Category: Phaedo

In the remote Peloponnesian township of Phlius, Echecrates encounters Phaedo of Elis, one of the men present during Socrates’ final hours. Eager to hear the story from a first-hand source, Echecrates presses Phaedo to tell what happened.

A number of Socrates’ friends were gathered in his cell, including his old friend Crito and two Pythagorean philosophers, Simmias and Cebes. The account begins with Socrates proposing that though suicide is wrong, a true philosopher should look forward to death. The soul, Socrates asserts, is immortal, and the philosopher spends his life training it to detach itself from the needs of the body. He provides four arguments for this claim.

The first is the Argument from Opposites. Everything, he says, comes to be from out of its opposite, so that for instance a tall man becomes tall only because he was short before. Similarly, death is the opposite of life, and so living things come to be out of dead things and vice versa. This implies that there is a perpetual cycle of life and death, so that when we die we do not stay dead, but come back to life after a period of time.

The second is the Theory of Recollection. This theory suggests that all learning is a matter of recollecting what we already know. We forget much of our knowledge at birth, and can be made to recollect this knowledge through proper questioning. That we had such knowledge at birth, and could forget it, suggests that our soul existed before we were born.

The third is the Argument from Affinity. Socrates draws a distinction between those things that are immaterial, invisible, and immortal, and those things which are material, visible, and perishable. The body is of the second kind, whereas the soul is of the first kind. This would suggest that the soul ought to be immortal and survive death.

At this point, both Simmias and Cebes raise objections. Simmias suggests that perhaps the soul is like the attunement of a musical instrument. The attunement can only exist so long as the instrument exists, and no longer. Cebes admits that perhaps the soul is long-lived, and can outlive many bodies, but argues that this does not show that the soul is immortal.

Socrates replies to Simmias by pointing out that his theory of attunement is in conflict with the Theory of Recollection, which proposes that the soul existed before the body. As for Cebes, Socrates embarks on a complex discussion of causation that ultimately leads him to lay out his fourth argument, positing the unchanging and invisible Forms as the causes of all things in this world. All things possess what qualities they have only through participation in these Forms. The Form of Life is an essential property of the soul, Socrates suggests, and so it is inconceivable to think of the soul as ever being anything but alive.

Socrates concludes with a myth of what happens to souls after death. Then he has a bath, says some last goodbyes, drinks the poisonous hemlock, and drifts imperceptibly from this world to the next.

The Phaedo stands alongside the Republic as the most philosophically dense dialogue of Plato’s middle period. It contains the first extended discussion of the Theory of Forms, four arguments for the immortality of the soul, and strong arguments in favor of the philosophical life. It also contains Plato’s moving account of Socrates’ final hours and his compelling myth about the fate of the soul after death. More than most of Plato’s other writings, the Phaedo is in constant dialogue with the Pre-Socratic theories of the world and the soul, in particular those of Pythagorus, Anaxagoras, and Heraclitus.

Philosophically, the Theory of Forms is the most important aspect of the dialogue. Though we find hints toward such a theory in dialogues like the Meno, the Phaedo is the first dialogue where Forms are mentioned explicitly and play a fundamental role in advancing Plato’s arguments. Yet Plato does not seem at all compelled to argue for the theory itself. The Forms are introduced without any fanfare by Socrates, and immediately agreed upon by all his interlocutors. Later, in discussing his method of hypothesis, Socrates asserts that he can think of nothing more certain than the existence of Forms, and all his interlocutors agree.

Due to the haste and ease with which the theory is introduced and put to work, a number of clarifying questions are left unanswered. For instance, what is the scope of Forms? Socrates normally alludes to non-material ideas, such as the Form of Beauty, or the Form of Justice, though he also appeals to numbers–such as the Form of Threeness and the Form of Oddness–to relative terms–such as the Form of Tallness and the Form of Equality–and to the Forms of Life and Death. An argument can be made that he also alludes to the Form of Fire and the Form of Snow, which would open the field even wider. We might ask what sort of things Forms are that they can encompass such a wide range.

There are also questions as to what Plato means in saying that the Form of Equality is equal, or in saying that material objects participate in different Forms.

The Phaedo gives us four different arguments for the immortality of the soul: The Argument from Opposites, the Theory of Recollection, the Argument from Affinity, and the final argument, given as a response to Cebes’ objection. Plato does not seem to place equal weight on all four of these arguments. For instance, it is suggested that the Argument from Affinity by no means proves the immortality of the soul, but only shows that it is quite likely. The Theory of Recollection and the final argument seem to be given the greatest import, as both of them follow directly from the Theory of Forms. But while the Theory of Recollection can only show that the soul existed before birth, and not that it will also exist after death, the final argument purports to fully establish the immortality of the soul, and is considered by Plato to be unobjectionable and certain.

