Notes and Comments on Phaedo -- 3

31 May 2023

Notes and Comments on Phaedo – 3

In case someone reading this has not seen the previous posts on Phaedo, I am posting a series of notes and comments on this dialogue, quoting brief sections for each post.  The translation I am using is by Harold North Fowler, Loeb Classical Library.

Echecrates:  What took place at his death, Phaedo?  What was said and done?  And which of his friends were with him?  Or did the authorities forbid them to be present, so that he died without his friends?

Phaedo:  Not at all.  Some were there, in fact, a good many.

Echecrates:  Be so good as to tell us as exactly as you can about all these things, if you are not too busy.

Phaedo:  I am not busy and I will try to tell you.  It is always my greatest pleasure to be reminded of Socrates whether by speaking of him myself or by listening to someone else.

Echecrates:  Well, Phaedo, you will have hearers who feel as you do; so try to tell us everything as accurately as you can.

Phaedo:  For my part, I had strange emotions when I was there.  For I was not filled with pity as I might naturally be when present at the death of a friend; since he seemed to me to be happy, both in his bearing and his words, he was meeting death so fearlessly and nobly.  And so I thought that even in going to the abode of the dead he was not going without the protection of the gods, and that when he arrived there it would be well with him, if it ever was well with anyone.  And for this reason I was not at all filled with pity, as might seem natural when I was present at a scene of mourning; nor on the other hand did I feel pleasure because we were occupied with philosophy, as was our custom – and our talk was of philosophy; -- but a very strange feeling came over me, an unaccustomed mixture of pleasure and of pain together, when I thought that Socrates was presently to die.  And all of us who were there were in much the same condition, sometimes laughing and sometimes weeping; especially one of us, Apollodorus; you know him and his character.

Echerates:  To be sure I do.

Phaedo:  He was quite unrestrained, and I was much agitated myself, as were the others.

Echecrates:  Who were these, Phaedo?

Phaedo:  Of native Athenians there was this Apollodorus, and Critobulus and his father, and Hermogenes and Epiganes and Aeschines and Antisthenes; and Ctesippus and Paeanian was there too, and Menexenus and some other Athenians.  But Plato, I think, was ill.

Echecrates:  Were any foreigners there?

Phaedo:  Yes, Simmias of Thebes and Cebes and Phaedonides, and from Megara Euclides and Terpsion.

Echecrates:  What?  Were Aristippus and Cleombrotus there?

Phaedo:  No.  They were said to be in Aegina.

Echecrates:  Was anyone else there?

Phaedo:  I think these were about all.

(Ibid, pages 203 - 207)

1.  This part is a combination of stage setting and a listing of the cast of characters.  It is interesting that not everyone who appears in Phaedo is listed; for example, the jailer is not included, and neither is Xantippe, the wife of Socrates who puts in a brief appearance holding one of their sons.  Notice also that Phaedo uses what appears to me to be tentative language when he says at the end that “I think these were about all.”  So there may have been more in attendance. 

2.  Apollodorus was from the Athenian port city Phaleron and was financially successful.  Apollodorus also appears in the Symposium where he states that he is the same age as Plato’s brother, Glaucon.  Apollodorus and his brother, Aiantodorus, became followers of Socrates.  Along with the Symposium Apollodorus appears in the Apology.  Apollodorus also appears in Xenophon’s Apology and Memorabilia.

Critobulus was the son of Crito who I’ll remark on separately.  Critobulus appears as a young boy in the dialogue Euthydemus.  He also appears in the Oeconomicus of Xenophon.  According to what I was able to find, Critobulus was considered by some to be licentious and extravagant, but I was not able to track down the reasons for that evaluation.  In Plato’s dialogue there is no indication that anyone feels that way about him.

