The next section will cover up to 67c.

I can, will and have helped people in need both with my money and my efforts. My efforts and concern extend beyond begging the state to take care of people in need. — NOS4A2

But the state can do things much more effectively. Handling of the coronavirus is a good example. You as a individual are powerless. You are also incapable of providing healthcare, food, and shelter to large numbers of people.

I think they should be helped, of course. — NOS4A2

But not by you and not with the tax dollars you are required to pay. You just want to be left alone.

Do you afford them these rights? — NOS4A2

I do not think of it in terms of rights. This is a fundamental problem with modern liberalism, everything is seen through the lens of individual rights. I do not "afford" people rights.

Socrates begins not with something he recollects from a previous life or recalls or even his own stories but with “hearsay” :

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

Inquiry and speculation based on what we imagine it to be based on hearsay. This is the measure by which to evaluate the stories that follow.

… sometimes and for some people, that it is better for a man to be dead than alive, and for those for whom it is better to be dead, perhaps it seems a matter for wonder to you if for these men it isn’t pious to do good to themselves, but they must await another benefactor.' (62a).

Socrates states that it would be better for some to be dead. In that case, it would be better for others to be alive. But he does not make the connection. Instead he moves to a defense of the prohibition against suicide.

Cebes gives a little laugh to which Socrates responds:

Well yes, it would seem unaccountable, put that way. And yet just maybe it does have an account. The account that’s given about these things in the Mysteries …

Socrates does not give an account. He appeals again to hearsay, to what is said in the Mysteries.

… we men are in some sort of prison, and that one ought not to release oneself from it or run away, seems to me a lofty idea and not easy to penetrate; but still, Cebes, this much seems to me well said: it is gods who care for us, and for the gods we men are among their belongings.

Socrates likens life to a prison. In that case it would not be just some men who would be better off dead, but all men who do not wish to be imprisoned. The irony here should not be missed. What Socrates is trying to persuade them of is not simply that death is not so bad, but that the soul will endure and be born again. But if life is a prison, then rebirth would mean to be imprisoned once again after having been freed from life.

Simmias objects:

… why, indeed, should truly wise men want to escape from masters who are better than themselves, and be separated from them lightly? So I think it's at you that Cebes is aiming his argument, because you take so lightly your leaving both ourselves and the gods, who are good rulers by your own admission. (63a)

Socrates responds:

'What you both say is fair, as I take you to mean that I should defend myself against these charges as if in a court of law.' (63 b)

Only Socrates made clear in the Apology that a court of law was not the proper place for him to defend himself. Socrates’ defense begins here, with those who are not hostile to philosophy.

'Very well, then,' he said; 'let me try to defend myself more convincingly before you than I did before the jury. Because if I didn't believe, Simmias and Cebes, that I shall enter the presence,
first, of other gods both wise and good, and next of dead men better than those in this world, then I should be wrong not to be resentful at death; but as it is, be assured that I expect to join the company of good men-although that point I shouldn't affirm with absolute conviction; but that I shall enter the presence of gods who are very good masters, be assured that if there's anything I should affirm on such matters, it is that. So that's why I am not so resentful, but rather am hopeful that there is something in store for those who've died-in fact, as we've long been told, something far better for the good than for the wicked.' (63c)

Socrates says that he is hopeful about something they have long been told, that death is something far better for the good than for the wicked. This is not a recollection of death, but a story that has long been told.

'Now then, with you for my jury I want to give my defence, and show with what good reason, as it seems to me, a man who has truly spent his life in philosophy feels confident when about to die, and is hopeful that, when he has died, he will win very great benefits in the other world.

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

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

Being emotionally incontinent is not good ? — Amity

This and:

'kinds of things that women are given to saying'. — Amity

reflect common opinion at that time.

I think it may also be part of the theme of comedy and tragedy. If this play is to be a comedy then crying and weeping are to be dispatched.

A bit of dark humour re suicide and philosophers? — Amity

Right. He tells him to drop dead!

...and I have a question, too. Presumably - I haven't checked - the word translated as "art" is "techne"?

So immediately we are involved in the issue of Episteme and Techne? — Banno

The Greek term is mousikê. The translation I rely on uses the transliteration 'music' instead of 'art'. In Plato's Ion Socrates denies that poesis is a techne, it is, rather, enthousiasmos, that is inspiration. But here Socrates calls philosophy the "greatest music". As such it seems to cut across the distinction between episteme and techne. Despite what he says, Socrates is clearly a skilled (techne) storyteller, and further, his stories and images require knowledge (episteme) of the character of the person or persons he makes the story for. With regard to this, consider his calling himself a "physician of the soul".