The account of Socrates’ death gives us a portrait of a man so detached from the needs and cares of his body that his soul can slip away without any fuss at all. Plato does not present this as strict asceticism, though, but rather a lack of excessive concern for earthly things. (In this sense, one could argue Plato’s ideal is somewhat similar to the Buddhist ‘middle way.’)

The Phaedo is one of Plato’s great masterpieces, combining difficult and profound philosophy with a lively and engaging narrative. As a result, it is one of the rare philosophical classics that is easily readable and rewarding of rewarding careful study.

The two seminal philosophers, Confucius, and Plato whom we have known as the “father of philosophy” in their respective cultures, though separated by thousands of kilometres and half a century apart, still arrived at similar answers to complex questions. In this essay, I will be discussing the similarities between Socrates as presented by Plato and Confucius in their common pursuit of wisdom as philosophers, and how Confucius displays characteristics and embodies beliefs that Socrates himself preached in Phaedo.

Firstly, in Phaedo, Socrates described a genuine philosopher as one who ought to welcome death. According to Socrates, “a man who has truly spent his life in philosophy feels confident when about to die, and is hopeful that, when he has died, he will win great benefits in the other world” (Plato, 1911, 63e). To elaborate on this, in Phaedo’s Cyclical Argument on Soul’s Immorality, Socrates states that “everything comes to be in this way: opposites come to be only from their opposites” (Plato, 1911, 70e) and he further elaborated with examples such as when something comes to be “larger”, it must have been “smaller” before, and something “weaker” presumably was “stronger” (Plato, 1911, 71a). This showed a relationship between a mortal body and the soul that it bears, which are polar opposites. This means that if there is life, there is death. Hence, he explained that a true philosopher is someone who has been spending his entire life searching for wisdom by questioning everything and seeking answers to those question wherever they lead, with no predetermined conclusion, just like living each day as if it is their last day of life. Therefore, they should not be resentful when death comes. Instead, they should be hopeful that there is something in store for those who have died, as Socrates is assured that the true philosophers will find a better company of good men in the afterlife. He accompanies this remark with the conviction of “something far better for the good than for the wicked” (Plato, 1911, 63c), which emphasizes that there is an afterlife which is good for those who have been practicing good to the people around them in this life , and bad for those who have been wicked.

Secondly, a genuine philosopher should disregard the external factors that could “stop” them from becoming a true philosopher. The external factors that Socrates gave are types of pleasures that result in a form of disruption in the search of wisdom. For example, the pleasure on food, drink, sex as well as smart clothes and shoes and other bodily adornments (Plato, 1911, 64d). Rather, true philosophers are only concerned with the well-being of their souls and want to free the soul as much as possible from the associations from the body (Plato, 1911, 65c). Socrates regards the needs of the body as a form of disruption for philosophers who seek wisdom as he feels that his senses are “neither accurate nor clear” and will contribute to confusing the soul (Plato, 1911, 65b). Some examples are: a straw appears to be straight in the air, but bent when it is placed in the water, and our ability to smell when we are having a flu et cetera. Socrates states that the senses do not give us the true knowledge of reality since he encountered the world through his senses and this is problematic because that perception is subjective understanding instead of the truth (Plato, 1911, 66a). Hence, Socrates declared that the philosopher’s search for knowledge is the most successful when his soul is separated as far as possible from his senses or rather when the soul is “most by itself” (Plato, 1911, 65b). He then uses an analogy of evil to represent our body: “as long as we possess the body, and our soul is contaminated by such an evil, we’ll surely never adequately gain what we desire” (Plato, 1911, 66b). In this case, he used ‘contaminated’ to emphasize on how polluted our body is from all the countless distractions and described body as an evil to show the nurture of the body as “it fills us up with lusts and desires, with fears and fantasies of every kind, and with any amount of trash” (Plato, 1911, 66c). Therefore, death should only be seen as a helping hand to the philosophers, giving them even greater separation between soul and body, in order to pursue the true wisdom. Following which, I will attempt to hold Confucius up to this benchmark of philosophers that Socrates has set out.

According to the Analects, Confucius said : “If at dawn you learned of and tread the way (Dao道), you can face death at dusk” (The Analects of Confucius, 1998, 4:8). Confucius states that life is all about the pursuit of truth, to see the truth about life, and die for the truth, and hence die without regret. He feels that the whole purpose of life is to seek wisdom and pass it down to the people around him. The most terrible thing to Confucius is to confuse life without knowing the truth and to die with less truth than knowing the truth. As a result, he does not mind dying after knowing the truth. Similarly, Socrates stated that a true philosopher constantly searches for wisdom through questioning everything, and seeks answers to questions without a predetermined conclusion, as if each day is the last day of their life. In this aspect, both Socrates and Confucius stated a similar point of welcoming death. However, they differ in subject of not afraid of dying. Socrates said that a philosopher should welcome death, whereas Confucius believed that people in general should not be afraid of death.

