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? — Fooloso4

I would not attach too much specific importance to these words. These are generally emotion based concepts, and the words for feelings are used in a variety of ways, and ways which are rapidly changing as the days pass by, making them not well-defined. Furthermore, we have a second layer of ambiguity created by the word employed by the translator, and it being not well-defined in the same way.

It might be important though, to note that "thirst" is an important symbol to Plato, in his example of how the body is distinct from the soul, and very clear proof that the body is directed by, or ruled by, the soul. Thirst drives a man with a hard and fast desire to drink, which is extremely difficult to overcome with will power, when the water in front of one is known to be in some way not safe for human consumption. The capacity for a thirsty person to resist the desire to drink water which is known to be unsafe, is Plato's principal example of how reason, as a property of the soul, has the power to rule over the body. Notice in the myth, that the souls are forced to drink, as they are ruled by a power which is even higher than human reason.

Why would the plain of Lethe be given primacy? — Amity

In regard to our discussion of the meaning of the two different words, I was not arguing for primacy for either term. I was only arguing for a difference. We will have to agree to disagree that there can only be one meaning: per you saying: "I see only one river and one meaning or understanding, given the context."

Why do you use the word 'insistence'? — Amity

My beef with the translators is that a quality of the stream is overlooked in the interest of giving it only one function. The reference to Virgil is to a scene where the river only has the job of wiping the hard drive of mortals:

The souls that throng the flood
Are those to whom, by fate, are other bodies ow’d:
In Lethe’s lake they long oblivion taste,
Of future life secure, forgetful of the past. — Virgil, Aeneid

This view of processing the dead gives the water a role similar to references to the river Styx, a location firmly outside the realm of life. In the context of the story of Er, however, the stream is known in our lives by its effects. In the world of Hesiod, that makes Lethe a relative of Strife, Hardship, Starvation, Pains, Battles, Wars, Murders, Manslaughters, Disputes, Anarchy, Ruin, and Oaths.

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

The mythos of the charioteer does speak of our soul's life beyond this mortal coil but provides a connection to it as well:

“The reason for the great eagerness to behold the plain of truth is that the nutriment appropriate to the best part of soul lies on the meadow 248C there, and the nature of the wing which lifts the soul upwards is nourished by this. And the ordinance of necessity is as follows: any soul that has become a companion to a god and has sight of any of the truths is safe until the next revolution, and if the soul can do this continually, it is always preserved from harm. But whenever it does not see, because it cannot keep up, and is filled with forgetfulness and vice and weighed down through some mischance and sheds its wings on account of the heaviness and falls to the ground, the law decrees that the soul be not implanted 248D in any beastly nature at its first birth. — Phaedrus, 248b, translated by Horan

This story varies sharply from the allotment of Fates depicted in the story of Er. The "plain of Aletheia" is set over against "forgetfulness and vice." This narrative is closer to the one given in Phaedo than Er:

“And if after we have acquired it we have not forgotten it every time, we must always be born with the knowledge and live with the knowledge throughout our lives. For that is what knowing is, the retention of knowledge, without loss, once it has been acquired. For we do refer to forgetting as the loss of knowledge, do we not, Simmias?” 75E

“Entirely so, Socrates, of course,” he replied.

“On the other hand, I presume that if we acquired knowledge before birth and lost it in the process of birth, but later on, by using the senses in this regard, we re-acquired the knowledge we previously possessed, then what we call learning would be a re-acquisition of our own knowledge. And wouldn’t we be right to call this recollection?” — Phaedo, 75d, translated by Horan

So, what to make of Er in light of these differences is the question for me. I think that likening the three sisters to spinners of thread is to look at mortality as a production. The experiences of the soul are seen through a "mechanism" of life coming into being. The souls may be immortal but the work of each daimon is complete when Atropos cuts the thread.

What is the connection between heedlessness and forgetfulness?
— Fooloso4

I would not attach too much specific importance to these words. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is important to note the words used in translation and interpretation.
As already mentioned, I think the meaning matters as to the best fit in the context and circumstances. I won't rehash my view again.

These are generally emotion based concepts, and the words for feelings are used in a variety of ways... — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure what you mean by 'emotion based concepts'.
Is it that one can be seen as 'bad', the other 'good'?
So, I prefer 'forgetfulness' to 'heedlessness' or 'carelessness'. Other translators or readers prefer 'carelessness' which in my view has a negative connotation.

The Lethe is a symbol in Greek mythology. Not just a word.
So, it is important to understand its meaning, in the context of Book 10.

The words 'thirst' and 'hunger' are interesting to consider.

Don't they show both a need and a desire?
They are signs or symptoms of both body and mind, arguably on the verge of unhappiness, dehydration or malnutrition should they not be properly assessed and action taken. This has nothing to do with 'virtue', rather practical wisdom.

If the hunger is for more than is necessary then I agree that can be problematic in terms of morality. Greed and Gluttony being 'vicious'.

This combines all of Plato's 3 parts of the soul: reason, spirited emotion and appetitive desire.

It seems that reason should be given the higher power but is this 'just'?
Isn't desire one of the main motivating factors. The desire to be healthy and well.
And fear - or concern - is the other. It is prudent not to die, if it can be helped.