Crito (the father of Critobulus) urges Socrates to escape his death sentence in the dialogue Crito, but Socrates refuses for philosophical reasons.  Crito also appears in Euthydemus where Crito states he is about the same age as Socrates and from the same deme.  Crito also appears in the Apology.  Crito and Socrates appear to have had a close friendship.  For example, when Xantippe, the wife of Socrates, is in distress, Socrates turns to Crito for assistance.  And the very last words Socrates speaks are addressed to Crito when Socrates entrusts Crito with a final request: Socrates owes a cock to the god Asclepius and asks Crito to make good on this duty.  Crito responds that it shall be done.

Hermogenes also appears in the dialogue Cratylus.

Epigenes also appears in the Apology, as does Aeschines.

Antisthenes appears only in Phaedo.

Ctesippus appears in Lysis and Euthydemus.  He was also a friend of Menexenus.

Menexenus in the dialogue named for him, Menexenus.  Some of the issues raised in the dialogue Menexenus are also discussed in Phaedo.

Simmias, from the city of Thebes, has a major part in Phaedo, participating in many of the discussions, along with Cebes.  Simmias also appears in Crito and is mentioned in Phaedrus.

Cebes, also from Thebes, is, as mentioned above, a major participant in Phaedo.  He also appears in Crito.

It is a varied gathering; what they all have in common is their love of Socrates.  Their personalities, as well as their strengths and weaknesses vary, but they all share in their devotion to Socrates and to Philosophy.

3.  It’s interesting that the people mentioned are divided between Athenians and non-Athenians.  It is the Thebans, Simmias and Cebes, who are most involved with disputation with Socrates in the dialogue.  There are other participants, for sure, but I don’t think it is without meaning that these two Thebans play major roles.  Cebes also studied with Philolaus, a Pythagorean.  This, once again, emphasizes the Pythagorean connection to Socrates and, I believe, to Platonism.  The first person mentioned in Phaedo, Echecrates, was a Pythagorean and Cebes, a prominent participant in Phaedo is as well.

4.  “But Plato, I think, was ill.”  The absence of Plato is poignant.  This absence invites speculation, but these speculations cannot rise to the level of explanations.  It may be, as many suggest, that Plato really was ill.  If Plato was ill it must have been a serious illness to keep him from Socrates during the last days of his earthly life. 

It is possible that ‘illness’ here means overcome with grief, or heartbroken. Already we see some very emotional responses to the situation with Apollodorus and Phaedo himself speaks eloquently of the complex, and intense, emotions that he was feeling.

There is an interesting, and recent, presentation as to why Plato was not present by Guy Wyndham-Jones.  Wyndham-Jones wrote a dialogue, which he calls The Platon, between Socrates and Plato.  In this dialogue Socrates sends Plato away due to his agitation over the upcoming death of Socrates.  Though this is speculation, I am reminded of how Plotinus sent Porphyry, who was suffering from depression, away to recover in a location that Plotinus considered helpful for Porphyry’s condition.  This was why Porphyry was not present at the death of Plotinus. 

5.  All of this is preliminary material, yet highly relevant at many levels.  Soon Phaedo will begin to relate the conversation that took place among those gathered. 

Whirlpools

 28 May 2023

Whirlpools

“But how are we related to Intellect (Mind, Spirit, Nous)?  I mean by ‘Intellect” not that state of the soul, which is one of the things which derive from Intellect, but Intellect itself.  We possess this too, as something that transcends us.  We have it either as common to all or particular to ourselves, or both common and particular; common because it is without parts and one and everywhere the same, particular to ourselves because each has the whole of it in the primary part of his soul.  So we also possess the forms in two ways, in our soul, in a manner of speaking unfolded and separated, in Intellect all together.”

(Plotinus, Ennead I.1: What is the Living Being?, translated by A. H. Armstrong, Plotinus:  Porphyry on Plotinus, Ennead I, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966, page 111, ISBN: 9780674994843)

“And towards the Intellectual-Principle what is our relation?  By this I mean not that faculty in the soul which is one of the emanations from the Intellectual-Principle, but The Intellectual Principle itself (Divine-Mind).

