητα (amelta) is defined as neglectful, heedless, etcetera. I will look around for a translation that expresses this distinct usage. For now, it should be noted that two different words are in play here.

Edit #2 I found Horan makes the distinction:

From there it went, inexorably, beneath the throne of Necessity, 621A and when it had gone through, since the others had also gone through, they all proceeded to the Plain of Forgetfulness through terrible burning, stifling heat, for the place is devoid of trees or anything that springs from the earth. Evening was coming on by then, so they encamped beside the River of Heedlessness whose water no vessel can contain. Now it was necessary for all of them to drink a measure of the water, but some, who were not protected by wisdom, drank more than the measure, and as he drank, 621B each forgot everything. — translated by Horan

Edit #2 I found Horan makes the distinction: — Paine

Yes. I think that is the translation used earlier by @Fooloso4.

From your Jones and Preddy translation:

By way of description, there is mention of the 'river of carelessness': τὸν Ἀμέλητα ποταμόν.

Ἀμέλητα (amelta) is defined as neglectful, heedless, etcetera. I will look around for a translation that expresses this distinct usage. For now, it should be noted that two different words are in play here. — Paine

Yes. Already noted. Now we can add 'carelessness' to the mix.

It doesn't make sense to me. However, 'river of forgetfulness' does.
The question is why must they drink the water. I thought it was to forget their previous lives and also the current process of re-birth.
To start again, in a new circle of life. Without memories of any lessons learned.

Why was it important to drink a certain measure, if everyone similarly forgot their previous life experience? Or were some memories retained or 'saved' by the wise who took the correct dose?

No mention of a River of Heedlessness. — Amity

Heedlessness is Horan's translation. Bloom translates it as carelessness. The Greek is ἀμέλητος It means, according to Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, not to be cared for.

See the note in the Perseus translation you linked to:
2. In later literature it is the river that is called Lethe.

The later literature calls the river of ἀμέλητος the river of Lethe (Λήθη)

I see that Paine has edited his post to include this.

Why does it matter if it is the same river? — Amity

I do not think Plato uses words heedlessly or carelessly. To say why it matters we must first make note of the difference terms. Someone who forgets might act heedlessly, but one might act heedlessly without forgetting.

Doesn't it depend on the definition? — Amity

If you mean the definition of philosophy, I am going off of what is said beginning at 618e through 619e.

Hmmm. The word 'actually' bothers me. It can mean 'according to one's beliefs, views or feelings'.

There is no certainty that we can be so thoroughly objective. — Amity

Actually is used to mean how things are as opposed to one's beliefs, views, or feelings. More to the point, as opposed to how things are represented in images.

What is the message from either Plato or Socrates?
To be good, to care, to think, to be wise, to be just, to study and practise philosophy? — Amity

Yes, all of the above.

Does knowing ourselves save us from ourselves? — Amity

If to know yourself is to know what is and is not good for you then you are saved unless you are heedless and do things that are contrary to what is good for you.

If no vessel can hold the river's water, then how can it be properly measured? — Amity

I took this to mean that the whole of heedlessness is greater than what any vessel can hold. The heedlessness of souls is without limit.

What is a 'certain measure'? — Amity

I am not sure. Perhaps enough so that we forget what has transpired but not so much that we forget yourself.

To be 'saved by wisdom' or 'good sense' - does it take philosophy? — Amity

I think that this is what he means by philosophy.

Or are some born with it? — Amity

Some will be born with it if they did not drink too much.

We must pay the utmost attention to how each of us will be a seeker and student who learns and finds out, from anywhere he can, who it is who will make him capable and knowledgeable enough to choose the best possible life, always and everywhere, by distinguishing between a good life and a degenerate one.

(618 b-c)

How wise is it to keep reading Plato - as opposed to any other philosophical, religious, psychological texts or works of literature? Knowledge of the sciences? — Amity

Reading Plato need not preclude reading other things. In part it depends on what appeals and resonates with you.

