Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 76

8 December 2025

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 76

1.  Embracing the Past

To be a Platonist means admiring the past; or at least admiring one thing from the past.  It means basing the activities of your life on artefacts from the past in the form of written works such as Plato’s Dialogues. 

This is obvious, but I think it is worth considering how this Platonist relationship with the past runs counter to the spirit of our time which considers the modern world to be the result of overcoming the past.  This is a feature of modernity that is pervasive.

I’m not sure if this difference in attitude towards the past results in intense friction; I tend to think that it results in a kind of low-level but constant disconnect with central features of modernity. 

2.  Cruelty

Human beings are immensely and consistently cruel to each other; I am not thinking of cruelty at this moment in a subtle way.  I mean cruelty in very gross and obvious ways.  Some of this cruelty is widely supported as in the enthusiastic response to war by most people. 

It is also true that human beings are immensely and consistently cruel to other creatures, to animals of various kinds.  There is a lot of confusion about this because there are certain animals, such as pets, for whom we are inclined to act towards with great affection and caring and at the same time other animals that are just as intelligent are treated very poorly by human beings.  There are even laws against cruelty towards certain animals while other animals are, as the saying goes, fair game.

Plato’s teachings on non-harming and non-retaliation run counter to this habit of cruelty.  In a world, and amongst the human species, where cruelty is approved of, even in very horrific forms, it is difficult to put non-harming into practice.  And being committed to these teachings, and their attendant practices, will separate such practitioners from widespread societal habits and norms.

But it is worthwhile to enter into the way of non-harming; for those who want to walk the spiritual path of Platonism, it is essential.  Commitment to the way of non-harming calms the mind and body, and this calmness is a precondition for turning to the soul, turning to eternity.

3.  Those Who Oppose Transcendence

I’ve been aware for quite a few years that there are those who oppose transcendence.  One such group are materialists; they are widespread but my remarks here will not be about them.  I’m more interested in the group(s) that oppose transcendence for what they regard as spiritual reasons.

From my perspective, I am thinking about groups, or views, that regard something prior to transcendence as ultimate and that therefore transcendence is to be avoided.  Most often the anti-transcendence views come to rest on some kind of unusual sensory experience as the ultimate.  Others, though, regard ritual, often precisely and repetitious done, as the key to attain that which is ultimate.

For example, one of the reasons those who opposed the Quietists in the 17^th century was that the interior silence advocated by the Quietists undermined the status of certain key Catholic rituals, including the Eucharist.  This was the ground for regarding Quietism as a heresy.

Another example of the view of ritual that is similar to that which opposed the Quietists is found in theurgy which ejected Wisdom because contemplative Wisdom leads to ineffable transcendence.  In contrast, theurgy is focused on sensory deities, Gods and Goddesses, who have all the characteristics of third things.

Another example is the way Jungian psychology interprets the realm of images in the form of archetypes as the ultimate achievement of human consciousness; that is to say that becoming aware of archetypes and their functions surpasses something like Wisdom that leads to the experience of that which is beyond all images and from which all images emerge.

There are also individuals who talked about an ultimate reality beyond image, beyond affirmation and negation, who had difficulties with authorities who regarded this approach as suspect.  I am thinking of Meister Eckhart as one famous example.

I suspect that there are various reasons for wanting to halt the spiritual journey before stepping into the ineffable.  But one reason for some, I think, is fear.  In a way, an early experience of the transcendent that precedes image can feel like falling off a cliff.  This can be very uncomfortable.  Plato addresses this in the allegory of the cave in terms of feeling blinded by the light upon emerging from the darkness of the cave; it takes time to accustom oneself to this light and one possible reaction is to reject the experience altogether as nothing more than an uncomfortable sensation.  If you have a good spiritual teacher, a good and experienced guide, a practitioner can stick with it and get past those early moments of fear and discomfort.  The Dialogues of Plato are such a spiritual guide.

4.  Phaedo

I tend to think of Phaedo as Plato’s most significant, most important, dialogue.  This means that I take the teachings put forth in Phaedo as definitive and interpret other teachings in accordance with Phaedo’s teachings and perspectives.

I think this accounts for some differences I have with other contemporary Platonists.  I have observed, for example, that Parmenides is sometimes thought of as being the most significant, or highest, teaching that Plato offers us.  I can understand that; there is a great amount of wisdom in Parmenides.  But I tend to read Parmenides as expanding on teachings presented in Phaedo such as how predication works and the implications of living a life based on the experience of transcendence.