The worry of excess is understandable. It could be argued that there can be an excess of cold, objective reason to the detriment of the spirited soul.

Passion and learning in the arts and literature are still being judged as having lower value than philosophy.

In the context of the story of Er, however, the stream is known in our lives by its effects. — Paine

What do you mean by this?
If the function of the river Lethe is to forget any previous life, then how do we know its effects?

Why would the function of drinking its water be to provide 'carelessness' or 'heedlessness' ?

My beef with the translators is that a quality of the stream is overlooked in the interest of giving it only one function. — Paine

What is the quality of the stream?

We will have to agree to disagree that there can only be one meaning: per you saying: "I see only one river and one meaning or understanding, given the context." — Paine

Perhaps we need a negotiator? Haven't heard anything from @Jamal or any previous participants for a while... @Benkei @Srap Tasmaner ?

I am not saying I am correct. It is my interpretation.There are clearly other interpretations of the reading, no?

Haven't heard anything from Jamal or any previous participants for a while. — Amity

I'm working through the Republic but I'm still on book 1. I read the whole thing in my youth, and again a few weeks ago, but I'm not thinking about book 10 at the moment. I can't do everything at once, no matter how much you badger me.

can't do everything at once, no matter how much you badger me. — Jamal

:lol: So, you will be getting back on the Book 1 horse soon, then ?
Missing ya' :groan:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15484/poets-and-tyrants-in-the-republic-book-i/p1

I'm dealing with Thrasymachus, but have been distracted by some novels. I don't know if I'll be posting anything here anyway.

I don't know if I'll be posting anything here anyway. — Jamal

That's what I thought. Our loss. Weeping uncontrollably :sad: :broken: :cry:
Novels are good for the soul :halo:

:blush:

We will have to agree to disagree that there can only be one meaning: per you saying: "I see only one river and one meaning or understanding, given the context."
— Paine

Perhaps we need a negotiator? — Amity

Plato uses two different words λήθη (621c) and ἀμέλητος (621a) when referring to the same thing, the river. Heraclitus might say it is not the same river but by this he means something different. Although we might ask him whether we should use the same name if the river is not the same.

λήθη, forgetfulness, and ἀμέλητος, heedlessness, carelessness, or unmindfulness, do not mean the same thing but there is an overlap in meaning, just as there is with the three terms used in translation.

Lethe and Aletheia have the same root. We might think of Lethe as having forgotten the truth, and Aletheia as remembering or recollecting the truth. There is, however, not a single truth but overlapping truths at issue. The truth of what has happened, the truth of the soul, the truth about yourself.

Plato uses two different words λήθη (621c) and ἀμέλητος (621a) when referring to the same thing, the river. — Fooloso4

Is it Plato or the translator?

λήθη, forgetfulness, and ἀμέλητος, heedlessness, carelessness, or unmindfulness, do not mean the same thing but there is an overlap in meaning, — Fooloso4

Where is the overlap in meaning? I can imagine 'forgetfulness' as being separate and yet together with the others. More like being on a spectrum? With a range of values. But still that is pushing it.

We need to be clear on what is happening at the river Lethe.

This is one definition of Lethe: a river in Hades whose water when drunk made the souls of the dead forget their life on earth. Also, in Classical Greek, the word lethe (λήθη) literally means "forgetting", "forgetfulness".

What do you think is the purpose of its meaning 'forgetfulness' - in its place just before the re-birth?
What do you think is the purpose - at this spot - if its meaning is 'heedless' or similar?
A clear and simple explanation would be appreciated in relation to Book 10 and nowhere else.

Lethe and Aletheia have the same root. We might think of Lethe as having forgotten the truth, and Aletheia as remembering or recollecting the truth. There is, however, not a single truth but overlapping truths at issue. The truth of what has happened, the truth of the soul, the truth about yourself. — Fooloso4

I think I can understand and appreciate this perspective. The overlapping 'truths' of the past, present and imaginings of the future. Through the lens of life and death. Applicable to self, its narrative journey or mythology. How we experience and try to understand the world (or underworld) and our place in it. Physically and mentally. The forgetting and the remembering. The loss and recovery. The cycle.
The cosmic rhythm and change. How death shapes life. :death: :flower:

Nevertheless, the root 'lethe' means 'forgetting or forgetfulness'.
Why twist it with the addition of 'truth' to mean something else?
What is the problem with accepting the simple version?

Is it Plato or the translator? — Amity

It is Plato.He uses these two different words. As Paine pointed out, the fault of the translator lies with those translators who fail to distinguish between these terms. I think Plato intends for us to try and work though the connection.

Where is the overlap in meaning? — Amity

Doing certain things will cause me trouble and pain. If I do them anyway I am being heedless or careless or unmindful. We often fail to learn from our mistakes. Have we forgotten what happened in the past?

We need to be clear on what is happening at the river Lethe. — Amity

I would like to, but I forgot.

What do you think is the purpose of its meaning 'forgetfulness' - in its place just before the re-birth. — Amity

It explains why we do not remember what happened. Er remembers because he did not drink from the river.

