Notes and Comments on Phaedo -- 16

12 July 2023

Notes and Comments on Phaedo – 16

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

“’Now here is another method, Cebes, to prove, as it seems to me, that we were right in making those admissions.  For if generatiaon did not proceed from opposite to opposite and back again going round, as it were in a circle, but always went forward in a straight line without turning back or curving, then, you know, in the end all things would have the same form and be acted upon in the same way and stop being generated at all.’

“’What do you mean?’ said he.

“’It is not at all hard,’ said Socrates, to understand what I mean.  For example, if the process of falling asleep existed, but not the opposite process of waking from sleep, in the end, you know, that would make the sleeping Endymion mere nonsense; he would e nowhere, for everything else would be in the same state as he, sound asleep.  Or if all things were mixed together and never separated, the saying of Anaxagoras, “all things are chaos,” would soon come true.  And in like manner, my dear Cebes, if all things that have life should die, and, when they had died, the dead should remain in that condition, is it not inevitable that at last all things would be dead and nothing alive?  For if the living were generated from any other things than from the dead, and the living were to die, is there any escape from the final result that all things would be swallowed up in death?’

“’I see none, Socrates,’ said Cebes.  ‘What you say seems to be perfectly true.’

“’I think, Cebes,’ said he, ‘it is absolutely so, and we are not deluded in making these admissions, but the return to life is an actual fact, and it is a fact that the living are generated from the dead and that the souls of the dead exist.’”

 

1.  “Now here is another method . . .”  It is interesting that Socrates seems to be self-conscious of using various ‘methods’ when engaging in philosophical conversation.  I think this implies a sense of detachment or equanimity regarding the arguments put forth.  In addition, I think it points to the experiential basis of Socrates’s belief in the cyclic nature of life and death; I mean the abundance of ‘methods’ is a result of experience and for that reason Socrates does not have to rely on one single argument to put forth his view.  I think this helps us to understand why Socrates offers multiple arguments in Phaedo, because it’s not so much about any specific argument, it’s about relaying to his students Socrates’s own experience-based insights.

2.  “. . . as it were in a circle . . . “  In Classical understanding the planets, and other celestial bodies, were understood to be moving in circles and this was considered to be a sign of their perfection.  I suspect that Socrates is casually referring to this understanding and implying, in a loose way, that the soul is perfect, like celestial bodies, because of this metaphorically circular motion.  In modern cosmology planets don’t move in circles, they move in ellipses and all their motions exhibit complex irregularities.  The solution to this kind of discrepancy is to see that Socrates is using metaphorical inference rather than a materialist, scientific inference.  The soul isn’t a planet, but its cyclic motion is like the motion of the planets.  The world of the planets and the world of the soul is, in a way, the same world.  And that world is the third hypostasis of cyclic becoming and begoning.

3.  Socrates puts forth the idea that if soul’s only proceeded to their death, and never returned, then there would be no ensouled beings, and no people, as they would eventually disappear from the manifest material world.  The view is that number and time generate the cosmos, and all its inhabitants, through cyclic processes. 

The idea that ensouled being never return after dying is like viewing the cosmos as a great room from which people leave, never to return.  At some point the room would become empty.  The room of the cosmos is not empty and for that reason we can understand that souls return from death into life in the cycle known as reincarnation or rebirth.

4.  I think the comments of Socrates here are relevant to the pervasive nihilism of modernity.  Nihilism is the view that nothing matter, in the sense that there are no actual consequences for one’s actions, good or bad, after someone dies.  There is no transition between lives that allows for those karmic consequences to be transmitted to a future life.  Nihilism is the logical result of materialism and is a widely held position, even if many who hold it do not explicitly think of themselves as nihilists.

Socrates is pointing out some of the nihilistic consequences of a cosmos where the dead remain dead forever.  While the consequences of nihilism do not prove that nihilism is wrong, it is useful to be clear about what nihilism actually implies.  The main counter to nihilism at this point in the dialogue is that cyclic existence is observed everywhere and there is no reason to exempt life and death from this pervasive cyclic nature.

5.  “ . . . the return to life is an actual fact . . .”  Here Socrates is expressing himself with confidence.  I mentioned in previous comments that Socrates seems, at times, to be kind of hesitant.  Why the shift in tone?

If I were to use an analogy, I would use something like musical style.  If someone were to ask me about a kind of music that is obscure for Western culture, say Japanese classical music, I might hesitate to respond.  I’m not hesitating because of unfamiliarity, but because of the questioner’s unfamiliarity.  I might be wondering what is my best approach, thinking about what would work: should I use a structured musical analysis, should I compare the instruments used to instruments more familiar to the questioner, should I start out with a philosophy of music, etc.  As the conversation proceeds and I learn more about the questioner’s views, I become more confident about what the questioner is seeking, what they want to know.  And for this reason my tone changes.

I think something like that is going on with Socrates in this dialogue.  Socrates is becoming clearer about Cebes and Simmias, what challenges them, what views they hold.  At this point in the dialogue, after some back and forth, Socrates feels he is in the position to state his belief in reincarnation more directly and without hesitation.