Additionally, in the Analects, Confucius stated Five Constant Virtues of a Junzi, that is, to be an ideal person. The Five Constant Virtues are Benevolence, Righteousness, Propriety, Wisdom and Fidelity. In the virtue of Wisdom, Confucius said “Those who are born with the possession of knowledge are the highest class of men. Those who learn, and so, readily, get possession of knowledge, are the next. Those who are dull and stupid, and yet compass the learning, are another class next to these. As to those who are dull and stupid and yet do not learn – they are the lowest of the people.” (The Analects of Confucius, 2014, 16:9). Based on my interpretation, the search of wisdom is like a pleasure journey to Confucius, a never ending process of gaining self-knowledge and constantly reflecting on why you do what you do because “Isn’t it a pleasure to study and practice what you have learned?” (The Analects of Confucius, 1998, 1:1). Likewise, Socrates described philosophy as the love for the practice of continuous learning and prizing the accumulation of knowledge above all else (Plato, 1911, 61a). Therefore, without a doubt, both Socrates and Confucius were describing the same kind of person with different titles.

Next, Confucius strongly critiques material disposition in Analects. When Confucius was asked about the root to ritual, he answered: “In festive ceremonies, it is better to be sparing than extravagant. In the ceremonies of mourning, it is better that there be deep sorrow than a minute attention to observances.’ (The Analects of Confucius, 2014, 3:4). He made it clear that the fundamental problem to ritual is not the form that is created from materialism such as money. Rather, it is from the heart. Instead of just staying on the surface of ritual, what is more important are truth and sincerity, and sincerity is the root of etiquette. In comparison, Socrates disregarded material disposition because he felt a true philosopher should disdain material pleasures as it served as a form of disruption for the philosophers who seek wisdom, whereas Confucius disregarded material disposition as he felt that what was more important than material pleasures was wisdom and treating others genuinely. Later on, he proceeded with “The noble man cares about virtue; the inferior man cares about material things. The noble man seeks discipline; the inferior man seeks favours” (The Analects of Confucius, 2018, 4:11), where he described a Junzi as a noble man who cares about doing good to others , and always in search of discipline and will enforce it on himself. He continued with criticizing an inferior man who only understands control, resulting in abuse of power due to his inferiority, and described him as one who cares about materialism such as power and control for his own pleasure. On the other hand, Socrates used an analogy of evil to represent our body which illustrates how much disruption it will cause the true philosophers in searching for wisdom which is similar to how Confucius uses an analogy of an inferior man to illustrate how this material pleasure gain him no wisdom but rather losing loyalty from his people. Thus, this implies that both Socrates and Confucius disdain material pleasures.

All in all, Socrates defined a genuine philosopher as someone who ought to welcome death and should disdain factors that potentially stop them becoming a true philosopher. Identically, Confucius is open to death as he have enjoyed spending his entire life seeking for wisdom, and disdains material desires. Therefore, I conclude that Confucius is a philosopher based on the benchmark of philosophers Socrates has set out.

I’d like to preface this paper with the following quote, not because it is directly relevant to my thesis or point, but because I find it “awesomely hilarious.”

“Take what has to do with the body to the point of bare need, such as food, drink, clothing, house, household slaves, and cut out everything that is for reputation or luxury.” -Epictetus (Handbook of Epictetus pg. 23)

“It’s only through reasoning and intellect, not through the body, that the one can attain truth” After reading this quote, I became highly suspicious and even judgemental of the grounds that this claim is based upon. Being it my personality to play the devil’s advocate, I did my best to take a step back and meditate on the claim, read the context in which it was written, study the evidence in Phaedo in support of the claim, and then returned to think on and analyze the claim once more. After going through the chapters in Phaedo several times over with as open a mind as possible, the position that Socrates is asserting has no foundation supported by tangible evidence nor consistent logic, and Since Plato is referencing the soul or mind when saying “reasoning and intellect”, Epictetus would agree with “Socrates’” claim but have his own perspective on it based off of him using a different set logic.