“This also we possess as the summit of our being.  And we have It either as common to all or as our own immediate possession: or again we may possess It in both degrees, that is in common, since It is indivisible – one, everywhere and always Its entire self – and severally in that each personality possess It entire in the First-Soul (i.e., in the Intellectual as distinguished from the lower phase of the Soul.)”

(Plotinus, The Enneads, translated by Stephen McKenna, Larson Publications, Burdett, New York, 1992, page 28, ISBN: 9780943914558)

1.  The question that I think Plotinus is addressing here is how can something that is universal reside in the particular?  In this instance, the question is how can Universal Mind (or “Intellect”) reside in, or be connected to, the individual soul.  Plotinus is not referring to the soul as an emanation of Intellect/Mind, or the participation that the individual human mind has with Intellect, but Intellect as such.  

Intellect as such exists before instantiation.  In this way Intellect resembles numbers that exist before any objects instantiate their meaning.  Intellect as such, or Mind as such, exists before there is any content of Mind; it is before thought appears.  But the Mind that appears in the individual human soul has the content of that individual; it is part of what makes the person an individual.

So what is the relationship of our soul to Mind/Intellect as such?

2.  Plotinus’s view is that Intellect as such exists within us in two ways.  Intellect/Spirit exists in us as a common heritage, or using Platonic vocabulary, by participation due to emanation from Intellect as such.  In addition, intellect exists in a localized manner within each individual; again due to emanation from Intellect as such.

3.  Analogies can, I think, be helpful in understanding what Plotinus is teaching.  A whirlpool in a stream consists entirely of water.  The whirlpool is a localized manifestation of water.  And the stream is an instantiation of water as such.  

In a similar way, our thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc., are localized whirlpools of the stream of mind.  And our mind is an instantiation of, or emanation of, Mind as such.

4.  Another analogy is one often used in Dharmic traditions.  Waves in the sea consist entirely of water; they have no existence outside of water.  The sea as a whole is water.  The relationship between an individual, or particular, mind resembles the relationship between waves and the sea.

5.  Or it is like a single image appearing in countless mirrors.  Each image in each individual mirror is particular, but the source is the image as such.

6.  In some Buddhist traditions they use the image of the moon appearing in thousands of types of water, from ponds to drops of dew.

7. The sun sends its energy and warmth to the Earth. Every living thing on earth is a result of the sun's energy. Every living thing on earth is, in a sense, a localization of the stream of solar energy pouring forth from the sun. This is true even when, at night, we cannot see the sun. Similarly, the Intellect/Mind/Spirit is present in all living things; the energy pouring forth from Intellect, combined with the differentiating power of number, allows for the particular manifestations of Intellect/Mind/Spirit in the soul, yet Intellect as such is also present in the soul, just as the energy of the sun is present for, and in, all living things.

And the One, the Spiritual Sun, is the ultimate source of all that exists, just as the material sun is the ultimate source for all living things on earth. And just as the material sun is present in all living things, and just as all living things are localizations of the energy of the material sun, so also all existing things have within them the Spiritual Sun, the One, in both the form of localization, and as a complete presence of the totality of the One.

8. The hypostases are porous to each other. There is no barrier between one hypostasis and another. It is like walking through a village. You start out in the business district. After a bit of walking you enter the region of houses and apartments. After a bit more you find yourself walking through a public park. Your walk is unhindered from one region to another even though the different regions serve particular purposes. In a similar way the overflowing of energy from the One, and subsequently from Nous (Intellect, Being, and Life), simply flows forth from one kind of manifestation to another without strain or difficulty.

9.  For Plotinus this way of looking at ourselves, and at the cosmos, has soteriological significance.  This teaching explains how human beings can access transcendental realities; because such realities, like Mind/Intellect, are not left behind in the second hypostasis.  Rather Mind/Intellect (along with Being and Life) are present within each individual by the universal participation of all souls in these higher realities.  