What I find in Phaedo that leads me to place Phaedo in the center of the Platonic Canon, so to speak, is that Phaedo offers the reader specific instruction on how to live a philosophical life.  This happens specifically in the famous passage where Socrates lists various activities that a philosopher will refrain from participating in such as being concerned about beautiful clothing and jewelry, or involvement in sexual pursuits and pleasures.  What I have found is that most readers don’t look at these kinds of passages as instruction; I can understand this because for many years I had the same response.  I mean that I didn’t read this passage as Socrates giving me, the reader, instruction in how to live a Philosophical life.  Instead I read it as Socrates, and/or Plato, giving their opinion, or reporting on their own lives.  These passages of ascetic instruction are embedded in a moving narrative and perhaps the presence of the narrative hides the teaching function of these ascetic passages.  I mean that by becoming wrapped up in, and attentive to, the unfolding story of the last hours of the life of Socrates, and his interactions with various people, we may react to Phaedo on a strictly literary level, concluding that Phaedo is a very well written story.  The shift to understanding Phaedo as a kind of guidebook for living a Philosophical life happens, I think, by repeatedly reading Phaedo.  What I mean here is that by rereading Phaedo we can approach the dialogue with the story of the last hours of Socrates already a known feature and so the story drops a little bit into the background and the teachings of Phaedo move into the foreground.  I don’t mean that the story found in Phaedo disappears; I mean that the presentations of guidance for a philosophical life are finally noticed as actually having that function.  When that happens it is very satisfying and one realizes that all of Plato’s dialogues are written in multiple layers, and one of those layers is the layer of instruction.

5.  Middle Platonism

I have a fondness for what scholars today refer to as Middle Platonism.  Middle Platonism covers a significant period of time.  The Academy founded by Plato went through a period of extreme skepticism but following a kind of restoration, a kind of return to what Plato actually wrote we enter into this period of Middle Platonism.  Generally speaking this period lasts into the second or third centuries of our era. 

These periods of Platonism are a tool that contemporary philosophers and historians use to designate periods in the long history of Platonism.  Middle Platonists didn’t think of themselves as Middle Platonists, of course.  But the term is a convenient way to designate a certain time period in the history of Platonism.

Specific Platonists from the Middle period that I am fond of are Maximus of Tyre, Alcinous, and Plutarch.  Plutarch is the most complex because Plutarch had many interests beside philosophy including history and literature.  He spent a great deal of time on these other interests and the majority of his writing is about historical or literary topics.  This doesn’t bother me because I am also interested in literature and I enjoy reading ancient views on this topic.  But Plutarch does discuss Platonism fairly frequently and he was clearly well versed in Platonism.  As I have mentioned in a number of posts, Plutarch wrote three essays on refraining from harming animals and vegetarianism which documents the existence of vegetarianism in the Middle period of Platonism.  But Plutarch discusses other Platonist topics as well such as the nature of forms and Platonist ethics in general.

In contrast to Plutarch’s wide ranging interests, Maximus’s writings are narrowly focused on Philosophy, specifically Platonism.  Often when he writes about a topic in Philosophy he will directly quote, or paraphrase, a dialogue; so Maximus is rooted in study of the dialogues.  I particularly appreciate that Maximus wrote about the practice of contemplation in a Platonic context in one of his most beautiful Orations.

As far as I know there is only one work on Platonism by Alcinous, the Handbook of Platonism.  Some scholars suggest that the handbook was written for those who were teaching Platonism.  Others think it had a wider circulation.  Of these three writers Alcinous is the most systematic which is in line with the purpose of a Handbook.  Alcinous writes with clarity as he covers various topics in Platonism and because of this we have a good idea of how Middle Platonists understood their own tradition.

One Middle Platonist I have not read, but hope to get to in 2026, is Apuleius.  I have wanted to read the philosophical works of Apuleius for a long time and I’m hoping I will be able to read what he has to say soon.  Apuleius is most famous for his work The Golden Ass which is a very early example of a novel, according to scholars.  But I am more interested, again, in his philosophical works.

One thing I have observed about Middle Platonists is that as a group they seem to have an interest in literature; their works demonstrate literary skill and that they have spent a lot of time reading and studying literature.  I think this is in keeping with the Platonist tradition as a whole because Plato was a very skillful writer so it is only natural that those interested in literature would find Plato’s works attractive.

I have to confess that I prefer these Middle Platonists to the Platonists who wrote in the Late Classical period.  For my purposes I think of these writers as ‘Post-Porphyry’ and beginning with Iamblichus.  There are a number of contrasts, I think, between these two groups (Middle Platonists vs. Post-Porphyry Platonists).  The first is that the writing about Platonism found in Middle Platonism is direct and far more accessible than that of Post-Porphyry authors.  Middle Platonists seem to think of their task as to transmit what Plato wrote, what Plato’s views were, instead of elaborating on Platonism based on their own eccentricities.  Middle Platonists refrain from complicating the Platonic system and presentation which became an obsession with Post-Porphyry Platonists.