Socrates claims that the soul, even after death, still contemplates, thinks, and maintains a level of consciousness. The argument is made that “what we call learning is really just recollection. If that is true, then surely what we recollect now we must have learned at some time before; which is impossible unless our souls existed somewhere before they entered this human shape.” (Phaedo pg. 120) By including this argument in the text, the idea is put forth that 1. The body and soul are two unique entities, and 2. Each one serves a unique function, and looking inwards towards the soul one can find truth and knowledge that they otherwise could not if the body is merely a temporary vessel for an immortal soul. What stands out to me as having some truth to it is the notion that the body is capable of breaking things into parts and can process tangible things, while the mind can understand the abstract, such as ideas, concepts, and use rational thought. This claim still holds by many of today’s metrics and is consistent with a lot of other points made by Socrates. During Socrates’ time, at least while Plato was writing of Socrates, Stoic Theory was widely circulated. A general belief of Stoics at the time was that the soul and body are two distinct entities that each serve different functions; Some viewed the body as an extension of the soul, or the soul as being an extension of the body, however, others such as Epictetus perceived the body to be a gross necessity while the mind was all that truly mattered.

Epictetus insists, more so than Plato or Socrates it seems, that the body is an extension of, or connected to the soul. Epictetus goes as far as to physically insult the body and its form while praising the higher power of the mind, he automatically creates a distinction between soul and body while still acknowledging an unfortunate but necessary link between the two. Where Socrates and Epictetus views on the soul & body diverge is when Socrates argues that the soul is something entirely separate to the body, using Socrates argument of opposites, he argues that the soul must precede the body being born, and when the body dies, the soul returns to another place until it is “reborn” alongside a body again. Epictetus however views the soul as being a separate entity but deeply connected to the body through our senses. “None of these signs is for me, but only for my petty body or my petty property or my petty judgments or children or wife. For all signs are favorable if I wish, since it is up to me to be benefited by whichever of them turns out correct.’ From this quote by Epictetus, one must conclude that regardless of what your body and senses are telling you, ultimately your mind has the authority to decide how life will be perceived.

Socrates makes several contradictions in Phaedo while distinguishing the mind from the body, and through reading all of the Handbook of Epictetus, Epictetus falls into making several hypocritical claims. Epictetus advocates strongly of others living with barely enough to sustain the body because the mind is what truly matters; And while developing his argument for that, Epictetus neglects the luxuries he chooses to afford for himself. Both philosophers offer long and complicated arguments, and after analyzing the arguments made, it is very difficult o agree with most aspects of Socrates’ idea that “only through reasoning and intellect, not through the body, one can attain truth.” The argument that the world is made of opposites does not follow the same logic as Plato’s other claim that the soul lives before and after the body is born and dies. By that I mean if something is now big, it must have been small at one point, and if something is dead, it must have been alive at one point as well. But using this logic, the soul must either die with the body or be an entirely separate entity. Since Plato, through Socrates, claims that the soul is an entirely separate entity, it must be immortal and be an outside character to the “opposite argument” that is used. Yet if the soul is immortal, why does knowledge not compound? Why is it that the reasoning and intellect that people use to seek truth is limited to what our physical bodies have experienced up until that point in a single lifetime? Within the frame of arguments that Socrates has set up, his logic is flawed, and while the mind can rationalize experiences and alter what our body senses, its ability to do so will always be limited by the experiences that our physical bodies have. After thinking about this from every possible angle I could conceive and analyzing every argument support the claim to the best of my abilities, I cannot agree with nor support Socrates or Plato in their philosophy on the soul and body. Despite not liking his character very much after reading his work, I do agree much more with Epictetus’s perspective on the relationship between mind, body, and the part each plays in pursuing the best truth.

The story of Crito is held in the prison cell of Socrates, where he waits for his prison sentence. His old buddy Crito, who had negotiated to sneak Socrates out of prison, visits him. Crito is a 70-year-old guy who is very rich and well-known for having a good reputation. Socrates seems quite ready for his inevitable execution, so Crito puts forward as many arguments as he can to convince Socrates to bail. Also, Socrates wouldn’t need to worry about the risk of safety because his friends are prepared for him, and they’ve also arranged to make Socrates a pleasant life in exile. On a more ethical level, Crito puts forward two more important arguments: first, if he remained, he would help his enemies for harming him unjustly, and thus act unfairly himself; and second, he would leave his wife and children and abandon them without a ‘man of the house. On a practical perspective, the death of Socrates will poorly reflect on his friends and people will believe Crito had done nothing to attempt to save him. Socrates replies that one shouldn’t be concerned with public opinion, but pay attention to only wise advice.

Crito doesn’t need to worry about how his, Socrates ‘, or other reputations may fare in particular appreciation: they should only be concerned with promoting good behavior. ‘And if this is so, do you suppose that justice between you and us is based on equality, and do you think that whatever we might try to do to you, it is just for you to do these things to us in return? Justice between you and your father, or your master if you happened to have one, was not based on equality, so that you could not do whatever you had suffered in return, neither speak back when crossed nor strike back when struck nor many other such things. Will you be allowed to do this to your homeland and the laws, so that, if we try to destroy you, thinking this to be just, you will then try to destroy us the laws, and your homeland in return with as much power as you have and claim that you’re acting justly in doing so, the man who truly cares about virtue?”

