Phil 1001H Notes on Phaedo
An outline of Plato’s Phaedo
(based on a revision of David Gallop’s analysis in his translation of the Phaedo)
- 1. Prologue (57a1-59c7)
- 2. Socrates in prison (59c8-118a17)
2.1. Opening conversation (59c8-63e7)
2.2. Socrates’s defense of his life of philosophy (63e8-69e5)
Practicing death and dying; separation; pleasures of body or of soul; knowledge of truth; the Beautiful and the Good; Theory of Forms; pure knowledge and the identity of Form with Itself; freedom and separation of soul from body is death; lovers of wisdom; the practice of philosophy.
2.3. Arguments for the immortality of the soul (69e6-107b10)
2.3.1. The Cyclical Argument (69e6-72e1), with addendum
2.3.2. The Recollection Argument (72e1-78b3)
2.3.2.1. Before we were born (72e1-77a3)
2.3.2.2. After we have died? (77a3-78b3)
2.3.3. The Affinity Argument (78b4-84b) (Is the soul “scattered”?)
2.3.3.1. Affinity (78b4-82d)
2.3.3.2. The Renunciation of Body by Lovers of Learning (82d-84c)
2.3.4. Objections by Simmias and Cebes (84c1-88b8)
2.3.4.1. Simmias: Harmony Objection (84c-88b)
2.3.4.1.1. Introduction to Doubts (88b-85e)
2.3.4.1.2. Soul as Mixture and Harmony (85e-86c)
2.3.4.2. Cebes : The Weaver and the Cloak (87a-88b)
2.3.5. Interlude: Conversation of Echecrates & Phaedo on the Importance of the Objections (88c-89c)
2.3.6: Responses to Simmias and Cebes (89d-102a)
2.3.6.1. Preparations for the response, Socrates on Misanthropy and Misology (89d-91c)
2.3.6.2. Restatement of the Objections (91c-d)
2.3.6.3. Socrates’s reply to Simmas (91e-95a3): Analyzing the Meaning of Harmony
2.3.6.4. Socrates’s reply to Cebes (95a4-102a9)
2.3.6.4.1. Restatement (95b-96a)
2.3.6.4.2. Socrates’s story (96a-102a)
2.3.6.4.2.1. First voyage in quest of the αἰτια (aitia: reason, cause) (96a-99d)
2.3.6.4.2.1.1. Puzzles
2.3.6.4..2.1.1.1 generation and corruption / growth
2.3.6.4..2.1.1.2 larger / smaller
2.3.6.4..2.1.1.3 numbers
2.3.6.4.2.1.2. Anaxagoras and teleology: unity of formal and final causes
2.3.6.4.2.2. Second voyage in quest of the αἰτια (aitia: reason, cause) (99d-102a)
2.3.6.4..2.2.1. fear that the soul will be blinded
2.3.6.4..2.2.2. the method of hypothesis: the Beautiful, etc. (100a)
2.3.6.4..2.2.2.1. the safer answer: the beautiful by Beauty (participation) (100e)
2.3.6.4.2.2.2.2. larger by largeness (100e -101a)
2.3.6.4.2.2.2.3. numbers (101b)
2.3.7. Final argument (102a10-107b10) [the clever answer 105c]
2.3.7.1. Principles
2.3.7.1.1. Opposites do not enter one another but go away or are destroyed when they approach
2.3.7.1.2. Numbers and their attributes of Odd and Even
Applications: snow & fire, hot & cold
numbers
“A more sophisticated answer”
2.3.7.3. Soul always brings with it life. Death is opposite to life. Soul will not admit opposite of what it brings, etc. (Have you ever seen a dead human being?). The soul is deathless.
“It is right to think then, gentlemen, that if the soul is immortal, it requires our care not only for the time we call our life, but for the sake of all time, and that one is in terrible danger if one does not give it that care. If death were escape from everything, it would be a great boon to the wicked to get rid of the body and of their wickedness together with their soul. But now that the soul appears to be immortal, there is no escape from evil or salvation for it except by becoming as good and wise as possible, for the soul goes to the underworld possessing nothing but its education and upbringing, which are said to bring the greatest benefit or harm to the dead right at the beginning of the journey yonder.” (107c)
2.4. Myth (197c1-115a8)
2.5. Socrates’s Death (115b1-118a17)
=====================
Phil 1001H Notes on Crito 28 September 2022
Crito Outline
Part 1 (43a-44b). Introductory setting of the scene
- Crito’s reasons in support of fleeing
1.1 negative: loss for Crito of friend and reputation
1.2 negative: loss for reputations of Crito and others re. money
(Soc.: Who cares about reputation among the majority, since they do not make one wise or foolish?
1.3 positive: we have lots of money for bribes & will not suffer if you flee
1.4 positive: you will be welcomed in many places
1.5: negative: You are not doing what is just: betraying your sons, you lack courage.
1.6. negative: Consider whether this is not only evil, but shameful for you and us
1.2. Socrates’s principles: I listen to arguments and respectfully follow principles, not threats.
1.2.1. one must not value the opinions of men, but some and not others, value the good opinions and not be corrupted by the opinion of the many, but follow the truth itself.
