In the Seventh Letter Plato says:

There is no treatise (suggramma) by me on these subjects, nor will there ever be. (341c)
— Fooloso4

That's precisely why I pointed out that in the Greek philosophical tradition, teachings were transmitted orally. — Apollodorus

Oh. really. You said:

It is clear from Plato’s writings ... — Apollodorus

It cannot clear from his writings if he did not write what he actually thought about such things.

Has an oral tradition ever been authenticated?

Even if there is no "treatise" by Plato, certain core teachings must be acknowledged ... — Apollodorus

The core teaching of Plato is not in the form of a doctrine. He teaches those who are thoughtful and perspicacious enough how to philosophize. To the careful reader he does not provide answers, although there are plenty of things he says that can be latched onto as answers. This dynamic plays out in the dialogue, as we shall see.

... if you do want to have a discussion of Plato ... — Apollodorus

I am not going to allow you to dictate how I will proceed in this thread. I will follow Plato's lead, attending to what is said and done in the the dialogue in the order it occurs. It is only once we have seen the whole that we can see how everything fits together, with each part serving its purpose.

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

That makes the whole discussion kind of pointless, doesn't it? What happens if following the closure of the discussion you decide to find "new and different things" in the texts? — Apollodorus

It does not make it pointless. It simply means that there is more there then I have seen. It is not a matter of "deciding" to find something new and different things. If they are there to be found I consider myself fortunate to have found them and revise my interpretation accordingly.

Plato and his disciples didn’t call themselves “Platonists” or their system “Platonism” so the designation is irrelevant. — Apollodorus

And yet that was the designation you used.

What matters is that this was a living tradition that was transmitted orally from master to disciple for centuries after Plato. — Apollodorus

That may be what matters to you. What matters to me is the dialogues themselves. I have no interest a Platonist cult.

Its representatives didn’t think they were just “influenced” by Plato, they believed and had reasons to believe that they followed Plato in all his main teachings. — Apollodorus

Well, if what you claimed is an example of following his main teachings then they thought wrong.

It is clear from Plato’s writings ... — Apollodorus

In the Seventh Letter Plato says:

There is no treatise (suggramma) by me on these subjects, nor will there ever be. (341c)

Did I misunderstand you when you said you "need to cut out".

@frank

I would like for you to stick around. This tread was started in part because of things you said about Plato and the soul.

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

That, it seems to me, would be a good reason to read it again. I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different. Certainly I do not the Phaedo now the same way I did when I first read it.

There will be seat-sales, when Armageddon strikes. — god must be atheist

As I understand it, they have all been reserved by the elect. Not even standing room for the likes of me.

Not necessarily. What kind of things might that be? Wouldn't an anti-Platonic approach also lead to misattributions or and perhaps even more so? — Apollodorus

You are confusing terminology. Platonism and Platonic are not the same. "Anti-Platonic" would presumably mean against Plato. The result may well be misattributions or misinterpretations.

Philosophical systems do evolve over time. — Apollodorus

The dialogues are not a philosophical system and do not evolve. How the dialogues are read and interpreted change over time. The reliability of any of those interpretations can only be evaluated in light of the dialogues themselves.

Platonism is generally consistent with Plato's writings, that's why it's called Platonism — Apollodorus

This is simply wrong. It is called Platonism because it was influenced by Plato. It is not consistent with his writings. Nowhere in Plato do we find your assertion about the individual mind being illumined by the cosmic or divine Mind and the rest.

Plato is best interpreted in the Platonic tradition of Plotinus and others. — Apollodorus

Platonism is an impediment to understanding Plato. You end up attributing things to Plato that are nowhere to be found in the dialogues.

If you choose a different standpoint then it might help to let us know what it is. — Apollodorus

It is not a matter of a standpoint but of letting the dialogues stand on their own. In the Phaedrus Socrates says about a written composition:

Every part must be put together like a living creature, with a body of its own; it must be neither without head nor without legs; and it must have a middle and extremities that are fitting both to one another and to the whole work. (264c)

The dialogue should be read as a whole, with each part having a function within that whole.

If you want to read Plotinus you would do well to read Plato, but not the other way around.