This is Socrates putting on the mask of the state. As a community, the government reflects us. If we don’t like the rules, we write the rules and alter them. We get a view on how an unjust law can be handled. We don’t break it, but instead, we keep following it, proving and demonstrating that the law is unjust and that it needs to be rewritten. It appears that Crito is attempting to convince Socrates to flee, and is speaking past each other in a sense. One of the key arguments from Crito arrives at 45c of the Reading: Crito, “What’s more, Socrates, what you are doing doesn’t seem right to me, giving yourself up when you could have been saved, ready to have to happen to you what your enemies would urge—and did urge—in their wish to destroy you.”(45c Reading Crito).

Crito indicates that Socrates would accommodate his enemies ‘ wrongdoing in seeking their desires being completed. The answer to this argument by Socrates is that he would actually harm the legislation who are fair. If the rules are fair and the individuals are unjust, but they are both prepared to do the same, then Socrates seems to be in a dilemma. If Socrates remains in prison, he will sideline with his unjust accusers and act against the unjust legislation, if he escapes. All in all, it seemed better to stick to the legislation than to side with the people. The dialog starts with Meno questioning Socrates if virtue can be taught, and this concern, along with the more crucial point of what virtue is, occupies both men throughout the whole text. The Meno offers important and recurring topics, including the philosophical dialog itself. Socrates tries to analyze an ethical phrase by asking Meno who claims to understand the significance of the word and quickly concludes that neither Meno nor he really knows what the word means. Other significant topics presented here include the concept that the soul is eternal, that it knows everything, and that it only in the way of questioning will be able to develop of virtue as a kind of wisdom.

Socrates as well makes a number of key points about a definition’s nature. Socrates and Meno run through a variety of virtue definitions, each proposed by Meno and broken down by Socrates. Later, the issue arises whether it is even possible to search for anything that is not yet known in the event of searching for a virtue definition, and Socrates even conducts an experiment with Meno’s slave to resolve the issue through a geometric test. We still don’t understand what virtue is by the end of the story, but at least they recognize that they now know they don’t know. Meno provides a good example of the argumentative techniques of Socrates and his search for moral concept definitions. It finishes rather open-ended, similar to Plato’s other dialogues. “ Can you tell me, Socrates, can virtue be taught? If is it not teachable but the result of practice, or is it neither of these, but men possess it by nature or in some other way?” (Reading: Meno).

Virtue was not clearly described. It was recognized with some knowledge or wisdom, but it was not defined precisely what this understanding involves. It seems that it can be explained, at least in theory, but there are no virtue educators as no one has the right theoretical knowledge of their nature. Socrates involves himself among those who are unable to teach virtue since he acknowledges at the beginning that he is unable to describe it. Believe it or not, the young slave Anytus may have foreshadowed and warned the death of Socrates. In Meno, Anytus tells Socrates, “I think, Socrates, that you easily speak ill of people. I would advise you, if you will listen to me, to be careful. Perhaps also in another city, and certainly here, it is easier to injure people than to benefit them. I think you know that yourself”(Reading: Meno).

Socrates judges and questions people which the higher-ups of the corrupted government do not like, which would definitely be interpreted as a corrupting influence in the eyes of not only Anytus but the future court when he faces his eventual death. In the Phaedo, Echecrates meets Phaedo of Elis, one of the men present during the final moments of Socrates. Echecrates, excited to hear the news from a first-hand source, urges Phaedo to say what occurred. Friends of Socrates such as Crito, some other philosophers, Simmias, and Cebes, were in his cell to support him. The account commences with Socrates suggesting that a real philosopher should look forward to death, even though suicide is bad. Socrates claims that the soul is immortal, and the philosopher trains it throughout his life to detach himself from the body’s necessities. For this statement, he offers three arguments: the Argument from Alteration, the Theory of Recollection, and the Affinity Argument. In the Alteration Argument, everything comes from the polar opposite of another. For example, a tall man becomes tall only because he was short before. Death is likewise the reverse of life and thus living things come out of dead things and vice versa. This suggests that there is a cycle of life and death, so we don’t remain dead when we die, but rise from the dead when time passes.