The question is why must they drink the water. — Amity

It is by necessity. Given the conditions the souls all get thirsty. There is not other source to drink from.

If you mean why does the story include this, I think it is a response to the anticipated question of why we don't know what happens in death.

The question of 'drinking too much' oblivion reminds me that the mythology of Hesiod and the Orphic mysteries have the role of Lethe set over against the role of Mnemosyne (or Memory).

Sipping the water of Mnemosyne is not given as one of the options in the Er account. That is interesting considering that Plato uses the mythos of Recollection (anamnesis) or call to mind, in different discussions of learning. That suggests to me that the role of recollection is principally the activity of the living soul.

The absence of Mnemosyne in Plato's account suggests to me that he is not concerned with remembering past 'life' of the soul in the way that interested Plotinus and other Neo-Platonists.

I do not think Plato uses words heedlessly or carelessly. — Fooloso4

I agree. Quite the opposite. Each word counts. And it is why I wonder at the change from 'Heedlessness' to 'Forgetfulness'. When it seems clear that the purpose of the drinking from the river is to forget, rather than to become 'careless'. I think it is the word choice of the translator rather than a fault of Plato.

The 'thirst' of souls can't be physical, can it? So, a spiritual need?

***

Does knowing ourselves save us from ourselves?
— Amity

If to know yourself is to know what is and is not good for you then you are saved unless you are heedless and do things that are contrary to what is good for you. — Fooloso4

Yes. Unfortunately, it is not always known what is and is not good for us. Facts are not always facts but opinion. Science changes what we know about our body, brain, the world, the universe, everything.
And since we are human, we are not always wise or have insight about our selves and behaviour.
I don't believe we can be 'saved' from either the hell or heaven in life as bodies or souls.
Perhaps, we can turn our minds from 'madness' to relative 'sanity'.
So, we can do the best we can with the knowledge we have and the wisdom gained through life experience. That usually entails moderation or keeping a sense of balance.

Just as in the Horan translation:

He will do all this so that he is able to make his choice reasonably, between the worse 618E life and the better one, by looking to the nature of the soul, and calling the life that leads soul to become more unjust, the worse life, and the one that leads it to become more just, the better life. All other studies he will set aside, for we have seen that in life and after death this is the supreme choice. 619A

“He must go then to Hades holding to this view with an unbreakable resolve, so that even there he would not be dazzled by wealth and other such bad influences, fall in with tyrannies and activities like that, inflict a whole host of incurable evils, and experience even greater evils himself. He would decide rather that he should always choose the life that is midway between such extremes, and flee the excesses from either direction as best he can in this life and in all that is to come, 619B for that is how a human being attains the utmost happiness.

It is about attaining utmost happiness by choosing a 'happy' medium.
What concerns me is the reference to 'all other studies' being set aside.
This speaks to me of a clear and understandable bias for philosophy. And the almost obsessive focus on the degree of 'justice' of the soul, or in one's life. It doesn't seem balanced and excludes other qualities, virtues or knowledge from other areas.

***

What is a 'certain measure'?
— Amity

I am not sure. Perhaps enough so that we forget what has transpired but not so much that we forget yourself. — Fooloso4

So, it is about 'forgetfulness' not 'carelessness'.

Or are some born with it?
— Amity

Some will be born with it if they did not drink too much. — Fooloso4

Hah! Wisdom in a bottle.

***

We must pay the utmost attention to how each of us will be a seeker and student who learns and finds out, from anywhere he can, who it is who will make him capable and knowledgeable enough to choose the best possible life, always and everywhere, by distinguishing between a good life and a degenerate one.
(618 b-c) — Fooloso4

[emphasis added]

This is in contrast to the previous 'all other studies' to be 'set aside'. It is assumed that philosophy is the answer as to how to distinguish between the good and the bad. We all know the different versions of the 'truth' don't we? The continual arguments, the endless Dialogues - started by Plato. Even if we seek answers, there is no certainty. Ain't that the truth?

