Phaedo - Some Thoughts - 01

I am in the process of re-reading the Phaedo where Socrates talks to a group of friends on the morning of his execution in his prison in Athens. These discussions are quite detailed (and timely as Socrates points out) since they are mostly about the soul and its immortality after physical death along with various related topics.  As usual, a number of these discussions and topics will stand out as being of particular interest to individual readers – at a particular moment in their lives - as is often the case with the writings of Plato. This short blog post of mine today merely wants to highlight a few small points that I found particularly interesting myself while reading a few pages of Phaedo again with my coffee this morning and indeed over the last couple of days.

Firstly, I thought Socrates encapsulated that modern feel very well for those people who have done any “spiritual searching”  themselves and have gone to one type of religious meeting after another offered by various groups such as those based on many different types of Christianity, Buddhism, or New Age style practices. 

Socrates recounts to his friends that once he heard someone reading from a book by the philosopher Anaxagoras that: ‘mind was the disposer and cause of all’ and that he [Socrates]: ‘rejoiced to think that I had found in Anaxagoras a teacher of the causes of existence such as I desired’. Unfortunately for Socrates – and I am sure for many modern day searchers for spiritual wisdom and fellowship – he continues a few lines later:

     ‘What expectations I had formed, and how grievously I was disappointed! As I proceeded , I found my philosopher altogether forsaking mind or any other principle of order, but having recourse to air, and ether, and water, and other eccentricities.’

The above few lines reminded me of the feelings I had myself as a young man of joining a new religious or philosophical organisation and then being disappointed as one goes further to find less and less substance holding up the deck of cards of their beliefs and practices. However, these few lines also sounded a very positive and harmonious note to me for the benefits of studying philosophy – being that by far the best and most honest solution for our search is a personal exploration of matters divine and spiritual – where one can discard those things that seem to be ‘improbable’ and hang on to those things that seem to be the most probable and plausible after a careful examination of any proposition and the alternatives personally. 

It seems also a good moment now to repeat an advice of mine to new students of Socrates and Plato – whether young or old – and that is not to even contemplate taking the whole corpus of Plato’s more spiritual writing and regarding it like some religious totalitarian doctrine to be swallowed in full without question or doubt - as is often the case with the doctrines offered by most of the more established religious organisations of today and previous years. No; this is not the way of the evolving “real” philosopher. It is much better for real platonic philosophers to accept some parts and disagree with other parts (and indeed perhaps to sit on the fence with other parts)  according to one’s own deliberations and explorations at a given period of time in their lives. (i.e. we may change or amend our views as the years go by and should not be afraid or too proud to do so….)

I should like now to raise one nagging difficulty I have with various explanations and descriptions of the soul that come up in the Phaedo dialogue and indeed throughout the works of Plato. If for the sake of argument we accept that the soul exists – then to my mind it most certainly is a very unusual and unique thing or perhaps kind of stuff. I therefore find explanations of the soul and its various attributes very weak if they make use of ‘universal principles’ as occurs often in Plato’s writings. For example, if one said that wardrobes, chairs, and tables are hard on the outside – it does not naturally follow on for me (and most others I suspect) that the soul is also hard on the outside. If one said that liquids such as tea, coffee and brandy need to be kept in a vessel to stop them simply dispersing away – it does not follow on to me that this also applies to the soul. In other words, unless we have a pretty good idea about what this soul stuff is in the first place – I think it is pretty hard to suggest what it can and cannot do and achieve with any kind of accuracy – or offer up an argument using examples from this ‘world of the senses’ as some kind of “proof” .

Talking of proofs - as a former high school maths teacher myself (but certainly no mathematician) – I have some idea of course about the use of mathematical proofs in order to support the truth of various hypothesise and proposals. However, in mathematics each proof usually relies on at least one accepted truth at its foundation. A simple example might be that if I take a scale and weigh 1 litre of wine – I can see that it weighs 1 kilogram. Now if somebody asks me what do you thing half as much wine (500 mls) weighs – I do not really have to speculate – but rather can calculate that it is 500 grams and I can explain why and offer a proof if needed. I can do this because the original starting point or truth (1000mls = 1 litre = 1 kilogram) is a rock solid foundation to start to build an endless number of examples on.

Explaining schoolboy maths and explaining the existence, immortality, and various lives and functions of the soul seem to be very different things to me – and the idea that by using any combination of words, arguments or examples from the sensible world one can claim to have proved something about the soul seems awkward at best to me.  This is not to say one cannot perhaps offer convincing reasons for choosing a personal position on these and similarly metaphysical matters.

I could not make a few quick comments on the Phaedo without mentioning a few favourite lines from Plato of many years standing that come up towards the end of the dialogue just after Socrates gives his frankly bizarre description of the soul’s passage through the underworld and giant rivers circling the earth. Just after this strange description are some simple but truly important lines to me which bind me to the texts of Plato and the philosophy of Socrates even if some of the descriptions appear hard to believe. Socrates says:

     ‘A man of sense ought not to say, nor will I be very confident that the description which I have given of the soul and her mansions is exactly true. But I do say that, inasmuch as the soul is shown to be immortal, he may venture to think, not improperly or unworthily, that something of the kind is true…’  [i.e. we can think of it in this way even if it is not ‘literally’ accurate … like most diagrams of atoms or molecules and a host of other ideas in any modern day science classroom.]

