Notes and Comments on Phaedo -- 8

21 June 2023

Notes and Comments on Phaedo – 8

I am continuing with my notes and comments on the dialogue Phaedo.  I am using the Harold North Fowler translation published by the Loeb Classical Library:

“’But first let us ask Crito there what he wants.  He has apparently been trying to say something for a long time.’

“’Only, Socrates,’ said Crito, ‘that the man who is to administer the poison to you has been telling me for some time to warn you to talk as little was possible.  He says people get warm when they talk and heat has a bad effect on the action of the poison; so sometimes he has to make those who talk too much drink twice or even three times.’

“And Socrates said: ‘Never mind him.  Just let him do his part and prepare to give it twice or even, if necessary, three times.’

“’I was pretty sure that was what you would say,’ said Crito, ‘but he has been bothering me for a long time.’

“’Never mind him,’ said Socrates.  ‘I wish now to explain to you, my judges, the reason why I think a man who has really spent his life in philosophy is naturally of good courage when he is to die, and has strong hopes that when he is dead he will attain the greatest blessings in that other land.  So I will try to tell you, Simmias, and Cebes, how this would be.’

“’Other people are like not to be aware that those who pursue philosophy aright study nothing but dying and being dead.  Now if this is true, it would be absurd to be eager for nothing but this all their lives, and then to be troubled when that came for which they had all along been eagerly practicing.’

“And Simmias laughed and said, ‘By Zeus, Socrates, I don’t feel much like laughing just now, but you made me laugh. For I think the multitude, if they hear what you just said about the philosophers, would say you were quite right, and our people at home would agree entirely with you that philosophers desire death, and they would add that they know very well that the philosophers deserve it.’

“’And they would be speaking the truth, Simmias, except in the matter of knowing well.  For they do not know in what way the real philosophers desire death, nor in what way they deserve death, nor what kind of death it is.  Let us the, ‘said he, ‘speak with one another, paying no further attention to them.  Do we think there is such a thing as death?’

“’Certainly,’ replied Simmias.

“’We believe, do we not, that death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that the state of being dead is the state in which the body is separated from the soul and exists alone by itself and the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself?  Is death anything other than this?’

“’No, it is this,’ said he.

“’Now, my friend, see if you agree with me; for, if you do, I think we shall get more light on our subject.  Do you think a philosopher would be likely to care much about the so-called pleasures, such as eating and drinking?’

“’By no means, Socrates,’ said Simmias.

“’How about the pleasures of love.’

“’Certainly not.’

“’Well, do you think such a man would think much of the other cares of the body – I mean such as the possession of fine clothes and shoes and other personal adornments?  Do you think he would care about them or despise them, except so far as it is necessary to have them?’

“’I think the true philosopher would despise them,’ he replied.

“’Altogether, then, you think that such a man would not devote himself to the body, but would, as far as he was able, turn away from the body and concern himself with the soul?’

“’Yes.’

“’To begin with, then, it is clear that in such matters the philosopher, more than other men, separates the soul from communion with the body?’

“’It is.’

“’Now certainly most people think that a man who takes no pleasure and has no part in such things doesn’t deserve to live, and that one who cares nothing for the pleasures of the body is about as good as dead.’

“’That is very true.’

“’Now, how about the acquirement of pure knowledge?  Is the body a hindrance or not, if it is made to share in the search for wisdom?  What I mean is this:  Have the sight and hearing of men any truth in them, or is it true, as the poets are always telling us, that we neither hear nor see anything accurately?  And yet if these two physical senses are not accurate or exact, the rest are not likely to be, for they are inferior to these.  Do you not think so?’

“’Certainly I do,’ he replied.

“’Then,’ said he, ‘when does the soul attain to truth?  For when it tries to consider anything in company with the body, it is evidently deceived by it.’

“’True.’

In thought, then, if at all, something of the realities becomes clear to it?’

“’Yes.’