Behaviour once judged as 'degenerate', 'bad' or 'mad' is now better understood and treated.
Some judgements pronounced against women in particular were prejudiced.
Thinking 'hysteria'. Just the tip of the iceberg of structural injustices in society.
Plato's Republic not at all helpful...given the different interpretations and meanings used to support extreme political agendas. Mentioned previously by @Metaphysician Undercover.

Reading Plato need not preclude reading other things. In part it depends on what appeals and resonates with you. — Fooloso4

Of course we can read other things. But that is not what is advised, here, is it?
There is a continual focus on 'justice' and who can best decide the what, who, how and why.
But yes, I realise that it is not all philosophical argumentation but involves poetic narrative.
Repeated patterns and themes bring home the message. Some might call that 'brainwashing'...

I have a strange and strong sense of déjà vu :chin:

The question of 'drinking too much' oblivion reminds me that the mythology of Hesiod and the Orphic mysteries have the role of Lethe set over against the role of Mnemosyne (or Memory). — Paine

I wish I had your knowledge! I had to look this up:

Mnemosyne also presided over a pool in Hades, a counterpart to the river Lethe, according to a series of 4th-century BC Greek funerary inscriptions in dactylic hexameter. Dead souls drank from Lethe so they would not remember their past lives when reincarnated. In Orphism, the initiated were taught to instead drink from the Mnemosyne, the river of memory, which would stop the transmigration of the soul [...]

Mnemosyne, on the other hand, traditionally appeared in the first few lines of many oral epic poems [8]—she appears in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, among others—as the speaker called upon her aid in accurately remembering and performing the poem they were about to recite. Mnemosyne is thought to have been given the distinction of "Titan" because memory was so important and basic to the oral culture of the Greeks that they deemed her one of the essential building blocks of civilization in their creation myth. — Wiki - Mnemosyne

Sipping the water of Mnemosyne is not given as one of the options in the Er account. That is interesting considering that Plato uses the mythos of Recollection (amnemesis) or call to mind, in different discussions of learning. That suggests to me that the role of recollection is principally the activity of the living soul. — Paine

Interesting, indeed! :up:

I wonder if Plato didn't include this as an option because he was arguing against the use of poetry?
And, yes, I did have a vague memory of Plato using recollection in the ways we learn...

In Plato's theory of epistemology, anamnesis (/ ˌænæmˈniːsɪs /; Ancient Greek: ἀνάμνησις) refers to the recollection of innate knowledge acquired before birth. The concept posits the claim that learning involves the act of rediscovering knowledge from within oneself...

Plato develops the theory of anamnesis in his Socratic dialogues: Meno, Phaedo, and Phaedrus. — Wiki - Anamnesis

the role of Lethe set over against the role of Mnemosyne (or Memory). — Paine

We should not forget that in the Phaedrus there is the plain of Aletheia or truth. (248b)

That suggests to me that the role of recollection is principally the activity of the living soul. — Paine

I agree. In the Phaedo the distinction between recollection and being reminded are blurred:

'Yes, and besides, Socrates,' Cebes replied, 'there's also that argument you're always putting forward, that our learning is actually nothing but recollection; according to that too, if it's true, what we are now reminded of we must have learned at some former time. (72e)

'But if that doesn't convince you, Simmias, then see whether maybe you agree if you look at it this way. Apparently you doubt whether what is called "learning" is recollection?'

'I don't doubt it,' said Simmias; 'but I do need to undergo just what the argument is about, to be "reminded"

...

'Then do we also agree on this point: that whenever knowledge comes to be present in this sort of way, it is recollection?”

He goes on to give an example of recollection:

'

Well now, you know what happens to lovers, whenever they see a lyre or cloak or anything else their loves are accustomed to use: they recognize the lyre, and they get in their mind, don't they, the form of the boy whose lyre it is? And that is recollection. Likewise, someone seeing Simmias is often reminded of Cebes, and there'd surely be countless other such cases.'