The other aspect of Middle Platonist writing that I appreciate is that they seem to me to have a strong interest in ethics and virtue.  This is likely controversial, but it seems to me that this focus on ethics and virtue declines in Post-Porphyry Platonism as elaborate cosmology assumes center stage.  I’m not saying it is completely absent from Post-Porphyry Platonism but it seems to me the unnecessary complexity of the cosmology which they present takes a lot of energy away from other aspects of Platonism such as ethics and virtue.

For these reasons, if I were teaching a group of students an ongoing course in Platonism my recommendation for further reading beyond the Dialogues and the Enneads would be the writings left to us from the Middle Platonists rather than the writings of the Post-Porphyry Platonists.  I think the Middle Platonists are more grounded in actual Platonism (what I sometimes call Orthodox Platonism), less prone to elaborately complex and difficult to understand mental speculations, and write in a manner that is helpful to the daily practice of Platonism.  Contemporary Platonists are very fortunate to have the resources left to us by these Middle Platonists.

 

 

The Flaws of Perfection

The Flaws of Perfection

18 November 2024

I just finished rereading Plato’s Phaedo.  What a sublime work!  For me, Phaedo has become the most important dialogue.  Phaedo never fails to inspire me and to reveal new aspects of the Platonic Way that I have previously overlooked or misunderstood.

This time I was particularly struck by how Socrates states that the teaching on the separation of the soul from the body is a teaching that should be followed to the extent it is possible while living in a body.  But the association of the soul with the body limits the extent to which human understanding can reach.  For example, “. . . for if it is impossible to attain any pure knowledge with the body . . . While we live, we shall be closest to knowledge if we refrain as much as possible from association with the body and do not join with it more than we must . . . “

(Plato, Phaedo, translated by G. M. A. Grube, Plato Complete Works, edited by John M. Carter, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1997, page 58, 66e-67a, ISBN: 9780872203495)

1.  I find this teaching refreshing.  It places human beings in a context where the natural limitations of being human are taken into account.  And this kind of teaching makes the practices more accessible because, instead of aiming for an imagined perfect instantiation of these practices, we simply do the best we can given our situation.

2.  In some teachings that are offered today there is the idea that the practitioner experiences a sudden transformation that turns them into a different kind of being than what they were before.  They, the teachers, are now on a different level than ordinary humanity.

When the teacher succumbs to ordinary temptations this creates a great deal of tension in the community.  Attempts are made to explain away the fall from the perfect ideal that the tradition claims is the goal.  This causes more tension.  I have observed this in a significant number of spiritual communities and it leads to a lot of confusion, resentment, and bitterness.

The teachings of Platonism differ.  The teachings of Platonism differ because these teachings are grounded in asceticism, which means turning away from sensory stimulation and the desires of the body.  At the same time, asceticism recognizes the power of bodily desires and that because of this it is understandable that, at times, people succumb to desires’ temptations.  

In most cases, this is not a disaster.  You simply pick yourself up, recognize what has happened, and continue with the practices of asceses.  In some ascetic traditions they even have a ceremony of confession so that the practitioner can reaffirm their commitment to the ascetic path by atoning for their backsliding.  It’s kind of like a musician confessing to their teacher that they didn’t practice this week and the teacher encouraging the student to renew commitments to regular practice.  Or it’s like someone abandoning their physical training at the gym for a week and then, after talking this over with friends, renewing their gym schedule.  

3.  Human beings are not perfect; they are flawed.  Platonism recognizes this flawed nature and works with it instead of ignoring it.  It may seem strange to some, but this is why I consider the path of asceticism to be more compassionate, and more understanding, and just plainly more realistic, than those traditions that think human beings are perfect ‘just as they are.’  The idea that human beings are perfectible, or that they are already perfect ‘just as they are,’ creates a great deal of friction in the psyche because at some level each of us is aware of our limitations and our negative tendencies.  Asceticism accepts this and because of this understands that training is necessary; this training manifests as asceses such as limitations on diet, refraining from alcohol, restraining sexual activity, and in general withdrawing from sensory stimulation.  It takes time to internalize these asceses, but over time it is possible to do so.  Over time the temptations of the senses are reduced and almost forgotten.

But it is a long path.  We should be generous with ourselves and towards others.  When someone on the ascetic path backslides we should sympathize rather than condemn and encourage them to pick themselves up and regain their footing on the path that leads to the falling away of body and mind and the return to the Good and the One.