In conclusion, I am not sure that words alone will ever be able to prove the existence of the soul and its activities and qualities to anyone; let alone a sufficiently large number of people in the modern world.

What Do You Think? If not words, then what other ways are there? 

Bite Size Comments on ‘Parmenides’ by Plato

Using Translation by H. N. Fowler / Heinemann

(Note: Delightful short 2 -3 page introductions by Fowler)

In my opinion it is the first 15 pages or so of this 35 page dialogue that are by far the most interesting. For me the latter pages are rather hard work to read and frankly become rather tedious. Of course, I accept that this view may not be shared by some readers of this text and I will come to back to this point again below.

The dialogue begins with Plato describing how Cephalus relates a storey that was told to him by Antiphon; who heard it from Pythodorus– who was present as a listener when Parmenides (the great Eleatic philosopher) conversed with a young Socrates (apx 20 years old we suppose) and other listeners. It is therefore dramatised by Plato as a 4^th or 5^thhand account of the original tale - and this is emphasised for some reason –and perhaps for important or understandable reasons? This dialogue is therefore a good illustration of how the Socratic-Platonic philosophic tradition was kept alive by an oral rather than purely written tradition.

Plato starts his dialogue as usual by giving the dramatic setting, and with Socrates refuting some of Zeno’s paradoxes (who is also present at the discussion) which he claims not to be paradoxes at all. Parmenides has said “the one [divine] exists” and gives a number of proofs – and Zeno has said that “the many does not exist”. According to Socrates, Zeno has taken the same view as Parmenides and merely expressed it the other way around and so his ideas are nothing new and not a paradox.

Parmenides congratulates young Socrates on his observations and then the experienced and respected philosopher advises him on how to develop his philosophical skills – and recommends certain practical “training”methods. Firstly he sensibly suggests (paragraph starting line 136a) that:

     ‘…if you wish to get better training (in philosophy and knowledge), you must do something more …. you must consider not only what happens if a particular hypothesis is true; but also what happens if it is not true.’

Parmenides then explains in more detail what he mean by this – and the various angles from which we should discuss a topic from. Socrates exclaims that this is a “stupendous amount of work” he is suggesting; but is it I wonder? Or is it just an hour or two today and another hour or two tomorrow and for a few days thereafter to examine any hypothesis in some detail and from all the various angles? Indeed, if we wish to suggest a hypothesis on anything serious, important or worthwhile ourselves, should we not – as trainee or “real” philosophers – be examining the implications of what we are saying from all angles as a pre-requisite. Would it not be better to say that we do not have an opinion on something if we have not carried out this work which Parmenides suggests is essential first?

Socrates then asks Parmenides to take a hypothesis of his own choice as an example and then discuss it from various angles to demonstrate what he means by this suggested method; to which Parmenides says: ‘….. this is a great task…. to impose on a man my age…. ‘. At line 136 E, Pythodorus tells Socrates:

      ‘If there were more of us, it would not be fair to ask it of him, for it is not suitable for him to speak on such subjects before many, especially at his age; for the many do not know for except by this devious passage through all things the mind cannot attain the truth.’

Parmenides agrees to Socrates’ request and suggests for an example hypothesis the supposition: ‘that the one exists…. or that it does not exist.’

[Suggestion for facilitators and group leaders – if you are studying this text with students – I think this is a good point to stop and first get the students to discuss the hypothesis themselves for an hour at least before reading further and seeing how Parmenides himself goes about it. You may even wish to leave the students to think about the above supposition for themselves for the rest of the morning/day…. and then perhaps make their own short presentations – before reading further with the text.]

At line 142.B Parmenides says:

     ‘Shall we then return to our hypothesis and see if a review of our argument discloses any new point of view?’

He then proceeds to summarise and develop his previous arguments in just a page or two. All nice and succinct and clear you might be thinking but I do not feel this to be the case. For example, Parmenides asks Socrates:

      ‘In this way: If being is predicated of the one which exists and unity is predicated of being which is one , and being and one are not the same, but belong to the existent one of our hypothesis , must not the existent one be a whole of which the one and being are parts?’

To which Socrates replies (almost amusingly in my own view): ‘Inevitably…’ Is Socrates joking? It seems like a rather complicated and bewildering statement for Socrates to give such a reply that he thought the statement obvious or inevitable. Perhaps the truth is they have both left me behind in terms of intellect or in terms of interest by this asking questions this way and then that – and then back the other way again. And I wonder, in truth – which is the subject of our discussion here, are they any closer to proving or deciding or knowing whether the divine is “One “ or “many” at the end of it all?

There then follows a discussion on the existence of the one and of ‘being’ itself. At line 160.B (P.311 Fowler) Parmenides in keeping with the training method he has earlier suggested to Socrates asks:

     ‘Well, and ought we not next to consider what must happens if one does not exist?’