There is a reference to ‘the ship in which Theseus sailed to Crete’. Is this the same ship which is elsewhere the subject of the famous Ship of Theseus conundrum? — Wayfarer

Yes, it is the ship from the story of Theseus and the Minotaur. I don't think the conundrum is part of the myth, but Plato was aware of the problem. It can be found in a couple of the dialogues. There are several parallels in the Phaedo between the myth of Theseus' journey and Socrates own.

Christianity begins with Paul's myth of the physical body of the saved being transformed into a spiritual body and the saved being those who will live in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth forever. Paul believed it would happen in his lifetime. It didn't. The next generation believed it would happen in their lifetime. It didn't. This went on until the end of days was pushed forward to some undisclosed date.

Christians by and large have forgotten the broken promise. They now believe that they are already saved because they believe. The importance of Paul's spiritual body is that it would be free of the sins, but those who think themselves "saved" are no different from anyone else, often hiding their transgressions against God and men behind their show of piety. Yet they conspire to create a Christian theocracy to overturn secular governments. And like their Muslim counterparts they believe they are doing the will of God.

I suppose you could describe Christianity as a conspiracy against ignorance ... — Apollodorus

Was it the ignorance of those whose souls Christians tried to save through torture and death or the ignorance of Christians? Was it the ignorance of those who were the victims of psychological torture of those who were told what to believe on penalty of an eternity in Hell or the ignorance of Christians? Is it the ignorance of those who strive for peace or the ignorance of Christians plotting Armageddon?

But Christianity didn't come to power by force of arms but through persuasion. — Apollodorus

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of Christian history. Through the actions of the Church Fathers and their suppression and persecution of those disagreed with them they established an official Catholic Church. Note the definition of 'catholic'. They later gained political power when the Roman Emperor Constantine purportedly converted to Christianity. It remains an open question whether he did this merely as a political expedient.

As explained by St Augustine — Apollodorus

Augustine was hardly an impartial observer. He was, after all, a Church Father and invented 'original sin'. An idea that still tortures the spirit to this day.

You neglect what is perhaps the single greatest conspiracy of all time, Christianity. Beginning with the self-appointed Church Fathers it has laid claim to be the sole authority in all matters spiritual, and when it managed to wield enough power, all matters political and material. Even today Christian soldiers are all too willing to engage in battle against all who oppose them.

Of course, it depends on which side of the battlelines you are whether this appears to be an act that is both morally reprehensible and criminal. This is not to say that all who call themselves Christian are guilty by association, but the Religious Right will not rest until they help usher in Armageddon.

I will take up issues as they occur in the text.

Do you recommend only reading up to a certain point before discussion, or what ? — Amity

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

Do you recommend only reading up to a certain point before discussion, or what ? — Amity

I recommend reading at your own pace, moving forward and backwards with the eventual goal of seeing the whole.

Dreams are a bit of a mystery. — Amity

Socrates obeys what the dream commands so as to acquit himself of any impiety. (60e) Only now, at the end of his life, he doubts that he has not obeyed by philosophizing. And it is only by chance that his death was postponed. Since the same dream visited him often in his past life, it is curious that he remembers the dream but only now questions he was doing what it asked.

So, whose voice would be it be ? That of his daemonion ? Some kind of a spirit ? — Amity

Plato's Socrates says that his daemonion only warned him about what not to do. Xenophon's Socrates tells a different story.

But why would it need to do that - if it is a source of inspiration, then Socrates already has it in spades. — Amity

I think it is Plato's way of telling us that what follows should be regarded as stories rather than reasoned arguments.

Does S. then see himself as a poet, even as he makes arguments ? — Amity

I think his intention is, like that of the sophists, to persuade. This leads to the question of the relationship of the sophist and the poet to the philosopher. Rather than attempting to resolve that problem I will leave it open, because I think that tension is always at play in the dialogues.

Why, if he was being encouraged to 'make music and practise it' - or rhythmic lyrics - would he dismiss his own talent and rely on second-hand material? — Amity

I will be addressing that.

a comedy or tragedy
— Fooloso4
Both ? — Amity

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

This is my favorite. I look forward to reading your thoughts on it. — frank

And I look forward to a dialogue about this dialogue.

Evidently you’re mistaken, because you didn’t ask if I was concerned with the poor and whether children have food and water. — NOS4A2

So, you are "concerned" but don't think they have a right to health care or help when needed. Do you recognize the rights to life, liberty, happiness, and property? Do you think they are rights only as long as people are lucky enough to have them?

If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons — NOS4A2

And yet that "concern for all persons" does not extend to their health or whether children have food and shelter.

Evidently your concern extends only to yourself and the principle of the right to be left alone.

The point is that all persons are individuals and I afford each of them certain rights. — NOS4A2

What are these rights that you afford them? Do you afford them the right to healthcare? Food and shelter for indigent minors?