What do you think is the purpose - at this spot - if its meaning is 'heedless' or similar? — Amity

We can avoid being heedless by keeping to our proper measure in all things. Determining what that is has something to do with knowing who we are, which includes knowing who or what we are not.

It is Plato.He uses these two different words. — Fooloso4

It's late and I'm tired, so I should probably leave this.

When I asked if it was the translator, I didn't mean the English translators.
I was wondering about any of the Greek translations. How many versions are there of the 'original' Greek text? Who were the publishers?

How do we know those words weren't changed over the centuries?

think Plato intends for us to try and work though the connection. — Fooloso4

You know Plato better than I do. He certainly makes heavy work for us.
I am not convinced it is worth it, for me. I will read it on my terms. Probably away from here. Even it is different from your interpretation. I will stick with the one that makes sense to me.

Doing certain things will cause me trouble and pain. If I do them anyway I am being heedless or careless or unmindful. We often fail to learn from our mistakes. Have we forgotten what happened in the past? — Fooloso4

Trying to read Book 10 is causing me trouble and pain. As well as some degree of pleasure. I do it anyway and don't consider myself in such negative terms.

If I fail to learn from mistakes, it doesn't mean I have forgotten what has happened in the past. It means I'm pretty stupid but can still be 'just' or a good person towards others. I give myself a chance to recover and persevere, as far as I am able.

I don't believe in heaven, hell or rebirth. I am showing patience and tolerance in order to understand but there are limits. I do learn from mistakes. It is one way to grow and progress. Trial and error.

Right now, I am using a cost/benefit analysis to work out whether it is in my best interests to continue with this 'argument' or to do as Paine wisely suggested. To agree to disagree. Sure sounds good to me.

It explains why we do not remember what happened. Er remembers because he did not drink from the river. — Fooloso4

Forgetting is necessary if we are to start again. In a new form. Human or animal.
A multitude of past lives would get in the way.

We can avoid being heedless by keeping to our proper measure in all things. — Fooloso4

Can we? Can a frog avoid being heedless if it doesn't drink the 'right' amount.
Even if that were known? We are assuming a rebirth as a human.

Determining what that is has something to do with knowing who we are, which includes knowing who or what we are not. — Fooloso4

A problem for frog spawn, tadpoles or froglets.
Knowing. Forgetting. Remembering. Not always possible.
The scenario is unfair and unjust.
So much for Plato.
Good for some. For others, not so much. A matter of taste as much as intellect.

Good night :yawn:

As already mentioned, I think the meaning matters as to the best fit in the context and circumstances. I won't rehash my view again. — Amity

I think we need to consider "context" as the entire work, "The Republic". This is what I said earlier, we look at the whole, and try to see how the part fits into the whole, and this is how we ought to understand, or interpret, that part. That is why multiple readings is the best course for understanding a philosophical piece. The first reading gives an overall, general idea about what is going on. This allows one to go back and reread, and better understand each part, in relation to how it fits into that understanding of the whole. Then, the person can develop a better understanding of the whole, and be prepared for a repeat.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'emotion based concepts'.
Is it that one can be seen as 'bad', the other 'good'?
So, I prefer 'forgetfulness' to 'heedlessness' or 'carelessness'. Other translators or readers prefer 'carelessness' which in my view has a negative connotation. — Amity

The translation to words with bad or good connotations is something which needs to be determined in relation to the overall context. Plato has separated mind from body, throughout the text, and has proposed a third aspect of the being, passion, or spirit, as the medium between these two. This conception is known as Plato's tripartite soul. In a healthy human being, the mind rules over the body through the means of the passions. This is the same way that the rulers rule over the working class through the means of the guardians, in Plato's proposed republic. In the case of an unhealthy, or corrupted soul, the situation is reversed, the passions are responding to the body, with the result being the suffering of the mind.

Now, in the situation described by the myth of Er, the people are dying, so the circumstance is one of unhealthiness. I believe it is better to consider them dying than dead, because Er managed to come back from this near death experience to tell the story. And, since it is a circumstance of unhealthy souls, the words are best understood to have bad connotations. So these words, "forgetfulness", "heedlessness", or "carelessness", are all best understood as the bad passions which are completely extinguishing the mind's rule over the body, and this will result in death.

The image of "thirst", I believe is very significant, because thirst is the example which Plato uses to show how in the case of a healthy soul, the mind can rule over the desires of the body. In the described circumstance of the myth, the mind is losing that capacity, and the soul is "forced" to drink, and this is what finalizes the end of the mind's rule over the body. This is also the death of Socrates, being forced to drink poison. So these words, heedlessness etc., are the words which are used to refer to those passions which overcome the mind, and lead to the end of the rule of mind over body.

This combines all of Plato's 3 parts of the soul: reason, spirited emotion and appetitive desire.