From this perspective, then, it is a matter of turning our attention to transcendental realities, and withdrawing from sensory realities, that is the means whereby we can unite with the One.  Normally we are not aware of transcendental realities because our individual mind is distracted by its own localized thoughts and feelings.  By withdrawing the mind from localized whirlpools of the mind, we can step into Mind as such.

10.  This also applies to the ultimately ineffable One, which Plotinus treats in the next paragraph.  In the same way the One is present in each individual both as an emanation which gives each individual the quality of being one, particular, being, and as the universal One that is shared by all existing things.  And, again, this is why turning within, into great silence and stillness, is the way to enter into this ultimately transcendental, reality.

Above I said that there is no barrier between the hypostases. But there is an interior barrier within the heart and mind of each human being. The barrier between us and these transcendental realities is the barrier of distraction and of attachment to materiality.  The removal of distraction, or at least its diminution, comes about through ascetic practice; in a sense ascetic practice is the turning away from distraction.  Through ascetic practice we learn to climb over or under, or find our way around, the barrier of distraction, and arrive at our true home, the Good, the One, the Beautiful, and the Eternal.

Notes and Comments on Phaedo -- 2

25 May 2023

Notes and Comments on Phaedo – 2

Continuing with my notes on Plato’s dialogue, Phaedo, using the Harold North Fowler translation:

Echecrates:  Then what did he say before his death? And how did he die?  I should like to hear, for nowadays none of the Phliasians go to Athens at all, and no stranger has come from there for a long time, who could tell us anything definite about this matter, except that he drank poison and died, so we could learn no further details.

Phaedo:  Did you not even hear about the trial and how it was conducted?

Echecrates:  Yes, some one told us about that, and we wondered that although it took place a long time ago, he was put to death much later.  Now why was that, Phaedo?

Phaedo:  It was a matter of chance, Echecrates.  It happened that the stern of the ship which the Athenians sent to Delos was crowned on the day before the trial.

Echecrates:  What ship is this?

Phaedo:  This is the ship, as the Athenians say, in which Theseus once went to Crete with the fourteen youths and maidens, and saved them and himself.  Now the Athenians made a vow to Apollo, as the story goes, that if they were saved they would send a mission every year to Delos.  And from that time even to the present day they sent it annually in honour of the god.  Now it is their law that after the mission begins the city must be pure and no one may be publicly executed until the ship has gone to Delos and back; and sometimes, when contrary winds detail it, this takes a long time.  The beginning of the mission is when the priest of Apollo crowns the stern of the ship; and this took place, as I say, on the day before the trial.  For that reason Socrates passed a long time in prison between his trial and his death.

(Ibid, pages 201 & 203)

1.  Socrates was a well-known personage in Greece.  For example, his personality appears in plays like The Clouds by Aristophanes.  And Socrates interacted with famous people like Alcibiades and more than a few Sophists who had large followings.  I think we can look at the trial of Socrates as similar in impact to a famous trial today, a trial of someone whose life is followed in the news and on social media.  When something happens to a famous person, people want details as to what happened.  But sources are often unreliable, biased, or have only partial knowledge.  That is why Echecrates is so eager to get the details of what happened to Socrates, and of Socrates's words and demeanor, from a first-hand source.

(As an aside, the fame of Socrates gave rise to a lot of writing after his death.  Plato was not the only one who wrote of the events leading to the death of Socrates.  Scholars note that there were quite a few.  The only other ones that have survived to today, other than Plato, are the writings by Xenophon on Socrates; Apology and Memorabilia.)