Sure. It's just that you said the philosophers believed in god. I don't think Socrates did. Plato used him as a mouthpiece. Plato wasn't the only one who did that. — frank

A few quick points:

You are correct in noting the charge of atheism against Socrates. This influenced how Socrates was depicted by Plato and Xenophon. They had to defend both him and philosophy against this charge. Socrates was silenced. The same could not be the fate of philosophy.

In the Republic it is the Good, not God or gods, that: "provides the truth to the things known and gives the power to the one who knows" It is "the cause of the knowledge and truth". Further, "existence and being" are the result of the Good. (508e - 509b) Socrates previously called the sun a god, but this god too owes its existence to the Good.

Far from being a denial of Socrates atheism, it is an affirmation of it.

Some here have failed to properly distinguish the works of Plato and Platonism. They are two different things.

If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons — NOS4A2

Except it is not the individual that is the primary concern. The primary concern of individualism is ME.

If your primary concern is for all persons then your thinking has matured beyond individualism. If so then you have figured out what is wrong with individualism.

Well sometimes you may offend someone by telling the truth. Case in point, My calling out Apollodorus' ignorance and obstinance in this thread.

The truth is, I don't know if it is just a character trait or a pathology. So you are right, I do it with uncertainty. It is evidently not simply a matter of poor reasoning, although it is that, but of something pathological - projecting and trying to cover his lack of knowledge of Christian history by accusing me of saying things I corrected him of saying. And note how many of his arguments come down to calling whoever disagrees with him a Marxist.

And so, in order not to regret playing along and feeding what truly looks to me to be pathological I will no longer engage with him.

I am not going to respond to any more of your false accusations.
— Fooloso4
So, you’re finally conceding defeat. — Apollodorus

Tell yourself whatever it is you need to. Resorting to false accusations, accusing me of saying things I did not is dishonest and cowardly.

Sorry Shawn, I was joking. Taking the position that I can only be sure of my own existence, everything I said, beginning with the fact that I responded to you contradicts solipsism.

Either way, particular or universal, the self is the ultimate truth for the solipsist in His or Her own World, epistemically. — Shawn

I tell myself this all the time, but no one listens. And by no one, of course, I mean me.

Of course.

Solipsism simply cannot be true if the solipsist can doubt.

Prove me wrong. — Shawn

I could but I'm tired of arguing with myself and ending up doubting myself.

PM sent.

You're re-born — Wayfarer

But I am not an entity that is re-born?

The Marxist use (or misuse) of history — Apollodorus

What does this have to do with what Jesus meant by love your neighbor? Your problem with Marxists seems to go much deeper than a difference in ideology.

Just look at the preposterous statements you’re making:
Jesus was addressed as “rabbi”, therefore he couldn’t have been the Son of God. — Apollodorus

This is another example of pathological projection. I said no such thing! I said he was a rabbi. You accused me of making that up and said that he wasn't a rabbi he was the Son of God. I then said that being one does not exclude being the other. It is all right there in the posts.

The fact is that the Gospels show very clearly that Jesus was addressed as “the Son of God” — Apollodorus

And also son of man and rabbi.

You see the word “rabbi” bot not “Son of God”. — Apollodorus

Of course I see it. I never denied it. What I said is that the term meant something different for Jews, and that includes Jesus and his disciples, than it did for gentiles. Jews would never accept the idea of a "begotten son", a son who was one in substance with the father. It is a pagan idea. One that Jesus would have rejected. Jesus believed that there was one God, and it wasn't him.

Since you haven’t spoken to Jesus, you can’t claim to know who he thought he was. — Apollodorus

I can know the context in which he spoke. I can know the saying ascribed to him in the gospels. I can know that none of the gospels have him professing the Apostles Creed.

And, of course, Christians have the right to believe in Jesus in whichever way they wish. You deny this ... — Apollodorus

Once again, I have said several times you can believe whatever you want.

I am not going to respond to any more of your false accusations.

Sorry, but you gave an insufficient answer. The task is not what the questions are; but how those questions elicit us to act in the absence of an answer. You have a very strong sense and incredibly strong command of ignoring my points when you are cornered. — god must be atheist

I do not think that I am cornered. Is that what you intend? To corner me?

We are in the process of packing up and moving back to our summer residence. I simply did not read your question carefully enough. I was thinking about what the questions are.

My first answer to your question is, I can't tell you how to live. For me it begins with working on myself, on who I am and want to be. What I do follows. To live the examined life, that is, to reflect on what I do and say and alter my behavior and attitude when upon reflection I think I have done wrong. To act with patience, humility, and caution, knowing that whatever I do things may not work out as intended or that what is intended may not have been the best choice. To try to see things from different perspectives.