It seems that reason should be given the higher power but is this 'just'?
Isn't desire one of the main motivating factors. The desire to be healthy and well.
And fear - or concern - is the other. It is prudent not to die, if it can be helped. — Amity

The important point about the tripartite soul, is that the middle part, what you call "spirited emotion", is fundamentally neutral. You can think of it as power, and power can be used for good or for bad. If the emotions are directed by reason, the mind uses the emotions to control appetitive desires, and the soul is happy and good. Conversely, the appetitive part may use the emotions to overpower the mind. This relationship is best seen in the corresponding three parts of the state. The guardians are the median group. Corresponding with "spirited emotion", they are bred to be like watchdogs, serving their masters, the rulers, with honour. But when the state starts to corrupt, the guardians become more interested in money than honour, and they switch allegiance, from rulers to the ruled, the tradespeople.

In summary then, desire must be ruled by reason to avoid all sorts of moral problems. In this way, "the desire to be healthy and well" is given priority over the desire for instant gratification. There must be some kind of power there, as a motivating force, but it cannot be desire itself, or else reason would not have the capacity to overcome desire (Plato's example of thirst). So motivation, as power is assigned to the middle aspect, this allows that reason can overcome desire, or desire can overcome reason, depending on the disposition of the emotions.

As already mentioned, I think the meaning matters as to the best fit in the context and circumstances. — Amity

I think we need to consider "context" as the entire work, "The Republic". This is what I said earlier, we look at the whole, and try to see how the part fits into the whole, and this is how we ought to understand, or interpret, that part. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I understood what you said earlier and have not forgotten. There was no need to repeat. I agree that it is of benefit to read the Republic as a whole. It can also be read in context with the other Dialogues and what Plato is trying to achieve. What is his overall message. His purpose.

However, I am where I am. And persuaded to stay. Encouraged by @Fooloso4 to discuss 'ideas and issues that arise in the part of the dialogue we are reading'. Asking questions of self and others. Interacting in good faith and hope for an improved understanding.

There are contexts within contexts within contexts. That reminds me of the whorl of the spindle of necessity and its nestings. Perhaps I am on a different planet!

The context I am referring to is the literary context. It is just the situation where an event takes place, and any description or statement is given. Involving characters and views. The souls arriving at the river Lethe in the Myth of Er.

Now, in the situation described by the myth of Er, the people are dying, so the circumstance is one of unhealthiness. I believe it is better to consider them dying than dead, because Er managed to come back from this near death experience to tell the story. And, since it is a circumstance of unhealthy souls, the words are best understood to have bad connotations. So these words, "forgetfulness", "heedlessness", or "carelessness", are all best understood as the bad passions which are completely extinguishing the mind's rule over the body, and this will result in death — Metaphysician Undercover

That is an interesting perspective. The circumstance is not of people dying. The majority are souls about to return in another life. Human or animal. They have no physical body. Er's soul seems to have departed his body on the cusp between life and death. Just as the river can be seen as a border to cross. He is there in the Myth as an observer to return and tell the story, of the Myth.

It does not follow that the words are 'best understood' as having bad or negative connotations. Or as 'bad passions' which do as you suggest.

I could zoom in a bit more. However, I think I need to contemplate on 'carelessness'.
Thanks to @Paine for showing patience and persevering with this.

Earlier I asked @Fooloso4:
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 which he replied: Yes, all of the above.

I think care lies at the core. So, 'carelessness' seems to be negative.

However, there are different ways to see 'carelessness'. As 'free from care' - having no worries, problems or anxieties. I can accept this as being necessary and welcome for the souls about to start a new life. They don't want to worry or about events in the past, present or future.

Drinking from the waters of the river Lethe can induce this state.
Of carelessness or forgetfulness. Of oblivion. To become a newly born with a blank slate...

Thanks to you and everyone for a most stimulating conversation :sparkle:

So who will volunteer to start one on Plato's Republic? :wink: :monkey:

New beginnings. Here comes the Sun. Hope, happiness and freedom. In music. I know this is not to everyone's taste but I felt the need. :sparkle:

The lyrics of George Harrison

speak of the sun breaking through the horizon and the resulting feelings of warmth and happiness. The song’s infectious melody adds an extra layer of positivity, amplifying its overall feel-good vibe.

The Beatles - Here Comes The Sun (2019 Mix)

I wonder what Plato or Socrates listened to... :chin:
Hmmm...Hymns?

What do you think is the purpose - at this spot - if its meaning is 'heedless' or similar?
— Amity

We can avoid being heedless by keeping to our proper measure in all things. Determining what that is has something to do with knowing who we are, which includes knowing who or what we are not. — Fooloso4

I'm returning to this. You are right. However, this purpose is at a different level. That of Plato's or Socrates' overall aim in story-telling. Through the Dialogues. It is a rhetorical context. Crafting a message.
To persuade that it is better to consume and consider wisely and carefully. And so on.

I am viewing this in its literary context. The perspective of the individual souls in the Myth of Er.
The need to drink from the river of Lethe as a way to progress, without care or anxiety, to a new life as a new-born. To blankly go where they haven't been before. Well, as far as they know...

I agree that in general, there's a need for balance - 'keeping to a proper measure' - to achieve wellbeing.
However, here at the river, there is no regulating vessel with which the souls can measure the water.

All souls (human or animal) who drink, forget. Perhaps some remember more in their next life according to the amount imbibed. But that is speculation.

Drinking from the river, in this context or circumstance, does not necessarily mean that they will avoid being heedless in the next life.