Saying Goodbye to the Gods

16 October 2023

Saying Goodbye to the Gods

I recently had an intuition (more like a possible intuition) into the last words of Socrates, the words about owing a cock to Asclepius.  What I want to suggest is that Socrates at that moment was saying goodbye to the Gods in the same way that he had just said goodbye to his family, his friends, his jailer, to Athens, to Crito specifically, to this realm of becoming and begoning.  I base this on the idea that the Gods dwell in the realm of becoming and begoning, just as we do.  That is to say that Gods are born and they pass away; they are a lifeform found in the third hypostasis.  Socrates was on his way to the Noetic realm, the second hypostasis, or possibly the source of all, the Good and the One.  That means that Socrates was leaving behind all that was embedded in genesis, in samsara.  Here are a few comments:

1.  Why was Socrates charged with impiety?  It doesn’t look like Socrates was impious; he sacrificed regularly, he didn’t reject the existence of Gods and Goddesses of various types, and he had a personal daemon who was his trusted guide.  I have read that Socrates may have introduced Gods that were not part of the civic pantheon of Athens to his young students and that is the connection between impiety and corrupting the youth.  That may be; it wouldn’t surprise me.

But I have one other suggestion; what if Socrates taught that the Gods were mortal, that they were a part of becoming and begoning, that they were born and that they would die.  This is a radical teaching and one that would have offended those who thought of the Gods as immortal.  From that perspective such a teaching would be ‘impious.’

2.  In the last part of Phaedo (115B) Socrates says to Crito that Crito and the followers of Socrates should follow the teachings Socrates had presented over his life ‘step by step’ and that if they do their lives will be worthwhile.  Crito then asks about how Socrates should be buried.  Socrates responds that Crito should do what he thinks best because Socrates will no longer be there, having separated from the body.  Socrates briefly mentions his trial and indicates that he is fine with what has happened.

Then Socrates bathes, a standard ritual that is symbolic of purification, an act of separating himself from this world.  This is followed by his interaction with his children and the women of his family to whom he gives his final instructions.

Then the jailer appears and he and Socrates express admiration for each other.  There is a notable absence of rancor or ill will.

The poison is brought to Socrates and Socrates asks if it is OK for him to offer a libation to ‘some god’ but this is not possible because they have made only enough for the execution.  Socrates complies.  I see Socrates wanting to offer a libation as similar to Socrates giving instructions to his children and family, and before that, giving instruction to his students and followers about sticking to the path ‘step by step.’  A libation is usually combined with a prayer of some kind; it might be a formula or it might be particular to the occasion.  I see Socrates as wanting to let the Gods know that they need not be concerned about him, just as he indicated to his students, followers, and family to not be concerned.

When Socrates drinks the poison and everyone bursts into tears, he tells them to ‘keep quiet and be brave.’  I take this as a general instruction for their lives, not just an instruction for the moment.

Then Socrates speaks his last words to Crito about owing a cock to Asclepius.  Notice that it was only in the instance of the Gods that Socrates was thwarted in his efforts to speak to them.  In the case of his followers and students, in the case of his friend Crito, in the case of his family and children, not only was he able to connect with them and speak to them, but this contact was actively facilitated by jailers and other personnel.  Again, it was only in the case of the Gods that this was thwarted.  My intuition is that in order to overcome that, he turned once again to his good friend Crito and asked him to complete the closing of his life by communicating with the Gods on his behalf.  Look at it this way: if meeting with his family had been thwarted, I could see Socrates asking Crito to say some final words to them. 

3.  It might seem odd to think of Socrates as looking for an opportunity to speak to the Gods so that he could explain to the Gods that they should not worry about him.  This means that Socrates was in the position of teaching the Gods about higher realities. 

There is precedence for this.  In the Theravada Suttas there is a collection of short Suttas where the Buddha teaches the Devas, explaining higher realities to them.  The implication is that the Devas need to be freed from their attachments to the world of becoming and begoning, to samsara.  I believe that this applies equally to the Gods of the culture in which Socrates lived.

4.  I see Socrates telling Crito about the cock being owed to Asclepius as an allegory for the gods in general.  This is supported by Socrates first saying that he wanted to offer a libation to ‘some god’, a general statement.  Socrates is saying that he owed the Gods a teaching, just as he felt an obligation to give a final teaching to all those others who were present.  My feeling is that Crito, and the others who were present, would understand that he was speaking analogically and also understand what it was that he was requesting.  That’s why no one is puzzled and bewildered by these last words at the time they were spoken.

5.  I cannot prove that this is ‘in fact’ what was going on.  But I think it is consistent with what precedes.  And it makes sense if one understands the Gods as also in need of teaching and instruction so that they also can find the road, which they can travel ‘step by step’, that leads to the Good and the One. 

Reason's Range

Reason’s Range

The process of reading through Phaedo in small sections, thinking about those sections, and then posting my own observations about them, has brought to mind a number of observations about Platonism as a spiritual system, and about how different the philosophical world of Platonism is from that of modern philosophy.  One of the topics that I noticed in this reading of Phaedo is the topic of ‘reason,’ and what reason means in Platonism in contrast to what reason means today, particularly in a philosophical context.  Here are a few remarks:

1.  What I noticed in particular was that Socrates uses numerous types of inference structures to make his points in Phaedo.  On at least one occasion Socrates uses a well known rule of inference, modus ponens, which every first year logic student learns.  But much more often Socrates uses structures of argument and persuasion (logoi) that some today would consider deficient (particularly analytic philosophers.)  For example, Socrates will argue that A and B are like each other because they share characteristic X, and then infer from that they are also alike in characteristic Y.  And on other occasions Socrates uses devices such as metaphor and simile to link two appearances together, as opposed to syllogistic. 