The Recollection of Theory suggests that all learning is about recollecting what we already know. We forget a lot of our knowledge when we are born but through careful questioning we are able to recollect this knowledge. The fact that we had such a large amount of knowledge before being born, suggests that our soul existed before our current life. The third argument which is of Affinity describes how Socrates distinguishes between things that are rational and irrational. The body is irrational, while the rational is the soul. This would suggest that the soul ought to be immortal and survive death. Socrates drinks the toxic drink, provides some last heartfelt farewells, and slowly drifts as he always wanted from this life to the next. Socrates states in the Reading: Phaedo, “Socrates sat up in bed, bent his leg and rubbed it with his hand, and as he rubbed it he said: “what a strange thing in which men call pleasure seems to be, and how astonishing the relation it has with what is thought to be its opposite, namely pain! A man cannot have both at the same time. Yet if he pursues and catches the one, he is almost always bound to catch the other also, like two creatures with one head.” (Reading: Phaedo). Socrates just had his ankles removed from their shackles and comments about the enjoyment of getting them out. Although it may seem contrary to pain and pleasure, he observes, and although we never feel both at the same moment, they do seem closely linked: we rarely discover one without the other. The pleasure of getting rid of his chains is immediately related to the pain that he suffered while still in chains. This is a slight subtext on how he is finally ready to be free to move on to the next life. And with that concludes my reconstruction of Crito, Meno, and Phaedo.

Throughout history, we have endlessly questioned the nature of our reality- whether or not we feel comfortable in our own skin so to speak. Prior to being awakened at birth to our version of reality, we enjoyed an existence of intelligent design- pureness created to allow for a limitless existence. It is, therefore, by that same design that the body as Deutsch puts it, is seen as a prison holding the soul hostage, driving us to evil ends and maleficent pleasures. But it was not only Deutsch that understood the existence of the human soul as a prisoner- Plato too, in his dialogue, Phaedo, saw the body as a sort of prison. Not only shackling our souls to an existence riddled with distractions and temptations, he understood it as getting in the way of a rational clarity that was desired by so many yet achieved by so few. Why then, if the body had achieved holiness and pureness once before, could it not return to a world of perfection? While we drive on with an existence riddled with disease, temptation, and sin- these characteristics of our everyday lives were not the intention of what the human experience was meant to be. They are seen as distractions- and hence the body too is merely a distraction that pulls our soul further and further from achieving pure existence. This then is the purpose of our time in prison- to get back on the path, to return our souls to a reality of holiness and righteous humanity. Plato understood this and witnessed that humans on a whole while resenting being pulled into the body’s appetites, saw it too as a hindrance to what could be and have given up on the fight to resist the temptations of this imperfect world; hence verifying Plato’s understanding of the human body as a prison for the soul.

Plato came to this understanding from his interactions with one of his students, Socrates. He asked- Can our bodies finally be appropriated? While Socrates saw his body as being resilient against the sensory world, he witnessed that we spend our lives constantly struggling to appropriate our existence- cultivating ourselves over time. And although there is no end to this process, death was seen as the one thing that could heal the soul. One might ask then how is the end of life as we know it the key to healing? Death is a way of detaching the body- the source of all life’s sin, temptation, illness, and disease from the purity and divine design of the soul. Then, in truth, death is not the end of life as we know it- it is actually the beginning of an existence that was meant for us from the start. As Socrates puts it “the body hinders humanity from fully reaching its potential… [the body] fills us with loves and desires and fears and all sorts of fancies and a great deal of nonsense, with the result that we literally never get an opportunity to think at all about anything” (Phaedo, 64c-66d). By picking apart what Socrates says above, we can see that the “desires, fears, fancies, and nonsense” he points out are exactly what Deutsch says are “incessant demands, driving us toward evil pleasures and desires, causing ‘war and faction and fighting’” (Deutsch 6). Socrates envisions the body as somehow holding onto the soul in chained existence, with every maleficent experience contributing to the degradation of the human experience once destined for us- “Every pleasure or pain has a sort of rivet with which It fastens the soul to the body and pins it down and makes it corporeal, accepting as true whatever the body certifies” (Phaedo 66d-66e). In other words, the body is in complete control of the soul and whether the decisions it makes are beneficial or demoralizing in the end those decisions attribute to the corruption of the soul as a whole. But the way Socrates qualifies this in the above quote is quite vivid. He directly draws a connection between the imprisonment of the soul to the physical actions of pinning and riveting. This connection is not a pleasant one, quite the contrary, it defines a harsh entanglement between body and soul. Thus, similar to how a prisoner in what today we see as a prison requires constant supervision, attention, and correction, so too does the body. The body when consumed with illness, lust, desire, or any other corporal sensation requires attention and care. Who then is to administer this care? Unfortunately, it falls on the soul to rid the body of these temporary inconveniences and thus defers importance away from the soul’s divine mission. This then can be seen as a full circle experience from what I described above as the meaning of death- death is a way of unshackling the soul from the inconveniences the body supplies- or in Socrates’ words “from confinement in these regions of the earth” (Phaedo, 114c).