Time for a break and cuppa tea. With milk and no sugar. Thanks for the exchange of views :cool:

The circumstance is not of people dying. The majority are souls about to return in another life. Human or animal. They have no physical body. Er's soul seems to have departed his body on the cusp between life and death. Just as the river can be seen as a border to cross. He is there in the Myth as an observer to return and tell the story, of the Myth. — Amity

That's very clearly not the case. Er's soul did not depart his body, otherwise the body would have started the decomposition process. These experiences are known as "near death". Er went on the trip with the others, without his soul leaving his body. The adventure occurred within that context. We can conclude therefore that this is the context of that trip, it is the process of dying, not the condition of being dead. This is prior to the returning in another life, which only occurs after the drinking of the water, which Er did not partake of.

The drinking symbolizes finality for Plato. It is the finality of Socrates when he drinks the poison. And, the will power to resist drinking non-potable water, when a man is thirsty, is the example Plato uses to demonstrate, that it is necessary to conclude, that the mind rules the body. This argument, concerning the will power of a thirsty person to resist the desire to drink, when the water is known to be likely unfit for drinking, is a very strong argument for the idea that the mind can rule over the desires of the body. Therefore drinking is a very powerful symbol in myths like this, and being forced to drink is very significant as representative of that moment when the body overpowers the soul, and puts an end to that rule. This is when the harmony of the parts, which is the effect of the soul ruling the body, is lost, and decomposition of the body begins.

It does not follow that the words are 'best understood' as having bad or negative connotations. Or as 'bad passions' which do as you suggest. — Amity

Again, this is clearly not the case. The situation described by Er is a situation in which the rule of the soul, over the body is being lost. By Plato's principles this is explicitly bad. Therefore the terms used here "forgetfulness", and "heedlessness" or "carelessness", mean that something bad is occurring. It would constitute misunderstanding, to deny the bad connotations of these words. This is undeniably a bad situation.

However, there are different ways to see 'carelessness'. As 'free from care' - having no worries, problems or anxieties. I can accept this as being necessary and welcome for the souls about to start a new life. They don't want to worry or about events in the past, present or future. — Amity

You appear to have an irrational inclination toward glorifying death. Death ought not be represented as freeing oneself from the problems of life. In no way does the myth of Er imply that this is the case. Notice, the souls in the final stages of dying are presented with the most difficult decision, what sort of life would be better than the one I just had. And, the souls are bound by fate to be subjected to the consequences of that final choice. Therefore, rather than being freed, the souls at this point are bound and sentenced to a lifetime of living out the consequences of that one, most important choice. That 'most important choice' is, 'what is the best possible life which a soul could have?'. Notice, the possibilities are restricted to those handed out by fate, and "having no worries, problems or anxieties" is not an option.

I am viewing this in its literary context. The perspective of the individual souls in the Myth of Er.
The need to drink from the river of Lethe as a way to progress, without care or anxiety, to a new life as a new-born. To blankly go where they haven't been before. Well, as far as they know... — Amity

Again, you are neglecting the essence of the myth. Read 618 please. The message concerns the 'all important', most significant, choice which must be made, "the greatest danger of all" 618b. That is the choice, to choose from the available options, the best possible life a soul could have. To the extent that we all have regrets, and no one would ever choose to live a life exactly as one has, the choice is "To blankly go where they haven't been before". But, as indicated in the translation below with " But there was no determination of the quality of soul, because the choice of a different life inevitably2 determined a different character", we need to decide which will be the best life. This is the problem, we must choose a life which is different, but by what principles will we know that the different will be better rather than worse.

However, this going forward which is presented, this proceeding, or "way to progress" is irreversibly conditioned (because the nature of time) by that all important, primary choice, which is forced upon the soul. Refusing to choose would mean a lifetime in purgatory. And if one is overcome by forgetfulness, or haste, the soul will be punished with suffering. Therefore a lifetime of experiences, in the future life, is dependent on this one choice, "what is the best possible life a soul could have". So it's completely opposed to the message of the myth, to say that the souls proceeds "without care or anxiety". If you believe that you can progress without care or anxiety, you will surely choose the life of tyranny.

[618a] And after this again the prophet placed the patterns of lives before them on the ground, far more numerous than the assembly. They were of every variety, for there were lives of all kinds of animals and all sorts of human lives, for there were tyrannies among them, some uninterrupted till the end1 and others destroyed midway and issuing in penuries and exiles and beggaries; and there were lives of men of repute for their forms and beauty and bodily strength otherwise [618b] and prowess and the high birth and the virtues of their ancestors, and others of ill repute in the same things, and similarly of women. But there was no determination of the quality of soul, because the choice of a different life inevitably2 determined a different character. But all other things were commingled with one another and with wealth and poverty and sickness and health and the intermediate3 conditions.