2.  The legend of Theseus that is alluded to is the legend of Theseus and the Minotaur.  Theseus was the son of Aegeus, King of Athens.  To understand the role of Theseus we have to know the background:  The King and Queen of Crete sent their eldest child, Androgeus, to the Panatheniac Games that were held in Athens.  Androgeus was a star athlete and won a number of contests.  Out of jealousy, Pallantides, assassinated Androgeus.  This incurred the wrath of Minoan Crete and the King and Queen demanded that Aegeus, the King of Athens, turn over the assassins.  King Aegeus did not know who the assassin(s) were.  The result was that Athens agreed to send seven youths and seven maidens to Crete at regular time intervals (the exact timing varies according to sources).  The 7 youths and 7 maidens were then sent to the labyrinth in Crete that housed the Minotaur, a creature half bull and half man (the drawings I have seen are a man with the head and chest of a bull).  The minotaur would hunt down the youths and maidens and kill them.

On the third cycle, Theseus volunteered to be one of the youths.  When in Crete, Theseus met Ariadne, who was the daughter of the King and Queen of Crete.  They fell in love.  Ariadne gave Theseus a ball of thread, or twine, so that Theseus could find his way out of the labyrinth if Theseus was able to kill the Minotaur as was his plan.  Theseus’s plan was successful and he was able to free all the youths and maidens from the labyrinth and return to Athens.  However, Theseus had told his father that he would replace the black sails of their ship with white ones if Theseus had been successful.  But Theseus forgot and when King Aegeus saw the black sails, he assumed his son was dead.  In grief, Aegeus took his own life by throwing himself into the sea (hence the name the ‘Aegean Sea’). 

The Athenians, grateful for having been freed from the Minotaur, celebrated each year by sending a ship to the island of Delos, the birthplace of Apollo, which had a temple dedicated to Apollo.  Apollo was strongly connected to Athens as well as to Plato; in the biographies of Plato, Apollo plays a significant role.  During this celebration Athenians dedicated themselves to Apollo by keeping the city pure; one of those acts of purity was that there could be no executions during this period of celebration.  The period of celebration began when the ship departed from Athens, and ended when the ship returned to Athens from Delos.  The trial of Socrates began on the day that the ship departed from Athens to Delos.  The trial lasted only a day or two.  This meant that though Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to death, the actual carrying out of the death sentence was delayed until the ship returned from Delos (I don’t know exactly how long that was in this case; if winds were contrary it could be a longer period of time).  It was during this period that Socrates spoke to his students, and others, on a daily basis, up until his last day, depicted in the dialogue.

3.  For Athenians reading Phaedo all this myth/story/legend would  have been part of their cultural background.  It would be like an American saying ‘the fireworks on the 4^th of July’, a reference which would have been easily filled out by anyone who grows up in the U.S., along with the various stories that are a part of it.  More than 2,000 years later, when we read this reference it is unfamiliar to us and for that reason the dimension of meaning contained in this allusion will be lost to our understanding.

4.  In interpreting the connection between Socrates and Theseus, based on this allusion, we can start by a kind of loose association.  For example, the labyrinth represents the twists and turns of our lives and that we are often ‘lost in the labyrinth’ and don’t know what our direction is.  Both Socrates and Theseus represent figures who have cut through this kind of confusion.

At another level, both Theseus and Socrates were redeemers, or ‘saviors’, of Athens.  In Apology Socrates states that his life has been of great benefit to Athens and that he was lead by a divine personal spirit guide to bring the wisdom of philosophy to the Athenians.  Theseus saves the youth of Athens physically.  Socrates saves the youth of Athens, and Athens in general, spiritually.

The connection to Apollo, as I mentioned above, likely has multiple dimensions, many of which I am not aware of.  But myths/stories/legends like Theseus and the Minotaur often reveal deep layers of meaning over time.  And the connections between Socrates and Theseus will, I suspect, also become clearer over time.

5.  The symbol of the Minotaur, half man/ half bull, who devours innocent youths and maidens, is a symbol of a man completely taken over by destructive passions.  Theseus symbolically slays these passions and saves himself and all of Athenian society.  Socrates is someone who has slain the same destructive passions; but unlike Theseus, Socrates is not able to save himself after having done so and Athens does not comprehend the loss.