“’But it thinks best when none of these things troubles it, neither hearing nor sight, nor pain nor any pleasure, but it is, so far as possible, alone by itself, and takes leave of the body, and avoiding, so far as it can, all association or contact with the body, reaches out toward the reality.’

“’That is true.’

“’In this matter also, then, the soul of the philosopher greatly despises the body and avoids it and strives to be alone by itself?’

“’Evidently.’”

(Ibid, pages 221 – 227, 63E-65D)

1.  This section of Phaedo is the heart of the dialogue’s teaching.  It places the ascetic ideal, which I see as animating Platonism, as well as foundational for Platonism, at the center.  It does this in two ways: first by providing a philosophical justification for the ascetic ideal which is the need to separate the soul from the body, and second by detailing specific asceses such as refraining from decorative clothing, as well as bodily pleasures.  Withdrawing from these bodily attachments brings about the separation of the soul from the body.  This means that the ascetic ideal is the Way of Platonism.

2.  There is a short interlude that is a kind of prelude to the discussion of the ascetic ideal.  This happens when Socrates notices that Crito has been trying to get his attention.  Crito explains that the one who is going to administer the poison to Socrates advises that Socrates refrain from so much talking because talking generates heat and such talking has been known to create a situation that requires multiple dosages.  Socrates dismisses the man’s concerns and from there heads directly into the discussion of the ascetic ideal.

The bearer of the poison symbolizes the bringer of death, perhaps we might consider him a metaphysical messenger.  But Socrates has already come to terms with this message and does not need any further reminders; hence the dismissal.

3.  The ascetic ideal runs counter to the ideals of modernity.  The ascetic ideal only makes sense in the context of a transcendental reality.  I like to look at it this way:  I often say that the spiritual path is a shifting of attention from that which is ephemeral to that which is eternal.  The soul is the presence of eternity in the ephemeral individual.  Because of this, in a way you can say that it is ‘natural’ (but not in the sense of materialism, more in the meaning of ‘it makes sense that’) for the soul to separate from the body.  This is because the primal nature of the body is to disintegrate; any unity it has is due to participation in higher realities, but it is not an inherent unity and cannot be sustained.  In contrast, the primal nature of the soul is its inherently eternal nature, another way of saying its unity.  This is why it is necessary to follow the path of the ascetic ideal.

4.  This is a difficult teaching.  From the discussion Socrates has with Simmias, it appears that this was a difficult teaching even at the time of this dialogue.  (Perhaps that is why some of these teachings were ‘esoteric.’)  The draw of material existence, both its pleasure and its pains, rooted in the body, is extremely powerful.  As the dialogue points out, most people would think of a life based on the ascetic ideal as foolish.  That is even more true today.

5.  It is interesting that structurally, Plato first addresses material attachments such as shoes and clothes, and then concludes with more subtle dimensions such as ‘pure knowledge’ and how access to ‘pure knowledge’ is hindered by material and bodily attachments.  I take ‘pure knowledge’ to mean transcendental knowledge; knowledge of the higher hypostases such as being, life, intellect, the forms, numbers, and the Good, the One, the Beautiful, that which is eternal. 

6.  The body as a hindrance to knowledge can, I think, be understood by simple, more worldly, examples.  If someone is attached to the pleasures of drugs, this sensory attachment will be a hindrance for them in being able to get out of that situation.  Even if someone tells them directly about a program that will assist them with this project, many will reject such assistance, preferring the sensory stimulation over not having it.

In an analogous way, attachment to material manifestations is a barrier to accessing transcendental reality, ‘pure knowledge’.

7.  One of the striking features of Phaedo is the confidence that Socrates has regarding the afterlife and its features; specifically that Socrates looks forward to his experiences in the afterlife which include communing with gods and other philosophers.  The questioners of Socrates are not so confident.  My feeling is that the confidence of Socrates arises out of his contemplative experience; examples of this are found in Phaedrus and The Symposium. 

8.  Because I think of this passage as the heart of the dialogue Phaedo, I am going to post some ancient commentaries on this passage.  I think they will assist in understanding how the followers of Plato in the Classical period viewed these teachings.