What is most striking is the fact that the prison house and in turn the opposite- the temple- are both institutional buildings and both involve a relationship between the master or leader of the institution, and the subject or person. Although one is attributed to suffering, and the other to divinity and pureness, Plato himself in Phaedo uses this as a recurring theme- using words like slaves, infected, and prison to hark back the theme of a relationship between the instructor and the instructed- actually insinuating that the body has somehow “trapped” the soul inside of it. Socrates theorizes based on this fact that “Is it [death] simply the release of the soul from the body? Is death nothing more or less than this, the separate condition of the body by itself when it is released from the soul, and the separate condition by itself of the soul when released from the body” (Phaedo 64c-64d). We see, therefore, that death is really the release of the soul from its “prison-house”. If the soul were to not engage with the body’s (prison’s) temptations and sensations, it could attain a level of divinity that was initially intended for it. If the soul didn’t need to constantly take care of the body’s physical issues, needs, and desires, humans could properly return to the “divine reality” (Phaedo, 65-66) Socrates says is the source of human intelligence. This is similar to what Deutsch sees as the source of human intelligence – the body is a way for the soul to communicate with the world and acts as a medium for the acquisition of human knowledge (Deutsch 7). Why then, if the soul is sourced from divine reality, do we truly need the body at all? In short, we don’t. The body destroys the soul with pleasures and temptations and for the soul to follow the tenants of Christian teachings and doctrine, it shouldn’t interact willingly with the sensations the body imposes upon it.

Why is Socrates dissatisfied with the explanations given by Anaxagoras? What does he suggest instead in Plato’s Phaedo?

In this paper, I will first discuss the philosophy of Anaxagoras, particularly his theories on the infinite elements (chremata), and the Mind (nous). This will be followed by Socrates’s search for his own theory for the causes of how everything is the way everything is. I will raise questions in the irony within this theory and proceed on to discussing its inadequacy of it as a substitution to the theory of the Mind, rather being a broader extension to it.

On Plato’s Phaedo, readers encounter the last conversations Socrates has with his good friends. Socrates is again depicted as the ideal philosopher by Plato. Instead of showing fear toward death, he has a rather welcoming attitude, saying that death is the liberation of the soul from the confines of the body. He expands this theory of the two worlds (of the soul and the body) by proving that knowledge is never really gained but recollected as we grow. After exchanging some opposing thoughts with Cebes, he decides that this matter ‘requires a thorough investigation of the cause of generation and destruction (96a, Phaedo. Grube. 2002) This leads to an introduction of Socrates’ encounter with Anaxagoras’ philosophy and the reasons for his dissatisfactions regarding this.

Anaxagoras states that elements in the universe are unlimited and homoimerous things (uniform in structure) such as bone, flesh, and marrow, and what separates one from the other is the principle of predominance. (Curd, McKirahan. 1996) For instance, a grape and a dog both have a portion of everything such as hair, blood, and wood but these matters are contained in a certain proportion, so a grape contains more matters that make it a grape such as water or sweetness. I can empathize with Socrates on how he thought such Subsequently a dog will have a higher proportion of matters that make it a dog, such as blood and fur. It may be difficult for one living in the current age to comprehend this, as mankind have made a plethora of things since the time when Anaxagoras was alive (510- 480 BCE). I suspect that the most advanced invention created by man at this time was perhaps a crossbow or the catapult. Since then, we have moved on to making things such as light bulbs or mobile phones. Moreover, we have access to knowing exactly which materials were used and what process was taken in the production of such inventions. However, even in modern society, Anaxagoras’ theory can be applied as all man-made things can be broken down to the very simplest of elements that have always existed from, according to Anaxagoras, when Mind initiated motion and developed the cosmos. How the cosmos was exactly developed, we are not informed of in micro detail. But based on the limited amount of fragments left on Anaxagoras,

It is important to understand here that Anaxagoras’ Mind is of no means a god, albeit ‘having the greatest power’. The elements made by nous, those that are now mixed and rotating in their own unique motions, ‘have the cause of their existence in themselves, exactly as nous has the cause of its existence in itself.’ (p 29. Cleve. 1973) I have found it easy to connect this particular aspect of Mind with the gods explained in Epicureanism; though they exist, they pay no heed nor have any influence on our lives. Readers can now understand that Anaxagoras’s theory is not an entirely teleological one apart from the part where the Mind acts as the initial cause of the universe. Mind only goes to the extent of having a teleological purpose as ‘the molding and preserving principle’; in charge of the ‘primordial generation’, but from then on the evolving of the matters into ‘generation from one another of organisms’ is solely dependent on the physical and mechanistic laws. (p 81. Cleve. 1973) It now becomes clear how Socrates would have been dissatisfied with Anaxagoras’ work, as he had a more teleological principle in his philosophy.