5.1  In the 'Introduction' to the Focus Philosophical Library's edition of Phaedo they have this to say about the relationship between Phaedo and Theseus:

"The Phaedo's recollection of Socrates is a perplexing blend of logos and mythos, argument and story.  As we hear early on, Socrates' death had been delayed -- by 'a bit of chance,' as Phaedo says.  Every year, the Athenians, in accordance with their vow to Apollo, send an embassy to Delos.  Before this embassy returns to Athens, the city must keep itself pure and not put anyone to death.  The embassy commemorates Theseus' rescue of the fourteen young Athenians (the Twice Seven, as Phaedo calls them, in keeping with the fact that the group was composed of both youths and maidens) from the Minotaur or Bull-man of Crete.  The Phaedo is a playful recasting of this well-known myth.  Socrates is the new, philosophic Theseus.  He is the heroic savior of the friends gathered around Socrates as he is about to make his final journey -- fourteen of whom are named [They will be named by Phaedo shortly].  And their discussion of the soul and her fate, particularly in the final and most problematic stage of the argument, indeed resembles a logical labyrinth.  Phaedo himself plays an important role as the fifteenth named member of the group around Socrates: He is the Ariadne whose narrative thread leads us into and through Plato's labyrinth of arguments.

"But who or what plays the role of the Minotaur?  From what, in other words, must Socrates' companions be saved?  Is it their fear of death?  Or is it the great evil known as misology or 'hatred of arguments,' the evil which, near the center of the dialogue, threatens to drown the conversation in disillusionment and despair?  Or perhaps these are meant to be taken together -- as the two 'horns' of a dual-natured monster.  This much is clear: The dialogue becomes ever richer as we try to think through the many points of contact between it and the myth it mimics.  By the time we reach the very end of Phaedo's thread, we wonder: Is the Minotaur -- whether as the fear of death or the hatred of argument -- ever slain once and for all?  Or, as its bullheadedness suggests, is it slain only to keep coming back to life again and again after each defeat?"

(Plato, Phaedo, translated by Eva Brann, Peter Kalkavage, and Eric Salem, Focus Philosophical Library, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1998, pages 2-3, ISBN: 9780941051699)

6.  I suspect that the purity of Athens during the imprisonment of Socrates is symbolic of the purity of Socrates himself.  Purification is a central idea, and practice, in the Platonic tradition and this idea will come up a little later in the dialogue when Socrates talks about the life of a philosopher and the ascetic practices that such a life entails.  In a symbolic sense, Socrates has to die when Athens is no longer pure because the ship has returned from Delos because Athens itself is no longer engaging in its own cultural practices of purification.  There is a kind of resonance happening between Socrates and Athens as a whole.

 

 

Notes and Comments on Phaedo -- 1

23 May 2023

Notes and Comments on Phaedo – 1

I’ve decided to go through Phaedo, posting, from beginning to end, small portions of the dialogue, together with notes and comments.  My feeling is that in many ways Phaedo is the central, or seed, dialogue of Plato’s works.  I say this because many of the themes mentioned in Phaedo are taken up and expanded in other dialogues; I’m thinking of recollection, rebirth, the nature of the soul, the nature of the afterlife, the defining purpose of asceticism for a philosopher, the nature of causation, etc.  I suspect you could say the same about other dialogues, but the longer I live with Plato’s work the more I find myself seeing Platonism in general, and Plato’s dialogues specifically, through the lens of Phaedo.

These notes and comments will be impressionistic rather than scholarly; what I mean is that I won’t be commenting on Greek terms and other insights that scholars familiar with these aspects can intelligently remark upon.  My comments will be more like a conversation (a ‘dialogue’, if you will) with the text which has become a good friend to me in my journey to the Good, the One, the Beautiful, to that which is eternal.

I will be using the Loeb Classical Library translation by Harold North Fowler.  The ISBN is 0674990404 and last time I checked is available at reduced, used book, prices.