—And there, dear Glaucon, it appears, is the supreme hazard4 for a man. [618c] And this is the chief reason why it should be our main concern that each of us, neglecting all other studies, should seek after and study this thing5—if in any way he may be able to learn of and discover the man who will give him the ability and the knowledge to distinguish the life that is good from that which is bad, and always and everywhere to choose the best that the conditions allow, and, taking into account all the things of which we have spoken and estimating the effect on the goodness of his life of their conjunction or their severance, to know how beauty commingled with poverty or wealth and combined with [618d] what habit of soul operates for good or for evil, and what are the effects of high and low birth and private station and office and strength and weakness and quickness of apprehension and dullness and all similar natural and acquired habits of the soul, when blended and combined with one another,6 so that with consideration of all these things he will be able to make a reasoned choice between the better and the worse life, [618e] with his eyes fixed on the nature of his soul, naming the worse life that which will tend to make it more unjust and the better that which will make it more just. But all other considerations he will dismiss, for we have seen that this is the best choice, [619a] both for life and death. And a man must take with him to the house of death an adamantine1 faith in this, that even there he may be undazzled2 by riches and similar trumpery, and may not precipitate himself into tyrannies and similar doings and so work many evils past cure and suffer still greater himself, but may know how always to choose in such things the life that is seated in the mean3 and shun the excess in either direction, both in this world so far as may be and in all the life to come; [619b] for this is the greatest happiness for man. — Perseus Digital Library

Do you really expect me to wade through all of that? Not gonna happen.
Perhaps edit to make important points stand out?
As it is, I can't see anything to make me change my mind. Too much clutter.

I think care lies at the core. So, 'carelessness' seems to be negative. — Amity

Two cents' worth here. There are times when ancient Greek words cannot be correctly understood through what seem English equivalents. (And I suppose the same can be said for any two different languages.)

"Care" is a perfectly good English word. As a verb, it means having a certain kind of feeling. I find no equivalent word in the Greek. μέλω (melow) is translated as care, but isn't quite right. The lexicon has it as, "to be an object of care." Conjugated, "I am an object of care; you are an object of care; he, she, it is and object of care," etc. Not I care; you care; he, she, it cares.... To be a care to me (or you) requires an additional pronoun used to show possession, "is a care to me (or to you or him or them as the case may be).

An α- prefix to a Greek work is often privative. Examples in English would be moral/amoral, theist/atheist.

Λήθη (leithei) is "a forgetting, forgetfulness." ἀλήθεια (a-leitheia) in the lexicon is just "truth," but also "frank, honest; of things, real, actual." Not quite the same as English truth.

ἀμέλητος (a-meleitos), an adjective, is given a passive definition, "not cared for, unworthy of care." Not careless or heedless, except in the sense of being without.

This doesn't solve any problems. At best it relocates the problem from to make sense of English translations to trying to understand the Greek itself. As if trying to decide which path to take at a fork in the woods. One path seeming easy and open and clear, the English translation(s); the other narrow, overgrown, somewhat hidden and difficult. The easy way eventually leading to error, the hard way being the right way. The trouble with the hard way being that it can be hard, and maybe a person doesn't make it to the end.

Continuing upon the theme of Book 10 as a kind of peace treaty with the poets after struggling against them in the earlier books, Aristophanes shows how common was the idea of visiting the land of the dead as a literary device:

Dionysus and Xanthias: Welcome Charon!

Charon: Who’s for release from cares and troubles? Who’s for the Plain of Oblivion? For Ocnus’ Twinings? The Land of the Cerberians? The buzzards? Taenarum?

Dionysus: Me.

Charon: Hurry aboard.

Dionysus: Where are you headed?

Charon: To the buzzards!

Dionysus: Really?

Charon: Sure, just for you. Now get aboard! — Aristophanes, Frogs, 189, translated by Jeffrey Henderson

What makes the destination 'just for Dionysus' is because he wants to follow the route used by Heracles. The passed over option of "Plain of Oblivion" is the same Greek phrase used by Plato, suggesting he is working with an established story line and combining them with others.

So, what to make of Er in light of these differences is the question for me. I think that likening the three sisters to spinners of thread is to look at mortality as a production. The experiences of the soul are seen through a "mechanism" of life coming into being. The souls may be immortal but the work of each daimon is complete when Atropos cuts the thread. — Paine

I want to take this observation into a new direction. If the relationship between a soul and its daimon is over at the end of each life, that underlines a register of personal experience that does not survive death. This aspect makes the Er story differ from the other mythos Plato puts forward. This makes me wonder if Book 10 is a focus of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's view of nature.

In De Anima, Aristotle rejects the notion that souls can be inserted into just any body. That countervails against the arbitrary power of the Fates in the Er story. It also touches on the mention of the Pythagoreans at the beginning of Book 10, who Aristotle specifically rejects because of their version of metempsychosis.

On the other hand, Aristotle concurs with the Er view of personal mortality when the means of memory are strictly tied to the time when the form of life becomes joined with a particular batch of matter.

I think care lies at the core. So, 'carelessness' seems to be negative.
— Amity
Two cents' worth here. There are times when ancient Greek words cannot be correctly understood through what seem English equivalents. (And I suppose the same can be said for any two different languages.) [...]