For expediency with this blog I will quote here two paragraphs from the Wikipedia website:

      'This difficult second part of the dialogue is generally agreed to be one of the most challenging, and sometimes bizarre, pieces in the whole of the Platonic corpus. It consists of an unrelenting series of difficult and subtle arguments, where the exchange is stripped of all but the bare essentials of the arguments involved. Gone are the drama and colour we are accustomed to from [Plato’s] earlier dialogues.

      The long, austere second half of the dialogue is organised as a series of eight (or alternatively, nine deductions about the relation of the one to the many. The reasoning is often, as are Parmenides' arguments in the first section of the work, obscure, and at times appears to be blatantly fallacious. Further, the deductions appear to be set up in a way to deliberately produce antinomies, or mutually contradictory conclusions…..’

Wikipedia then list the main points covered in the rest of the dialogue at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_(dialogue).However, although perhaps convenient, this summary by Wikipedia may be an over simplification of the discussion in the second half of the dialogue. If you want to read a little deeper there is as usual a good longer essay on the Stanford University website at:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides 

“Bite Size” Summary:

As mentioned at the start of this blog while I enjoyed very much indeed the first 15 pages or so of this dialogue, I did find the latter pages rather hard going and dry: and as you must know by now I am usually a big fan of Plato’s writings on many fronts including the vivid myths, rich flowing language, humour and general readability. Below I give two opposing views on the dialogue by respected commentators: the first by H N Lamb who seems to sympathise with my own view (and that expressed above by Wikipedia) to some extent, and then secondly a quote from the 15^th Century Neoplatonist Marsilio Ficino who feels that in this dialogue Plato:

      ‘…surpasses even himself - to bring forth this work miraculously from the adytum of the divine mind and from the innermost sanctum of philosophy.’

Firstly Lamb writes:

      ‘There can be no doubt that Plato’s contemporaries, living in the atmosphere of philosophical discussion which pervaded the Athens of those days; understood many of the allusions in the text which are lost on us, and were able to appreciate Plato’s point of view more fully than any modern scholar can hope to do, but even for them the result of this dialogue must have been chiefly, if not entirely negative. In greater or lesser degree the same is true of several other dialogues which appear to belong to nearly the same date. Such are the Theaetetus, the Cratylus, the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Philibus. These all seem to be more or less polemical, and in most of them the interest in method is evident. ’

However, Marsilio Ficino says:

     ‘While Plato sprinkled the seeds of all wisdom throughout all his dialogues, yet he collected the precepts of moral philosophy in the books on the Republic, the whole of science in the Timaeus, and he comprehended the whole of theology in the Parmenides. And whereas in the other works he rises far above all other philosophers, in this one he seems to surpass even himself and to bring forth this work miraculously from the adytum of the divine mind and from the innermost sanctum of philosophy. Whosoever undertakes the reading of this sacred book shall first prepare himself in a sober mind and detached spirit, before he makes bold to tackle the mysteries of this heavenly work. For here Plato discusses his own thoughts most subtly: how the One itself is the principle of all things, which is above all things and from which all things are, and in what manner it is outside everything and in everything, and how everything is from it, through it, and toward it.’ (Klibansky, 1941)

Certainly Parmenides is not one of Plato’s easier texts, and people will delight or otherwise by reading it. As with all things I recommend making your own minds up and taking a couple of hours at least to have a look at that first 15 pages I mentioned above which I found interesting and worthwhile.

James (London - Jan 2013)

'The Philosopher Amongst the Stars' - A talk by Tim Addey

 'The Philosopher Amongst the Stars'

[I am currently attending in London a very interesting series of 5 talks/seminars presented by the Prometheus Trust. A sample of the notes to the third talk is below with a link to the full notes on the Trust’s website for those that like the flavour of my “taster”…]

'... In the political life we perceive eternal ideas in material forms – for example we see a number of beautiful things, but we don't see beauty just by itself; we see a number of instances of equality, but not the equal itself; and we see a whole range of things grouped into, say, fives, but we never perceive five just as itself. Nevertheless, we could not bring to bear our reason upon the outer world of "instances" unless we were able to affirm the presence of beauty, equality, fiveness and a host of other ideas within the mundane world..... 

The attempt to apply reason to that world –and I'm using the word reason in its widest and deepest sense, so that it includes intuition as well as more the more usual forms of reason - is a necessary part of soul life: it places the human soul in the great chain of goodness which connects all things in a procession from, and a return to, the ineffable Principle of Principles.....

In the cathartic life we begin to perceive eternal ideas more clearly – we move inwards to apply our faculties upon ourselves and the more opaque clothing of materiality around the ideas drops away. Now we see those ideas in terms of the soul – which is immaterial, an essence, and the first of moving things – in other words we see ideas as reasons which are the real and immaterial streams of truths which emerge from eternal unmoving but dynamic ideas. But this is by no means the end of the journey......... '

Philosopher Amongst the Stars - Prometheus Trust