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector? — bert1

He is an intellectual disease vector. Fortunately many here have been inoculated.

if you’re talking about history and sources, let’s see what history and the sources actually say, not how anti-Christians interpret them. — Apollodorus

Obviously you have not looked at any of the sources I pointed to. Most are by Christian scholars. Apollodorus, the truth is not the enemy, or is only the enemy if you insist on holding on to false beliefs.

What kind of king did the neighbouring nations have? — Apollodorus

Being like all the nations by having a king, as they do, does not mean having a king that is like their king.

A king that was the representative of God on earth and the “Son of God”. — Apollodorus

Are you claiming that this is what the kings of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Mesopotamians, etc. were, representatives of Jesus?

It’s a well-known fact that the institution of kingship in which the king was the son and representative of God, was part and parcel of the culture in the region, especially Egyptian culture which was dominant at the time and to which the Hebrews had particularly close links. — Apollodorus

This is not something that is "well-known" to Egyptologists. The kings were considered incarnate gods. Just like Christians came to believe Jesus was.

Pre-biblical Egyptian inscriptions show that when a king or pharaoh ascended to the throne he was said to be appointed by the God Re, his father. So, he was “Son of God” and “Divine King”. — Apollodorus

What is it that you think you are arguing for? Are you trying to show that the mythology surrounding Jesus was the same as the mythology surrounding the pharaohs? Do you think that helps or hurts your case?

So, who took what from whom? — Apollodorus

You still don't get it. It is not a question of who took what from whom, but of ascribing a meaning to what Jesus said based on a religion that developed after his death.

We know that Jesus himself visited Egypt — Apollodorus

You are really not helping your case. First of all, according to the story in Matthew Jesus was an infant. Second, why would the actual son of God be influenced by Egyptian mythology?

Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? Well, you weren’t there at the time so you can’t tell for certain, can you? — Apollodorus

We have only the Gospels, and nowhere in the gospels does he claim the things later ascribed to him.

What is certain, however, is that Alexander the Great was called “the Son of God” — Apollodorus

Yes, lots of people were called sons of God, and gods even. Is your point that Jesus was just one of many?

I think it is baseless to claim that Christianity "robbed” the Jews of their "Divine King/Messiah” and "Son of God” concepts in view of the fact that this was part of the common cultural and religious heritage in the region. — Apollodorus

I said nothing about being "robbed". That is all in your fevered brain. You are actually making my point that the gentiles took (as in interpreted/understood not "robbed") the teachings and stories about Jesus and incorporated them into their own mythologies.

And what matters at the end of the day is that Christians felt to have good reason to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and they have every right to do so. — Apollodorus

I have said nothing to the contrary. It is not a question of what Christians believe but of what Jesus meant when he said those words. To import a whole mythology to interpret his simple words is hermeneutically suspect.

I don’t think it is for neo-Marxists to tell Christians what to do. — Apollodorus

Your mind is in a rut. Your response to everyone who disagrees with you is to call them a neo-Marxist. It is a sign of emotional and philosophical immaturity.

Many years ago I met a Catholic priest and since I had been reading a commentary on Genesis wanted to know his views. To my surprise he admitted he knew very little of the Bible. His training and concern wall with ministry and counseling.

As to a certain member, I think his lack of knowledge is only part of the problem. His wild accusations hint at the rest.

Or what did you have in mind, Fooloso4? Can you give some examples, of how to live and think GIVEN what we can't answer? — god must be atheist

Questions about how we ought to live, on a personal, social, political, and geo-political level.

Fooloso4 I'm curious what Anand-Haqq thinks. — Tom Storm

Me too, but your question is one that is often asked.

Perhaps philosophy is not about solving problems but an awareness of them and figuring out how best to live and think given what we cannot answer.

But what is his actual contribution? — Tom Storm

One is the shift from the philosophical assumptions of being to becoming, that things have a fixed end-point or completion which determine what they are.

What I'm pointing out is that in the Buddhist view, there is no entity that incarnates, but that a set of causal factors originates from the living being's actions, which then assume the form of another being in 'the next life'. — Wayfarer

But that is not the same as this:

If every timber is replaced, is it still the same ship? I would say 'yes' if it maintains the same shape and is owned and operated by Theseus. — Wayfarer

The form of another being does not maintain the same shape or is it owned and operated by some other being.

Put differently, why should I care about another being in the next life? In what way have I been liberated from the cycle?

Edit: I see that @180 Proof asked the same question.

Did I use that word? I'm saying that it's 'the ship of theseus' problem i.e. the parts of an entity can be changed but that entity retain its identity. — Wayfarer

You responded to a question about the soul. I assumed your response had something to do with what was asked.