This doesn't solve any problems. At best it relocates the problem from to make sense of English translations to trying to understand the Greek itself. As if trying to decide which path to take at a fork in the woods. One path seeming easy and open and clear, the English translation(s); the other narrow, overgrown, somewhat hidden and difficult. The easy way eventually leading to error, the hard way being the right way. The trouble with the hard way being that it can be hard, and maybe a person doesn't make it to the end. — tim wood

Thank you, tim, for joining the discussion. I find it fascinating to read how translators decide to decode ancient works so that modern readers can understand them, as far as possible.

A long time ago, I made an attempt to learn Ancient Greek. I thought this would help me to read and evaluate the English translation(s). What I learned was that even simple words, sentences and texts are challenging and difficult.

It made me appreciate the years, if not decades, of work that it can take for professional translators to produce their best work possible. There is also collaboration with past and present authors/interpreters.
How best to approach it. There is no easy way. What matters is that the reader engages with Plato and gets the best sense, appreciation and understanding of his message. Each reader has different aims, aesthetics and will prefer one style over another, given their time, energy and intellect.

Setting out, I said I would stick with Reeve's translation. That sounded dogmatic but it was so I could focus on one, rather than be confused. However, I was open to other interpretations, as always. I have gained much by participating in this discussion. Still puzzling on...

There is nothing 'easy, open and clear' about English translation(s) - for their authors or readers.
And that, I think, is what Plato intended.

I've just finished reading the Foreword, Introduction and Beginnings of Horan's The Dialogues of Plato. The translation recommended by @Fooloso4.

Beginnings
Over the sixteen-year duration of this undertaking, the translation approach has evolved and refined. [...]
As my confidence and competence grew, I believe that I unconsciously adopted a method that Schleiermacher, another great translator of Plato, describes in his seminal essay On the Different Methods of Translating. Here he subordinates the popular designation of translations as being either ‘faithful’ translations or ‘free’ translations, to a division that is more relevant to philosophic works. He writes:

Either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him; or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer toward him.[2]

If I were to attempt to capture the overall aspiration of these translations, I would say that they aim to move the reader toward Plato rather than leaving the reader in peace by adjusting the writings of Plato, and his associated language, to conform with modern expectations. A few simple examples of the translation of key words may help to explain my intention... — Platonic Foundation - Introduction by David Horan

There is more than this. I've been inspired by what I've read in the Foreword and Introduction.
I think it's time to move on and not get stuck in the mud.
To get over a sticky patch and to progress...to make it to the end. I think it most worthwhile.
Will you be joining in the fun?

Continuing upon the theme of Book 10 as a kind of peace treaty with the poets after struggling against them in the earlier books, Aristophanes shows how common was the idea of visiting the land of the dead as a literary device: — Paine

Grateful for the return to poetry and the chosen passage.

he passed over option of "Plain of Oblivion" is the same Greek phrase used by Plato, suggesting he is working with an established story line and combining them with others. — Paine

Yes. I wonder if @Jamal would consider this a 'literary easter egg'?

The experiences of the soul are seen through a "mechanism" of life coming into being. The souls may be immortal but the work of each daimon is complete when Atropos cuts the thread. — Paine

I am puzzled by this. When did Atropos cut the thread? It seemed to me that she was part of the spinning. The daimon continued to be 'the guardian of the life who fulfils what has been chosen'.

From Horan's 620e:

“Now, once all of the souls had chosen their lives, they went up to Lachesis in the allotted order, and she sent them on their way, with the daimon that each had chosen as the guardian of the life, 620E who fulfils what has been chosen. The guardian first led the soul to Clotho to ratify the fate it had chosen, as allotted beneath her hand as she turned the revolving spindle. Once the fate had been confirmed, the guide led it on again to Atropos and her spinning, to make the web of destiny unalterable. From there it went, inexorably, beneath the throne of Necessity,

If the relationship between a soul and its daimon is over at the end of each life, that underlines a register of personal experience that does not survive death. This aspect makes the Er story differ from the other mythos Plato puts forward. This makes me wonder if Book 10 is a focus of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's view of nature. — Paine

It is not clear to me that the relationship is severed at death. Where does it say this in Book 10?

***

As a personification of fate, Atropos, along with her sisters, represents a fundamental aspect of Greek mythology. They embody the Daemones, spirits of fate who ensure the natural order of events, from the moment of birth to the finality of death. Their role is not just crucial but also revered and feared, as they hold sway over the destinies of both mortals and gods.' — Atropos - The Final Fate Who Severs the Thread of Life

[emphasis added]

So, I'm still confused. The fates are also daimons?

A long time ago, I made an attempt to learn Ancient Greek.... What I learned was that even simple words, sentences and texts are challenging and difficult. — Amity

Lol! Amen! For my own purposes I remind myself that I have no interest in translating Greek but instead being able to read it. That means trying to "listen" and to hear/read/understand as would an ancient Greek. The best I do is sometimes discern a bit the alien nature of the language itself.

The Greeks wrote - obviously - but their language is essentially an aural experience. You may remember trying to learn rules for accenting - and who cares? - and the modern approach is to ignore them. But dawned on me something no textbook ever told: that the accents govern rhythm, thus the percussive quality itself of the language conveying and signaling meaning. Also, notwithstanding that they perfected forms of logic and reason, it is you and me, in English, who communicate largely in the ways of reason and logic. This is one of these and not one of those and therefore, and so forth. But the Greek seems to have talked more about and in terms of being and nature. I imagine they developed logic because their speaking did not-so-much incorporate it. And it's a quality that good English poetry tries to recover.