2.  It would be interesting, and perhaps revealing, to classify the arguments presented in Phaedo in accordance with their underlying structure.  I have read some modern commentaries on Phaedo that sort of do that, but because they see the arguments presented by Socrates through the lens of analytic philosophy, their approach falls short.  I mean by that they simply reject arguments that analytic philosophy would be unhappy about, thus losing an opportunity to challenge the basic assumptions of analytic philosophy.

3.  What I began to gradually see while reading Phaedo this time around is that reason has a greater range of application in Platonism than it does today.  For example, it would seem from Phaedo that metaphor and simile are a type of structured reasoning in Platonism; and, of course, allegory is also a means whereby one presents one’s arguments in a reasonable way. 

In contrast, the range of reason in modern philosophy has contracted to structures of formal inference that, because of the influence of early analytic philosophy, hover around the border of mathematics.  Other aspects of reason, found in the Dialogues are not considered to be logical, and because they are not logical they are not really reason by today’s standards.

4.  There is a type of person today who think of themselves as rational because they claim that their views are logical in the formal way of contemporary philosophy.  Contemporary atheists often present themselves that way, which I find humorous.  You can find many examples on youtube. But this is not confined to youtubers; widely admired authors like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins are examples, and there are many others.  This claim has historical precedents; one of the more significant ones is the French Revolution.  The leaders of the French Revolution thought of themselves as completely rational and reasonable.  And step by logical step the logic of the revolution led to a very active guillotine. 

I refer to this view of reason as ‘the nightmare of reason.’  You could say that modernity is the nightmare of reason.

5.  You can spot people who have this modernist view of reason, that reason is self-sufficient and confined to formal inferential structures, by asking whether or not they think that two completely rational people will necessarily reach the same conclusion in every given situation, dispute, or argument.  If someone says ‘yes’, I would say they live in the nightmare of reason.  If they say no, then I suggest that they are probably free from that nightmare.

6.  Platonism is the way those who dwell in modernity can wake up from the nightmare of reason; not because Platonism rejects reason, but because Platonism expands the range of reason, and this expanded range is like the sun at dawn that clarifies an unknown landscape.

7.  It has been pointed out by many that reason does not give us our starting points.  That is why Euclid starts with Axioms.  Axioms are intuitions, that are not accessed through inference.  Structures like metaphor, simile, allegory, and other types of ‘comparisons’ (as Plotinus says) are ways of cultivating that intuition.  They can be unpacked in multiple ways which keeps them alive and interesting (as an aside, this is why two equally reasonable people might not reach the same conclusion in an argument, because these intuitive approaches are an inherent part of human consciousness and intellect and will always affect the process of reasoning no matter how ‘formal’ someone thinks they are being.) 

8.  Phaedo is a kind of guide to the full range of reason, to the vastness of mind, to the many facets of mind found in human consciousness.  In nous all of these facets are a unity, they are not in opposition.  In the realm of differentiation in which we live, these facets are comprehended as distinct from each other and this can give rise to disputes about their relative efficacy.  In Phaedo Socrates shows how all of these can be used to serve the purpose of spiritual awakening.  This can be done because they are all emanations of Mind as such, which is a facet of nous.  And when we understand Mind as such, from there we can ascend to the Good and the One.

Notes and Comments on Phaedo -- 42

6 September 2023

Notes and Comments on Phaedo – 42

Continuing with my series on Phaedo; I am using the Harold North Fowler translation published by the Loeb Classical Library

“When he had had finished speaking, Crito said: ‘Well, Socrates, do you wish to leave any directions with us about your children or anything else – anything we can do to serve you?’

“’What I always say, Crito,’ he replied, ‘nothing new.  If you take care of yourselves you will serve me and mine and yourselves, whatever you do, even if you make no promises now; but if you neglect yourselves and are not willing to live following step by step, as it were, in the path marked out by our present and past discussions, you will accomplish nothing, no matter how much or how eagerly you promise at present.’

“’We will certainly try hard to do as you say,’ he replied.  ‘But how shall we bury you?’