I am assuming readers know the circumstances of the dialogue; that Socrates has been arrested and convicted by a large jury of the crimes of atheism, or impiety, and in general corrupting the youth of Athens with his argumentative behavior.  Socrates’s sentence was death.  The dialogue Phaedo is an eyewitness report of the last day, the last hours, of Socrates life.

 

Echcrates:  Were you with Socrates yourself, Phaedo, on the day when he drank the poison in prison, or did you hear about it from someone else?

Phaedo:  I was there myself, Echecrates.

 

1.  According to Diogenes Laertius Echecrates was a Pythagorean: “He (Pythagoras) flourished in the sixtieth Olympiad (began in 540 BC), and his community endured for nine or ten generations.  For the last of the Pythagoreans, whom Aristoxenus knew, where Xenophilus of the Thracian Chalcidice, Phanton of Phlius, Echecretes, Diocles, and Polymnestus, also of Phlius, who were students of Philolaus and Eurytus, both of Tarentum.”  (Diogenes, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, translated by Pamela Mensch, Oxford University Press, 2018, page 414)  In a footnote to this quote the editors note that Diogenes, in his section on Plato, notes that Plato met Echecrates around 400 B.C. 

2.  It is intriguing that the first character we meet in this dialogue is a Pythagorean.  I see this as a symbol of the antiquity of the teachings that will be presented in this dialogue, that they are rooted in the past wisdom of the ancient world.  Echecrates is a symbol of that past.  Socrates is the symbol of the present; a present that all of us will face at the end of our lives.  And the closing, mythic, sections of Phaedo symbolize the future all of us will face as we traverse the after-life realms that will determine our next birth, or, if we have been practicing the purification offered by philosophy, the final return to the One.  In this way the dialogue transcends time and steps into eternity.

3.  Regarding Phaedo, Diogenes Laertius writes, “Phaedo of Elis, of the Eupatridae (likely refers to aristocratic descent), was taken prisoner when his native land was conquered, and was forced to stay in a brothel.  But he would close its door and take part in conversations with Socrates, until the latter induced Alcibiades or Crito to buy his freedom.  From then on he studied philosophy as a free man.” (Ibid, page 112) Phaedo set up a school of philosophy in Ellis which seems to have lasted several generations.  Phaedo likely wrote dialogues, but by the time of Diogenes only a few remained and their attribution was in dispute.

4.  I see Phaedo as a symbol of the freedom that philosophy brings to its practitioners.  Phaedo was freed from slavery by Socrates.  And it is the purpose of philosophy to free us from being slaves to material existence.  This is symbolized by Phaedo and Socrates having philosophical discussions in a brothel.  They closed the door of the brothel in order to converse about philosophy.  Phaedo is the symbol of the ascetic commitments that are the foundation of the Platonic spiritual journey.  (This reminds me of how Alcibiades relates in the Symposium how he tried to seduce Socrates, but was unable to do so.)

5.  Notice that it is Phaedo who was present at the passing of Socrates.  I think this symbolizes the intimate connection between philosophical practitioners, how they share the same kind of life.  Echecrates is a bit removed both by living in Phlius and because he has his own understanding of philosophy which, while closely related, is not as close as that of Phaedo.  Hence it is Phaedo who will be transmitting the teachings Socrates offers in his final hours to Echecrates, and to us.

 

 

Platonism and Number

 20 May 2023

Platonism and Number

“The starting-point of our investigation is: can number exist by itself, or must the two be observed in two things and the three likewise?”

(Plotinus, Ennead VI.6, On Numbers, translated by A. H. Armstrong, Plotinus: Ennead VI.6-6.9, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988, page 33, ISBN: 9780674995154)

1.  Throughout the history of Platonism there has been a strong connection between mathematics and Platonism.  Mathematicians have tended to be Platonists, though there are exceptions.  

2.  There is a video on youtube by a mathematician/philosopher by the name of Steve Patterson, called ‘Coming Around to Platonism’.  I think it is an interesting presentation about how one mathematician, who used to have anti-Platonist inclinations, decided that Platonism had a better explanatory range than other philosophical theories of numbers and mathematics.