1.2.2 “the most important thing is not life, but the good life.” We should choose not just to live but a good and just life.
“the only valid consideration . . . is whether we should be acting rightly” in escaping: “Let us examine the question together . . . . .”
Part 2. Never do wrong deliberately: “Wrongdoing or injustice is in every way harmful and shameful to the wrongdoer?” Yes.
2.1. The majority: “to do harm in return”
2.2. Crito and Socrates: “It is never right.”
“So then consider very carefully whether we have this view in common, and whether you agree, and let this be the basis of our deliberation, that neither to do wrong nor to return a wrong is ever correct, nor is doing harm in return for harm done.”
2.3. Just agreements: ”When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, should one fulfill it or cheat on it?”
Part 3: Dialogue with The Laws
3.1. What Socrates owes to the City /Laws: duties & obligations
Is Socrates “on equal footing” with the City / Laws?
Is it right for Socrates to destroy the City / Laws?
“You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey.” (51b)
“We say, however, that whoever of you remains, when he sees how we conduct our trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions. We say that the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways, first because in us he disobeys his parents, also those who brought him up, and because, in spite of his agreement, he neither obeys us nor, if we do something wrong, does he try to persuade us to do better.”
“we speak the truth when we say that you agreed, not only in
words but by your deeds, to live in accordance with us.”
3.2. The consequences if you flee elsewhere.
Is Socrates a consequentialist or a deontologist?
Phil 1001H Notes 26 September 2022
Dear Phil 1001H students,
Please note these:
In my communications with you I use ALL CAPS to distinguish what I write from what you have written. I am not “shouting” or communicating any emotion or particular concern. I don’t shout in class and I do not shout in emails. With ALL CAPS you can clearly see where I have commented on your journal submission or other things you have sent me.
The next journal submission is due Monday by midnight and should be focused on your study of Plato’s Crito. I suggest for your journals that you do two things: (i) remark on something interesting you read and then (ii) think about it more deeply in connection to your own person and your own world.
Regarding journal submissions, some of you are sending me emails with attachments, perhaps so that you can keep your journals in another program.
But I ask you from now on to copy your journal into a regular email. I will then reply and comment directly in a regular email response. If my use of ALL CAPS is bothersome or irritating to you, then instead I can use a different color for my responses, again, so you can easily see where I am offering comments on what you have written.
For tomorrow:
1) We will discuss the exam you wrote;
2) We will discuss two terms for moral theories: deontology and consequentialism;
3) We will discuss the issue of whether it better to do or to suffer injustice;
and then
4) We will take up our debate on the Crito: from the syllabus
27 Sept Plato’s Crito Class debate on the issues of the Crito. Cayla, Christian, Joshua, Zenas, Andrew & Dryden: You are Group 1. You will defend the view that Socrates should escape prison and flee Athens so he does not have to die. Mira, Emma, Tabitha, Cameron, Catherine & Eric: You are Group 2. You will defend the view that Socrates should not escape but rather should stay and accept the punishment of death. Josie, Mitch, Marely, Grace, Stella & Collin: You are Group 3 and will the jury and offer your judgment regarding the presentations of Groups 1 & 2. Everyone has to be prepared (with notes if you like) defend their positions.
=================
Notes on studies thus far:
(A) We read and studied Weston for the sake of understanding forms of reasoning or argumentation. This is to “pump you up!” in your thinking and reasoning skills. Having finished that part, we are now looking at reasoning in action with the accounts of “Socrates.”
We are studying writings of Plato for the experience of carefully reading of complex argumentation and reasoning. This has become evident to you in the Euthyphro and in the Apology. It will become even more evident in the Crito and the Phaedo of Plato.
But why precisely are we reading these dialogues of Plato? These are exercises in reasoning that involves coherent concepts or definitions and insisting on cognitive consonance, not cognitive dissonance. According to the American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology, “Cognitive dissonance theory is a theory proposing that people have a fundamental motivation to maintain consistency among elements in their cognitive systems. When inconsistency occurs, people experience an unpleasant psychological state that motivates them to reduce the dissonance in a variety of ways (see dissonance reduction).” (https://dictionary.apa.org/cognitive-dissonance-theory) For Socrates a lack of coherent thinking is common and the way to unpack this is to show that their thinking is incoherent or self-contradictory. People (such as Euthyphro) may think they are coherent but after questioning they can be seen as the opposite.
(B) In the Euthyphro we see Socrates mention his upcoming trial and also get a taste of his usual way of dealing with people (even a religious expert and authority) who are un-reflectively self-confident in their own thinking. Such people (and they are all around us!) do not take the time to question their own actions and to think about what the right thing to do may be. Euthyphro simply says that killing is wrong and every killer is displeasing to the gods, so his father should be brought up to authorities on charges for impiety. But, expert though he is, Euthyphro has not reflected much at all on his actions. (Could he have a motivation unmentioned? If his father is charged, will Euthyphro take over his father’s wealth and property or power? We do not know, so let’s not go that direction. Suffice it to say, in the Greek context of the times, it is terribly impious as disrespectful, dishonorable, and shameful to bring up charges against one’s father.) There are several things happening here that need to be sorted out because Euthyphro’s mind is a jumble of disorderly ideas.