“’However you please,’ he replied, ‘if you can catch me and I do not get away from you.’  And he laughed gently and looking towards us, said: ‘I cannot persuade Crito, my friends, that the Socrates who is now conversing and arranging the details of his argument is really I; he thinks I am the one whom he will presently see as a corpse, and he asks how to bury me.  And though I have been saying at great length that after I drink the poison I shall no longer be with you, but shall go away to the joys of the blessed you know of, he seems to think that was idle talk uttered to encourage you and myself.  So,’ he said, ‘give security for me to Crito, the opposite of that which he gave the judges at my trial; for he gave security that I would remain, but you must give security that I shall not remain when I die, but shall go away, so that Crito may bear it more easily, and may not be troubled when he sees my body being burnt or buried, or think I am undergoing terrible treatment, and may not say at the funeral that he is laying out Socrates, or following him to the grave, or burying him.  For, dear Crito, you may be sure that such wrong words are not only undesirable in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.  No, you must be of good courage, and say that you bury my body, -- and bury it as you think best and as seems to you most fitting.’

“When he had said this, he got up and went into another room to bathe; Crito followed him, but he told us to wait.  So we waited, talking over with each other and discussing the discourse we had heard, and then speaking of the great misfortune that had befallen us, for we felt that he was like a father to us and that when bereft of him we should pass the rest of our lives as orphans.  And when he had bathed and his children had been brought to him – for he had two little sons and one big one – and the women of the family had come, he talked with them in Crito’s presence and gave them such directions as he wished; then he told the women to go away, and he came to us.  And it was now nearly sunset; for he had spent a long time within.  And he came and sat down fresh from the bath.’ 

“’After that not much was said, and the servant of the eleven came and stood beside him and said: ‘Socrates, I shall not find fault with you, as I do with others, for being angry and cursing me, when at the behest of the authorities, I tell them to drink the poison.  No, I have found you in all this time in every way the noblest and gentlest and best man who has ever come here, and now I know your anger is directed against others, not against me, for you know who are to blame.  Now, for you know the message I came to bring you, farewell and try to bear what you must as easily as you can.’  And he burst into tears and turned and went away.  And Socrates looked up at him and said: ‘Fare you well, too; I will do as you say.’  And then he said to us: ‘How charming the man is!  Ever since I have been here he has been coming to see me and talking with me from time to time, and has been the best of men, and now how nobly he weeps for me!  But come, Crito, let us obey him, and let someone bring the poison, if it is ready; and if not, let the man prepare it.’  And Crito said: ‘But I think, Socrates, the sun is still upon the mountains and has not yet set; and I know that others have taken the poison very late, after the order has come to them, and in the meantime have eaten and drunk and some of them enjoyed the society of those whom they loved.  Do not hurry; for there is still time.’

“And Socrates said: ‘Crito, those whom you mention are right in doing as they do, for they think they gain by it; and I shall be right in not doing as they do; for I think I should gain nothing by taking the poison a little later.  I should only make myself ridiculous in my own eyes if I clung to life and spared it, when there is no more profit in it.  Come,’ said he, ‘do as I ask and do not refuse.’

“Thereupon Crito nodded to the boy who was standing near.  The boy went out and stayed a long time, then came back with the man who was to administer the poison, which he brought with him in a cup ready for use.  And when Socrates saw him, he said: ‘Well, my good man, you know about these things; what must I do?’  ‘Nothing,’ he replied, ‘except drink the poison and walk about till your legs feel heavy; then lie down, and the poison will take effect of itself.’

"At the same time he held out the cup to Socrates.  He took it, and very gently, Echecrates, without trembling or changing color or expression, but looking up at the man with wide open eyes, as was his custom, said: ‘What do you say about pouring a libation to some deity from this cup?  May I, or not?’  ‘Socrates,’ said he, ‘we prepare only as much as we think is enough.’  ‘I understand,’ said Socrates; ‘but I may and must pray to the gods that my departure hence be a fortunate one; so I offer this prayer, and may it be granted.’  With these words he raised the cup to his lips and very cheerfully and quietly drained it.  Up to that time most of us had been able to restrain our tears fairly well, but when we watched him drinking and saw that he had drunk the poison, we could do so no longer, but in spite of myself my tears rolled down in floods, so that I wrapped my face in my cloak and wept for myself; for it was not for him that I wept, but for my own misfortune in being deprived of such a friend.  Crito had got up and gone away even before I did, because he could not restrain his tears.  But Apollodorus, who had been weeping all the time before, then wailed aloud in his grief and made us all break down, except Socrates himself.  But he said, ‘What conduct is this, you strange men!  I sent the women away chiefly for this very reason, that they might not behave in this absurd way; for I have heard that it is best to die in silence.  Keep quiet and be brave.’  Then we were ashamed and controlled our tears.  He walked about and, when he said his legs were heavy, lay down on his back, for such was the advice of the attendant.  The man who had administered the poison laid his hands on him and after a while examined his feet and legs, then pinched his foot hard and asked if he felt it.  He said, ‘No’; then after that, his thighs; and passing upwards in this way he showed us that he was growing cold and rigid.  And again he touched him said that when it reached his heart, he would be gone.  The chill had now reached the region about the groin, and uncovering his face, which had been covered, he said – and these were his last words – ‘Crito, we owe a cock to Aesculapius.  Pay it and do not neglect it.’  ‘That,’ said Crito, ‘shall be done; but see if you have anything else to say.’  To this question he made no reply, but after a little while he moved; the attendant uncovered him; his eyes were fixed.  And Crito when he saw it, closed his mouth and eyes.

“Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend, who was, we may say, of all those of his time whom we have known, the best and wisest and most righteous man.”

(Ibid, Fowler, pages 393 – 403, 115B-118A)

1.  These last moments of the life of Socrates reveal his concern and care for his friends, students, family, and those who had official roles in the processes and procedures that took place.  At the same time these moments show us a Socrates who is serene in the face of the great transition he is about to undergo.

2.  Crito stands out as the person Socrates relies on for carrying out his instructions and wishes.  Crito and Socrates must have known each other for a very long time and deep trust had developed between them.

3.  “If you take care of yourselves you will serve me and mine and yourselves, whatever you do, even if you make no promises now; but if you neglect yourselves and are not willing to live following step by step, as it were, in the path marked out by our present and past discussions, you will accomplish nothing, no matter how much or how eagerly you promise at present.”

Platonism is a path.  It has steps.  It takes a long time.  It has its foundation in ascetic practices that the dialogue mentions early in the text.  Ascetic practice resembles learning a skill or craft, like learning how to do woodworking, or welding, or baking, or quilting, or mountain climbing, and so forth.  Asceticism is learned one step at a time, the steps are the path to the transcendental.  And asceticism consists of the techniques that give you the strength to walk that path.  Asceticism is like hiking boots, exercises to strengthen your physique for the climb.  This path, and the necessary asceses have been ‘marked out’ by the Sages of Platonism.  Do not neglect the Way.

4.  Socrates scolds Crito for identifying Socrates with the body of Socrates.  Socrates says that such words ‘infect the soul with evil.’  That’s a very strong statement.  But it shows how seriously Socrates was about the great journey beyond death.  To identify a person with their body is to make it more difficult, often much more difficult, for them to enter that journey in a conscious way, and to see it as an opportunity for transcendence.

5.  Socrates bathes before drinking the poison.  Bathing is a type of purification; in some spiritual traditions bathing in nature by standing under a waterfall is taught as a type of purification.  Bathing at this point is Socrates preparing himself, by cleansing his body, for his journey to the next life.

6.  After bathing Socrates speaks to his family; the women and his three sons.  This also is a form of purification, saying a final farewell to his loved ones.

7.  “It was now nearly sunset.”  Sunset is the time when the world enters darkness, when the sun becomes hidden.  The sun is no longer observable and its effects on earth become inaccessible to the senses.  Socrates will soon enter the dusk of his life and like the sun at night, people will no longer be able to see him with their bodily senses. 

8.  “What do you say about pouring a libation to some deity from this cup?  May I, or not?”  “Socrates, said he, “we prepare only as much as we think is enough.”  “I understand,” said Socrates; “but I may and must pray to the gods that my departure hence be a fortunate one; so I offer this prayer, and may it be granted.”

The Focus Philosophical Library throws a slightly different light on what Socrates said:

“What do you say to pouring somebody a libation from this drink?  Is it allowed, or not?”

“Socrates,” he said, “we concoct only so much as we think is the right dose to drink.”

“I understand,” said he, “But I suppose I am allowed to, and indeed should, pray to the gods that my emigration from here to There may turn out to be a fortunate one.  That’s just what I’m praying for – and may it be so!”

The Fowler translation has Socrates say he wants to offer a libation to ‘some deity’, whereas the Focus translation has the libation offered to ‘somebody.’  It is only after the libation has been denied that Socrates resorts to a prayer to the ‘gods’, but not a specific god, and the prayer is of a general kind. 

Offering a libation by pouring out some liquid from a cup, was a very common way of thanking a god or the gods, for some good fortune.  This custom has continued into the 21^st century.  I read a book by Bill Porter, aka Red Pine, titled Finding Them Gone.  Porter has been a translator of Classical Chinese Poetry for decades.  Finding Them Gone is a record of a journey Porter took to China seeking out the burial sites or monuments of various great Chinese poets.  When Porter found a site, he would approach the monument or site and offer a libation to express his gratitude for their poetry.  He would then read his favorite poem that they had written.  It was a very simple, and ancient, way of thanking their spirits.

In a similar way, Socrates wanted to offer a libation of thanks to those who had helped him and/or been a part of his life.  But that simple gesture was not available, so Socrates shifts to a very brief prayer. 

9.  Following Socrates drinking the poison his students break into tears.  This is natural, and some of his students were depicted earlier in the dialogue as succumbing to this kind of emotional display.  Phaedo is honest enough to say that he is weeping “for my own misfortune; for it was not for him that I wept, but for my own misfortune in being deprived of such a friend.” 