(73b-d)

Each word counts. And it is why I wonder at the change from 'Heedlessness' to 'Forgetfulness'. When it seems clear that the purpose of the drinking from the river is to forget, rather than to become 'careless'. — Amity

The two words, 'forgetting' and 'carelessness' are both clearly in the account. I fault the translations that fail to convey the difference between the two. I am curious why it is ignored by many translators. The water can have two properties at the same time. The 'lack of measure', displayed by many, is a kind of carelessness.

The convergence of the two properties makes sense as an observation of life. The oblivion of forgetting is like the not-remembering where you are that being thoughtless inculcates. The opposite of both properties is needed for 'seeking justice with intelligence' called for by Socrates in the final address to Glaucon. Departed souls don't get to do much seeking.

I wonder if Plato didn't include this as an option because he was arguing against the use of poetry? — Amity

I agree with @Fooloso4 view of the poetry being re-directed to Plato's ends to address the weakness of Homer and Hesiod discussed at the beginning of Book 10. What is included or not of the commonly told stories becomes a discussion amongst the stories.

We should not forget that in the Phaedrus there is the plain of Aletheia or truth. (248b) — Fooloso4

:up: Where the image of the charioteer speaks of the reality beyond images..

And the almost obsessive focus on the degree of 'justice' of the sou — Amity

Socrates' task as set out at the beginning of Book 2 is to persuade them, as Glaucon puts it:

that it is better in every way to be just rather than unjust

(357a-b)

So, it is about 'forgetfulness' not 'carelessness'. — Amity

It is about the connection between them and with philosophy as phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence, thoughtfulness)

The two words, 'forgetting' and 'carelessness' are both clearly in the account. I fault the translations that fail to convey the difference between the two. I am curious why it is ignored by many translators. The water can have two properties at the same time. — Paine

Yes. Thanks. I know the 2 different English words are used. However, I'm not clear if there are 2 different Greek words. Or if it is one Greek word with different meanings. Grateful for further help.

By way of description, there is mention of the 'river of carelessness': τὸν Ἀμέλητα ποταμόν.

Ἀμέλητα (amelta) is defined as neglectful, heedless, etcetera. — Paine

What does 'etcetera' include?

I don't have the Ancient Greek translation. Is there only one Greek translation?
What is the Ancient Greek for 'forgetfulness'?

Heedlessness is Horan's translation. Bloom translates it as carelessness. The Greek is ἀμέλητος It means, according to Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, not to be cared for.

See the note in the Perseus translation you linked to:
2. In later literature it is the river that is called Lethe.

The later literature calls the river of ἀμέλητος the river of Lethe (Λήθη) — Fooloso4

Thanks for clarifying the translation of the word ἀμέλητος.
Is that the single Greek word used with different English meanings.
Is it the same as the Greek word Ἀμέλητα ?

I did note the river is later called Lethe. But that didn't tell me much. Not sure whether I can rely on this from wiki:

In Greek mythology, Lethe (/ˈliːθiː/; Ancient Greek: Λήθη Lḗthē; Ancient Greek: [lɛ̌ːtʰɛː], Modern Greek: [ˈliθi]) was one of the rivers of the underworld of Hades. Also known as the Amelēs potamos (river of unmindfulness), the Lethe flowed around the cave of Hypnos and through the Underworld where all those who drank from it experienced complete forgetfulness. The river was often associated with Lethe, the personification of forgetfulness and oblivion, who was the daughter of Eris (Strife).

In Classical Greek, the word lethe (λήθη) literally means "forgetting", "forgetfulness".[1] — Wiki - Lethe

And now, I read of the Lethe as known as 'river of unmindfulness'.
How confusing :chin:

Paine:

I fault the translations that fail to convey the difference between the two. I am curious why it is ignored by many translators. The water can have two properties at the same time.

I understand that a river, or the water in a river, can have at least 2 different physical properties. However, this concerns a single Greek word and concept. The name of a river. The meaning of the name. What idea is being conveyed.

