Structure of the Phaedo Part I: Prologue 57a-69e Part II Logos 70a-107b First arguments and myth 70a- 84c Challenge and response to Simmias 84c-91c Final argument and myth 91c- 115a: true earth Part III Epilogue 115a-118a: death

Cebes’ Weaver Argument 1. Y can survive X, but this does not imply Y lives forever, e.g. the weaver can survive his cloak, but this does not imply he lives forever. 2. Soul/mind is to the body as a weaver is to his cloak, i.e. he is separate from it, and can ‘outlive’ his body, perhaps through many reincarnations. 3. But at the end, the soul/mind, just like the weaver, must also perish. Suggests soul = life-principle in living things. But then ‘soul’ and ‘body’ functionally interdependent. Socrates must introduce a way in which ‘soul’ somehow transcends body…

Socrates’ Autobiography 95b-100a 1 st : natural scientist, materialist, focus on causes of becoming (96b) 2 nd : reflection on mathematics: focus “what is?” (96c-97b) 3 rd : natural theology; focus on ‘good’; disillusioned with theology (97c-98d) 4 th : Dialectic and “Forms” - focus reasons in human action 4 theories of ‘why’ in nature; mathematics; theology; human action

Plato’s Theory of Forms 1. If we say, “something is F,” F is the name of a Form, F-ness. (101b) “Socrates is rectangular” 2. A particular thing is (a) called F and (b) is F by virtue of “participation” in F-ness. (101c) How is Socrates ‘just’? 3. The Form, F-ness, is itself perfectly F but things “fall short.” How does the rectangle “fall short”? The USA “fall short” of justice? Form of 4. Form corresponds to real defn of F Plato : Forms = abstract, non-empirical meanings/objects Relation to math & moral truth Compare Socrates’ What is X? quest for ‘real defns’

2 Worlds in the Phaedo Sensible Perception Particulars Perceptual objects No universal, necessary laws or ideals Intelligible Understanding Universal Forms Moral persons There are universal, necessary laws & ideals

Forms and Physical Reality Form e.g. The Circle = ideal object Otherness of the universal, the Ideal Visible circles = determinate, imperfect Ambiguity of words = reference to Ideal or physical instances? Form = transcendent and immanent Does this apply to justice, beauty, goodness? To the soul striving to know and live by them? If words  toward Ideal realities, are they real or mere concepts?

Plato’s Theory of Forms Forms and Language If something is called F, F is the name of a Form, F-ness “Socrates’ face is circular” Because of it language is not ambiguous, e.g. ‘white,’ ‘circle,’ ‘just’ Sophists are mistaken to say “all words are ambiguous” Forms and Reality If “something is F,” x participates in the Form, F-ness e.g. “Socrates is just” Because of it the world has an structure, which things strive to be Sophists are mistaken to say “all things flow” and “there is no knowledge”

Theory of Forms (pro and con) Pro arguments on Forms Universals If there are ideal universals… Imperfection argument (see also Phaedo 74-75) : If there is K of ideal universals & K that sense-particulars “fall short” of them… Knowledge argument: if K of necessary & universal truths, & this can’t derive from sense-evidence, then… Con arguments on Forms Reification Forms = concepts, not real Population What are there Forms of? 3rd Man If there is a Form of M, and that is itself M, then… Ambiguity If Forms existed, conception of them would be confused by their relation to sense- particulars

Final Argument: 100a-107b 1. Forms (Ideas) exist 100b 2. X is called f (e.g. beautiful), b/c it participates in F-ness (Beauty Itself) 3. The f-quality in us is never not-f, nor is F-ness ever not-f, but it either (a) retreats or (b) is destroyed when its opposite approaches 102d 4. If life is in us, it is b/c we participate in the Form of Life 5. The life-quality in us cannot be not-alive; it retreats or is destroyed 6. Natures are like this, e.g. snow/Cold; fire/Hotness; triads/Odd 103e 7. Natures also do not admit their opposites--e.g. snow cannot be hot, fire is never cold, triads are never even 104b 8. Soul-nature always brings the character of Life 105c 9. Soul-nature can never be dead--it is deathless 105e 10. The deathless = indestructible 106d 11. Therefore soul is immortal 107a

Mythos of the True Earth True earth = ideal image for actual, imperfect earth Mythos = pictures human destiny in light of the Good

Death Scene How to reconcile death of the man, Socrates, with the immortality of his soul? Hemlock is more painful than depicted here Final words = thanks for life, for being ‘cured’ of it, or awakening from death?

Questions Has Socrates proven: 1. it is rational to believe in the immortal soul? 2. it is irrational to hope for it? Do the “Forms” exist?