Socrates corrects this by saying “. . . it is best to die in silence.  Keep quiet and be brave.”

In the commentary on Phaedo by Damascius it says:  “The Pythagoreans wanted ‘to die in religious silence, . . . ‘  I take ‘religious silence’ to mean contemplative silence, that is to say to enter into the after death realm in a state of contemplation.

(Ibid, Damascius, page 284)

10.  “Crito, we owe a cock to Aesculapius.  Pay it and do not neglect it.”  “That,” said Crito, “shall be done . . . “

These last words of Socrates are kind of a mystery that has given many people, over thousands of years, pause for thought.  There are many different opinions and analyses.  Damascius writes, “Why did Socrates say that he owed Asclepius that sacrifice, and why were those his last words?  If it were due already, a man as careful as he was would not have forgotten it. – The reason is that the soul is in need of the care of the Healing God at the moment that she is set free from all her toil; therefore the Oracle (frg. 131 – translators note) says that souls in their upward flight sing the hymn to Paean.”  Paean is a god of healing for the Olympians.  Paean is, at times, used as an alternative name for Apollo.

(Ibid, Damascius, page 370)

11.  Notice the use of the plural in these last words; Socrates says ‘we’ owe a cock to Asclepius, not “I owe a cock.”  This plural also applies to the next phrase when Socrates says “Pay it . . . “  Socrates is saying “You guys pay it” or “All of you pay it.”  I see this as indicating that these last words were Socrates urging his students to follow the Way to salvation that Socrates had so meticulously taught to them.  Socrates had already made such a statement earlier after Crito asks Socrates what he wants them to do (see above). 

Socrates is saying that all of them are in need of healing and all of them have to pay the price for such healing.  The price a philosopher has to pay is asceticism.  With his last breath he is reminding his students of this reality.  Though Socrates is going to enter the next life realm momentarily, all of them will do so, sooner or later.  As Socrates is disappearing into the beyond he turns and sends them this message.

12.  The rooster, or cock, crows at dawn.  That is when the sun returns, and when the light of the sun reappears.  Socrates is greeting the light from beyond.  Recall how earlier in the dialogue Socrates remarks on how swans sing just before they die and that most people say they sing for sorrow; but Socrates believes that they sing for joy as they approach the transition to a better world. 

13.  It’s helpful, I think, to compare the last words of Socrates to the last words of Plotinus.  Porphyry writes in The Life of Plotinus, “When he was on the point of death . . . he said, ‘Try to bring back the god in us to the divine in the All!’ and, as a snake crept under the bed on which he was lying and disappeared into a hole in the wall, he breathed his last.”

Plotinus had only a single person with him at the time of his death.  Due to a debilitating illness, the school of Plotinus had shut down.  For this reason the settings differ.  But both of them exhibit a concern for those who are with them; be it one person or an extended group.  And both of them speak in their last moments of the possibility that a human life has for attaining the divine.  And in both cases an animal is symbolic of the transition from human life to that eternal life beyond death, beyond becoming and begoning.  In the case of Socrates, it is a cock that is such a symbol.  In the case of Plotinus, it is a snake who ‘disappeared into a hole in the wall’ just as Plotinus was disappearing from this world.

(Porphyry, The Life of Plotinus, translate by A.H. Armstrong, Ennead I, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966, page 7, ISBN: 9780674994843)

14.  I have enjoyed pulling together these notes and comments on Phaedo over the months I posted them.  ‘Enjoyed’ doesn’t really touch the way this project nourished me.  I hope that some people who read what I’ve posted might benefit from them.  I’ve received emails and in-person comments from a variety of people, and I’m grateful for all of them.

Much more could be said about Phaedo.  My goal was to offer a non-scholarly approach to Phaedo so that other non-scholars might find Phaedo of interest.  I am deeply indebted to scholars, but at times the manner of presentation, such things as scholarly apparatus, for example, can be a considerable barrier for a non-scholar.

During my decades of working at a spiritual bookstore I often had the opportunity to recommend Phaedo to people.  Usually this came up because they were interested in reincarnation; but now and then other issues, such as asceticism and the nature of the spiritual path, would lead to Phaedo.  What this taught me is that there is an audience for Plato’s Dialogues among ordinary people who do not have scholarly credentials.  In a way, this series of notes and comments is a continuation of the kind of interaction I had with many customers at the spiritual bookstore.

Phaedo is an eternal spring of insight, wisdom, and guidance for those on a spiritual path.  Much of what it has to offer only comes to us with repeated readings.  Socrates advises at the end of Phaedo that his students follow the path of philosophy as he had taught it.  One can rely on the teachings of Phaedo for guidance on the long, and often beautiful, journey to the Good, the One, and the Beautiful.

15.  I plan on posting one, or a few, postscripts, but the notes and comments have ended.