3.  Platonism understands the study of numbers and their relationships, that is to say mathematics, as a means for experiencing the noetic.  Just as the experience of beauty can lead the beholder of beauty to the experience of beauty as such, and beauty as such is a noetic reality, so also the experience of number can lead the beholder of number to the experience of number as such, and number as such is a noetic reality.

4.  Generally speaking, and even though it was beauty that first gave me the experience of the noetic, I suspect that the experience of number has some advantages over beauty for bringing about the experience of the noetic.  First, beauty tends to induce grasping; we want to hold on to that which is beautiful and at times it is very difficult to let a beautiful object go.  This turns the experience of beauty into a primarily material experience with the result that with those kinds of experiences of beauty the fixation on materiality grows stronger.

In contrast, our experience of number does not normally lead to the grasping after number in the way that we often grasp on to beautiful things.  I mean that when we see three trees it does not stimulate in us a desire for three as such.  It may stimulate a desire for the tree(s), but not for ‘three’ as such.

And often our experience of number is abstract and absent specific content.  For example, I might recall that 3 + 2 = 5 without needing to instantiate material objects for the numbers.  In this way I am taking a small step in the direction of the noetic because noetic realities transcend material instantiations.  Numbers are ‘before’ any material instantiation.

As Plotinus writes, “But, if numbers were before beings, they were not beings.  Now number was in being, not as the number of being – for being was still one – but the power of number which had come to exist divided being and made it, so to speak, in labour to give birth to multiplicity.  For number will be either the substance or the actual activity of being, and the absolute living being is number, and Intellect is number.”

(Ibid, page 35.)

“Being, therefore, standing firm in multiplicity was number . . . “

(Ibid, page 37)

5.  The Platonist view of numbers and their relationships is that we discover numbers and their relationships rather than create numbers and their relationships.  We discover these in the realm of being, which is a noetic reality.  (As an aside, notice how Plotinus references the three primary facets of the noetic realm in the quote above which are being, life, and intellect.  Plotinus first mentions ‘the actual activity of being,’ then follows with ‘the absolute living being’, and then concludes that ‘Intellect [or Mind] is number.’  I’ve noticed that this is a pattern when Plotinus refers to the second hypostasis.)

6.  The focus on number in Platonism likely reveals the Pythagorean background of Platonic thought.  I see Platonism’s view of number as a blossoming of a perspective that had been planted centuries before and came to fruition in the Platonic tradition.

7.  The wonderful thing about numbers is that they are a good example of an abstract, non-material reality that people use every day with ease.  Numbers are a good way of explaining to people why Platonists believe that non-material realities actually exist.  It is more difficult to convince people that forms such as the Good, or the One, or the form of the Beautiful exists before material realities; that, for example, beautiful things depend on the Beautiful as such, the form of Beauty.  It is a bit easier, though I’m not saying it is easy, to point to numbers as form-based realities that are instantiated in material objects.  If nothing else, you can point out that many mathematicians have this view.

8.  The attraction of numbers to the mathematician is the attraction of transcendence.  Numbers can, and often do, lift consciousness from the material realm into a more restful and serene domain.

9.  Numbers are also a good example of the power of Platonic forms.  I mean by ‘power’ something like ‘efficacy.’  For example, numbers permeate time and space and are not confined by material borders.

10.  The beauty of numbers in the noetic realm offers the opportunity to go further, to step into the One and the Good itself.  Not very many mathematicians seem to do this.  I think that is because they don’t give much thought to what numbers themselves are dependent upon; that is to say what gives birth to numbers.  The One transcends number by being, analogically, a kind of ‘empty set’ – the set of numbers before any specific number is generated by noetic being.  Again, that’s just an analogy; it is meant to indicate that just as number exists before its material instantiations, the One exists before the instantiations of Being, Life, and Intellect that give rise to number in the noetic.