At death, desire is lost. — Amity

The irony is that on the one hand the desire will be fulfilled, one will be able to see the truth unencumbered by the body. On the other, if philosophy is the desire for wisdom rather than its possession there would be no philosophizing in Hades.

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

In the Second Letter Plato says that the Socrates of the dialogues is made "young and beautiful", which can also be translated as "new and noble".

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

Reading and thinking along we become involved in speculation, but Plato provides the images and stories.

Does he actually believe what he is saying, or is it simply a matter of consolation... — Amity

Before deciding whether we think he believes what he is saying, we have to figure out what it is he is saying. There may be more to it than at first appears.

If Socrates wants to inspire and for philosophy to continue, then he must offer hope in the very act of practising philosophy. — Amity

Yes! He will have much more to say about this.

Bearing in mind the later arguments about the fate of the soul and of philosophers and ‘good men’, — Wayfarer

Yes, we will have to look a those arguments and whether they succeed or fail. This is why I ended my last reading this way:

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

As a matter of expression in Greek, the use of "δια" to nous and logos are not far away from the nouns and verbs by themselves. — Valentinus

Right. The prefix "δια" here means by or through, thus dianoia (διανοία)/i] through thought and dialectic through speech.

So to say that ‘the real can only be discerned by thought’ doesn’t convey what depth of the ‘idea of the good’, — Wayfarer

Once again, according to the dialogue knowledge of the good can only be attained in death if at all.

'So isn't it in reasoning, if anywhere at all, that any of the things that are become manifest to it?' (65b)

Noesis is not reasoning. It is direct apprehension.

...the presumption is still that things are guided by intelligence, not by merely material causes. — Wayfarer

Right, but that is very different from what Apollodorus is claiming. I will have more to say about this section when I get there.

Typically wealthy people and organizations generally work together and coordinate with government agencies. At the very least they do not regard all government as the enemy as you seem to. No private entity has the ability to organize and implement on the massive scale of countries like the US.

The individual nous is in turn illumined by the Cosmic Nous or Divine Mind. So, there is a continuum extending from Ultimate Reality all the way down to the lowest levels of experience or existence. — Apollodorus

In which of the dialogues does Plato say this?

True, and explicated in detail in the Republic, Analogy of the Divided Line, more so than the Phaedo. However the general point of nous as 'the faculty which sees what truly is', is certainly relevant across all the dialogues. — Wayfarer

The Phaedo tells a different story than the Republic.It is certainly useful to compare the dialogues, but what is said in one cannot be substituted for what is said in another. Each must be read on its own as a whole. It is not explicated in the Phaedo because it is not there. As Socrates said, quoted above:

… if we can know nothing purely in the body's company, then one of two things must be true: either knowledge is nowhere to be gained, or else it is for the dead. (66e)

It appears that the world is to be 'seen' by thought alone.
— Amity

I think the key word is 'nous' - — Wayfarer

Amity is right. The passage under discussion is not about noesis but rather dianoia, thought or reason.

The questions of duality. Is it even possible to be a 'genuine' philosopher if it means turning away from body to soul ( or mind ) ... I think not. — Amity

I agree.

However, I am not sure that that is what Socrates is saying. — Amity

Some readers are all too quick to reject. We need 'as far as possible' to figure out what he means. This often requires going beyond isolated statements. I think it is a good practice when you come across something questionable to note it, postpone judgment, keep in mind the circumstances, and see how things develop. With the dialogues it is always important to look not only at what is said but at what is done.

He qualifies everything with 'as far as possible'. — Amity

Socrates' many qualifications are important. How far is it possible to turn away from the body? The qualification 'it seems' and its variations are frequent.

Nevertheless, there is a focus on abstract concepts such as 'Beauty' compared to the experience of seeing things that are beautiful — Amity

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

What is the 'soul' ? — Amity

Good question.Socrates gets Simmias to agree before they even raise the question.

I think, if there is such a thing, it would involve the bodily senses — Amity

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

What are 'the things that are' or 'that which is' - things that exist ? — Amity

The Forms.

Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ? — Amity

Concepts do not exist by themselves. They require thought or mind. But Beauty is not a concept. It's existence is independent of the mind. Things are beautiful to the extent they are images of Beauty itself.