As to translations, I suppose most translators of Attic Greek aspire to a correct perfection. Richmond Lattimore's standard was this, from his intro. to his Iliad, 1953 : "I must try to avoid mistranslation, which would be caused by rating the word of my own choice ahead of the word which translates the Greek. Subject to such qualification, I must render Homer into the best English verse I can write; and this will be in my own 'poetical language', which is mostly the plain English of today."

But the same cannot be said for translators of the Koine (common) Greek of the New Testament. Pressures and agendas around that text, of divers kinds, causes mistranslations that are sometimes stunning, when seen in plain light.

It is not clear to me that the relationship is severed at death. Where does it say this in Book 10? — Amity

I will try to put forward a more nuanced response in the coming week. For now, I will make two observations.

In Homer, fate is the timing of a mortal's death. It has a role in the fortunes of the gods but not the absolute closure experienced by mortal life. I think the original idea is important to absorb before looking at how the work got broken up into parts.

In the story of Er, the diamon is chosen/assigned before birth. Its job is to make sure the individual life follows the pattern selected/assigned. If a former human decides to become a hippopotamus, the pattern will differ along with the constraints needed for that life to endure (as long as that life lasts). A different diamon will need to be brought on board to cover the action.

"Care" is a perfectly good English word...I find no equivalent word in the Greek. μέλω (melow) is translated as care, but isn't quite right. The lexicon has it as, "to be an object of care." — tim wood

From my pocket Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary: Care as a noun ( anxious thought) - φροντίς

For my own purposes I remind myself that I have no interest in translating Greek but instead being able to read it. That means trying to "listen" and to hear/read/understand as would an ancient Greek — tim wood

Yes. I'm not interested in providing translations! As you know, to be able to read and listen requires you first to know the alphabet and its sounds. Then to see and hear the words in sentences, short passages. So, there is a need to translate if you want to understand the meaning rather than just the sounds.

The Greeks wrote - obviously - but their language is essentially an aural experience. You may remember trying to learn rules for accenting - and who cares? - and the modern approach is to ignore them. But dawned on me something no textbook ever told: that the accents govern rhythm, thus the percussive quality itself of the language conveying and signaling meaning. — tim wood

OMG. Yes. It's all coming back to me now! I remember the frustration. And then, the search for audio materials. They were few and far between. I don't know why but I hadn't realised the relationship between the dreaded 'accents' and poetic rhythms. Now I do, thank you! :sparkle:

In Homer, fate is the timing of a mortal's death. It has a role in the fortunes of the gods but not the absolute closure experienced by mortal life. I think the original idea is important to absorb before looking at how the work got broken up into parts. — Paine

OK. I'm turning to Homer for a bit. I found a new translation by Emily Wilson who was the first woman to translate The Odyssey into English.

The classicist and author Natalie Haynes talks to her about what the epic poem can tell us today.

Natalie Haynes: Your new book is a propulsive read quite separately from what an excellent translation I think it is. It is going to drag people through it, because it is an action movie, isn't it, in parts, The Iliad? Things really happen, and they happen at speed... — BBC Culture - The Iliad - How modern readers get this epic wrong

Emily's website includes her pronunciation guide. You can scroll down to hear a Greek snippet from the Iliad: https://www.emilyrcwilson.com/pronunciation-guide
Sounds scary!

Here's something a bit more sombre. Listen to and read the text at the same time:

Homer, Iliad 1.1–16 , read in Greek by Gregory Nagy
Citation: 1997. “Homer, Iliad 1.1–16 , read in Greek by Gregory Nagy.” Cambridge, MA: Department of the Classics, Harvard University. — Harvard Classics - Homer, Iliad 1.1-16 Read in Greek by Gregory Nagy

This from the OU is pretty good.

9 Listening to Homer
Knowing the sounds of ancient Greek, in addition to helping you pronounce Greek words accurately, also helps you to appreciate the rhythms of Greek poetry. Greek verse, unlike English-language poetry, does not rely on stress patterns and rarely contains rhyme.

To experience what a poetic performance might have sounded like, listen to this recreation of the opening of the Iliad, sung to the lyre. — OpenLearn - Getting started on ancient Greek Session 2: Sounds9 Listening to Homer

I asked earlier what Plato might have listened to. Well, d'oh! Homer - of course :roll:

@Paine - I look forward to hearing more. What do you consider the best translation of the Iliad?
Anyone? A free online version preferred.

In the story of Er, the diamon is chosen/assigned before birth. Its job is to make sure the individual life follows the pattern selected/assigned. If a former human decides to become a hippopotamus, the pattern will differ along with the constraints needed for that life to endure (as long as that life lasts). A different diamon will need to be brought on board to cover the action. — Paine

:smile: Interesting to imagine the different patterns in the lives of animals...wild, caged or tamed.
I thought it would be the same daimon - multilingual, able to adapt to whatever. Seems not.