First, it is acknowledged that piety and being a pious person in the city is a good thing. Second, alert! What is piety? Is it doing service for the gods or acting as they would like people to act? Whoa! Let’s go deeper. Do the gods need our service? No, such an idea that the gods needs us is foolish. So it must be what the gods would like to see among humans. Further, then, the gods would like to see humans be just. Opps. The gods are not necessarily just in their actions and they disagree among themselves as to what is right and just. (This is a critique of the civic gods. They are disorderly and not necessarily just themselves in their actions. Socrates is getting feisty about the gods of the state. Trouble is brewing.
Back to the question of piety and the pious. Is something pious (and right, honorable) because the gods say so, because they like it to be so? Or is something pious (and right, honorable) in itself and the gods recognize it to be so? In the first case, the god for any reason or for no reason determine what is pious (and right, honorable). (That is, the gods create standards based on whatever they prefer. The dictatorial gods are arbitrary: Another critique of common civic religion! The gods, like human authoritarians, create whatever morals than like because of their power. Socrates in fact is critical of the gods when he displays their arbitrariness and their disagreements!) The second notion, that what is pious is some objective moral standard and the reasonable gods respect that and love it, puts justice as an objective value honored by the gods who, in this case, would not be arbitrary but reasonable, coherent and predictably reliable. Hence, while the State determined that the gods should somehow represent proper moral habits and actions, Socrates is insisting that the gods should be just. The just and justice are mentioned only a couple of times (4b-c, 6a, 7d, 7e-8a and later, particularly 11e-12). Note 12e: Euthyphro: I think, Socrates, that the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice. Now we see that humans are concerned with justice for humans and what is owed for the care of the gods is something else considered just or right in the civic religion.
Finally, proper definitions are reached. Under this, then, human justice is what concerns the actions of Euthyphro’s father and the issues of what is owed to the gods are other things. This has all been about properly defining our terms and concepts. Euthyphro’s job as a civic religious expert concerned with piety in relation to the gods (the religious laws of the state) led him to think that any killing must be murder offensive and impious in relation to the gods. But he (and by implication others in similar positions) did not have a clear concept of what piety and impiety are. For him it circled around offering something to the gods that they both needed and deserved and yet did not need (they are sufficient in themselves) and did not deserve (they are not themselves coherent on what is morally right or pious).
(C) The Apology is generally recognized as likely a substantially accurate historical account of what actually took place at the very real trial of Socrates. He insists that he speaks the truth before the assembly of people at which he asks that they determine justly about what he has to say. After denouncing the charges and calling his accusers liars, he proceeds to offer defenses against two forms of accusation: the earlier common and the recent.
Earlier accusations: (i) the nature of the cosmos and (ii) “making the weaker argument the stronger.” On (i) the nature of the cosmos, he asserts he has never said anything. On (ii) “making the weaker argument the stronger,” he explains that this is what the Sophists do. But he is no Sophist because those teachers claim to have knowledge and also demand money for their teaching. Instead, (iii) he is driven to test others in a vain effort to prove that the Oracle of Delphi was incorrect in saying there is none wiser than Socrates. So he tests those who claim to have knowledge. (a) The politicians proved to be incoherent about what is best and right in society since they are devoted only to persuasion (for the sake of honor from others, wealth or power). (b) The writers of poetry and literature as well do not coherently think of what is best and right. And (c ) the craftsmen have some knowledge (since they make actual objects) but their craft knowledge is something else and does not lead to what is best and right in society. Note: these are the leading groups in the Greek city state. Hence, of those consider the best leaders in society (think of our present day politicians and leaders), none have a coherent plan and understanding about what is best and right in society. Just like our present day politicians, they lie and they do not explain their statements in a coherent fashion but rely on metaphors and persuasive speech. In our day, they do studies to determine what the voters want to hear and then find a way to speak that back to the voters. Politicians who make mass appeals do not have time for coherent concepts and clarifications of their meanings in the commercials they put forth on the various media. And their chief concern is to win power through persuasion to get what they want (= what pleases them). In his testing, Socrates develops enemies of those who cannot respond to his demands for coherence, for their cognitive consonance.
Recent accusations: (i) a bad influence all: no, the young seek him out and imitate him; they do not choose him in order that they be harmed by him. (ii) teaching a new religion and is guilty of atheism: The claim of Meletus is self-contradictory: Socrates believes in spirits (his daimon); spirits are gods or come from the gods; therefore Socrates believes in gods.
The Life of Socrates: One should seek to improve oneself and others. One should not avoid duty due to fear of dying or danger. One should recognize that it is worse to do injustice then to suffer it. It is right that one do good and in his case it is to be the gadfly prompting Athenians to what is right.
The Death of Socrates: Right and self-critical thinkers will not arise in Athens. That is, the Sophists and their students, the rhetorically persuasive politicians will dominate.
What importance does this have for us today?