Philosophy can be just as much an impure distraction as anything else... — Amity

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

In the Apology Socrates suggests two possibilities of what happens in death:

to be dead is one of two things: either the dead person is nothing and has no perception of anything, or [death] happens to be, as it is said, a change and a relocation or the soul from this place here to another place (40c).

In the Phaedo Socrates is silent about the first possibility. He wishes to leave his friends with a message of hope, but if death is nothingness then despite the attempt to portray the end of his life as a comedy it is a tragedy. The practice of dying and being dead cannot be the practice of nothingness. That practice must take into account both possibilities. If there are rewards and punishments, one must live a just life and be rewarded rather than punished. And if there is nothing after life then one should live life for its own rewards rather than live in expectation of what may never be. Here too it is the practice of justice, for the just soul according to the Republic is the healthy soul, in proper harmony with itself.

If we heed the words of Parmenides that “out of nothing comes nothing”, then if a dead person is nothing and out of nothing comes nothing, there can be no rebirth.

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

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

Simmias laughs at Socrates claim that philosophy is the practice of dying and being dead:

'Goodness, Socrates, you've made me laugh, even though I wasn't much inclined to laugh just now. l imagine that most people, on hearing that, would think it very well said of philosophers-and our own countrymen would quite agree-that they are, indeed, verging on death, and that they, at any rate, are well aware that this is what philosophers deserve to undergo.' (64b)

The only good philosopher is a dead philosopher.

Socrates defines death:

'And that it is nothing but the separation of the soul from the body? And that being dead is this: the body's having come to be apart, separated from the soul, alone by Itself, and the soul's being apart, alone by itself, separated from the body? Death can't be anything else but that, can it?' (64c)

Simmias agrees with Socrates’ claim, but we should not be so quick to agree. The question of the soul is the very thing that will be the focus of the discussion. Death may simply be, as Socrates said in the Apology, annihilation. The idea of the soul itself by itself will be questioned.

Socrates then proceeds to make an argument for asceticism:

And certainly Simmias, most human beings are of the opinion that the man for whom none of these things is pleasant and who doesn’t have a share of them doesn’t deserve to live. In fact, the man who thinks nothing of the pleasures that come through the body is pretty much headed for death. (65a)

It is not Socrates who thinks this, it is the opinion of most human beings. So what is the opinion of Socrates who is quite literally headed for death? We are provided with a piece of evidence near the beginning: Xantippe is there with his little boy (60a). A seventy year old man with a young son is hardly a man who eschews the pleasure of sex.

Socrates asks:

So when does the soul get in touch with truth?

Isn’t it in her act of reasoning, if anywhere, that something of the things that are becomes very clear to her? (65b-c)

Socrates now introduces his “Socratic Trinity”, the Just, the Beautiful, and the Good. (65d) But he says nothing of them, and for very good reason:

… if we can know nothing purely in the body's company, then one of two things must be true: either knowledge is nowhere to be gained, or else it is for the dead. (66e)

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

Now if the soul is reborn this is not a problem. In fact, it is an essential part of the myth of anamnesis, that is, knowledge through recollection. But if death is the end then knowledge of such things is not possible.

“Then”, said Socrates, “if these things are true, my comrade, there’s great hope that when I arrive at the end of my journey, there - if anywhere - I shall sufficiently attain what our constant business in our bygone life has been for. (67b)

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

That they're examples of the Ur-religion of the Ancient Greeks, — Wayfarer

Socrates does make use of mythologies as a means of persuasion, both stories of old and new ones he makes up, but this does not mean that he is persuaded by these stories. Regarding knowledge he demands logos not muthos, that is, not simply stories but the ability to give an account of what is said that can be defended against elenchus.

Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that this is part of it.

I don't know but it reminded me of something else - perhaps the Stoics. — Amity

I will have something to say about this in the next section. Part of the Stoic practice of philosophy involved meditations on death.

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

I agree. His arguments are rhetorical, intended to persuade, give them courage, and alleviate their fears.

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

No. It's a tragicomedy. — Amity

A tragedy is about the protagonist's downfall. But instead of the end of his life being a downfall
Socrates makes it seem as if it is a journey of hope. A happy ending and new beginning.

But I think you are right. No life is either one or the other, but a mixture.

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?