Translators will differ as to the importance of differentiation. Depending on how they interpret the sense of the word in context.
If most go with 'river of forgetfulness', then that is what makes sense to me. It fits with my initial intuition or impression.
But I've said this before. Moving on...

However, I'm not clear if there are 2 different Greek words. Or if it is one Greek word with different meanings. — Amity

It is two different Greek words. I meant to say that with my first comment on the passage and now realize that I did not introduce enough background to make that clear. The wiki is correct when it says: "Also known as the Amelēs potamos (river of unmindfulness)"

The name of a river. — Amity

I wonder if this aspect is why the two separate meanings got collapsed into one (by some). The reference to the "plain of Lethe" is not given primacy over the "river of carelessness" in the text. The different meanings are related to their effects. Looking at how the mythology is developed; the mapping of the underworld follows the story of the origins of the quality being described.

I wonder if the insistence of the river with a name comes from poets such as Virgil where the role of Lethe is located in the afterlife (and pre-life) and has no role amongst the living.

It is two different Greek words. I meant to say that with my first comment on the passage and now realize that I did not introduce enough background to make that clear. The wiki is correct when it says: "Also known as the Amelēs potamos (river of unmindfulness)" — Paine

Thank you for the clarification. The words can be synonyms, the change of meaning is a choice of the translator. The introduction of ambiguity is not helpful. English synonyms for 'forgetfulness', depending on context: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/forgetfulness.html

The name of a river.
— Amity

I wonder if this aspect is why the two separate meanings got collapsed into one (by some). The reference to the "plain of Lethe" is not given primacy over the "river of carelessness" in the text. The different meanings are related to their effects. Looking at how the mythology is developed; the mapping of the underworld follows the story of the origins of the quality being described. — Paine

Perhaps. But I don't see that 2 different meanings have been collapsed into one. As explained, I see only one river and one meaning or understanding, given the context.

Why would the plain of Lethe be given primacy? Isn't it only part of the journey description and a reason for the 'thirst'? A barren place of hot desolation? 'through burning and choking and terrible heat, for it was empty of trees and earthly vegetation' 621a.
Perhaps in the contrast we can see the river as some kind of oasis. A place of relief. From whence the souls can refresh and rid themselves of the hellishness they have suffered? Forgetting.

Yes. I agree it is interesting to consider the mythology and the mapping.

I wonder if the insistence of the river with a name comes from poets such as Virgil where the role of Lethe is located in the afterlife (and pre-life) and has no role amongst the living. — Paine

Why do you use the word 'insistence'?
I found an interesting site which references and describes the Lethe in different contexts. Symbolism and significance. Literature - Modern Interpretations - Art and Music. Philosophical perspectives.

Lethe: The Spirit and River of Forgetfulness

Lethe has been referenced in many classical literary works. In the Odyssey, Homer describes Lethe as a river that the dead drink from to forget their former lives. The poet Virgil also mentions Lethe in his epic poem Aeneid, where he describes the river as a way for the dead to forget their past lives before being reincarnated. Additionally, in Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates describes death as a release from the body and a return to the realm of pure thought, where the soul can be purified and drink from the river of forgetfulness. [...]

The river itself is often described as having a milky-white color and is said to be shallow enough to wade through. The water is believed to have a sweet taste, and those who drink from it are said to experience complete forgetfulness. The river is also known as the “river of unmindfulness” and is believed to wash away all memories of the past. — Mythical Encyclopedia - Lethe - The Spirit and River of Forgetfulness -

[emphasis added]

Here, 'unmindfulness' means forgetfulness - a state of being unaware. This is different from its other meaning of 'carelessness' or 'heedlessness'.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/unmindfulness.html

Edit: Unfortunately, there is no link to the Phaedo reference. Although, I note this:

We should not forget that in the Phaedrus there is the plain of Aletheia or truth. (248b) — Fooloso4