When he first looked into the causes of natural science in the world, Socrates found much confusion with its physical causes. He talked about how man is larger than another ‘by a head’, or ten is larger than eight by ‘an extra two’. But he seems to be unsatisfied with how either ‘a head’, or ‘an extra two’ brings the same effect of making something larger. Nor could he compute how adding two of the same ones and taking apart a single one can both bring the same effect of making two things. In this context, Plato raises three principles in his study of causes. (i) Two opposite causes cannot have the same effect. (ii) The same cause cannot have opposite effects. (iii) A cause cannot be the opposite of the effect it has.

However, reading this particular part brings me to question whether it is valid to say that taking apart and putting together are opposites in the first place. There is no denying that in Socrates’ example of using chalk, the two causes bring the same effect of making two. If there is a piece of chalk to be put together with another piece of chalk to make two, would it not be true to say that, drawing from Socrates’ theory, the single piece of chalk has already been put together by two different pieces of chalk? And each of the two pieces of chalk used to form the single piece of chalk which will be later put together with an identical other, further comprises of a continuous number of chalks? I will simplify this explanation in equations. If A is putting together, cause B is taking apart, and a piece of chalk as C,

• C+ cause A + C= two bits of C
• C (C+C) + C (C+C) = two bits of C
• C {C(C+C)} + C{(C+C)} = two bits of C

However, we can also apply this to cause B. Each piece of chalk can be a combination of two bits of chalk, but may very well be a residue of a division of another piece of chalk.

• C = C + cause B
• C (C+cause B) + cause B = two bits of C

Here we can see that the effect (two bits of C) can contain both cause A and B. This is where I wonder if it is fair to say that if both causes draw the same effect, are they opposites at all? Will they not be simply differing causes within the many other possible causes included in that particular effect? It seems to me that Plato brings principle (i) without giving much explanation on this matter. Also, the three principles seem to contain the premise that cause always comes before effect. When y becomes x by a certain cause, that seems to be the end of being x. But if Socrates is really concerned about natural science above anything else, would it not be common to say that things have more to them before and after the coming of being from a single cause? The fact that Plato does not give much contemplation on this supports that his main interest lied in the teleological purpose of beings.

On his encounter with the theory of the Mind, Socrates made a basic misjudgment that the Mind would ‘arrange each thing in the way that was best’ (97d, Phaedo. Grube. 2002) Anaxagoras never mentions this in his writings. Though constantly using the Mind as the very generic and rough explanation to all foundational elements is the cosmos, Anaxagoras does not give responsibility to it for the management of elements. He does use the principle of predominance as a reason for why something is the way it is. But saying that hair is hair because it contains a higher proportion of stuff that make it hair does not exactly function as an adequate answer to the question of why hair comes to be hair. Plato’s Socrates was concerned with the latter.

Another matter that Socrates was dissatisfied with Anaxagoras is elaborated in 98c- 99b of Phaedo. “Again, he would mention other such causes for my talking to you: sounds and air and hearing, and a thousand other such things, but he would neglect to mention the true causes,” Socrates states it is lazy and careless to that the reason for him waiting to receive his death penalty rather than escaping his cell is because as his bones are hanging in their sockets, the relaxation and contraction of the sinews enable him to bend his limbs, causing him to be sat down. In this context, my focus drew to the phrase, ‘…Athenians decided it was better to condemn me, for this reason, it seemed best to me to…’ as it alludes to a strong principle that Plato has on things being the way that they are at their best. This is mainly the reason why he resulted with dissatisfaction with Anaxagoras’ philosophy. Searching for an answer to the causes of things, on the premise that each and everything is arranged in the way that was best and not in any alternative ways, is simply such a vague and broad matter.

So it is now clear that the primary aim that Anaxagoras and Socrates had in their theories fundamentally differ from each other. One was primarily concerned with the ‘plurality of ultimate elements of the world’ (p9. Cleve. 1973) and the other was concerned with a single pattern of explanation for all phenomena. A single principle that can explain all phenomena in the world. As stated in Phaedo, Socrates wanted to know such things as why things come to be and perish and why it exists (96b, p137. Bostock. 1986). To take an example, Socrates’ main concern has to do with why an orange has an orange color, why it is sphere-shaped, or why it decays after time rather than how it came to have the qualities that make it orange. He makes a more general inquiry on the reason behind why something is something, not the change that makes anything into something.

Regarding this concern, it does not require one to deeply ruminate to find why x becomes why y is due to the sharing of y-ness. For nothing that is not y can ever become y. A famous example raised in Phaedo is the cause of something beautiful being the property of beauty it has. This can also be applied to Socrates’ confusion on putting together and taking apart. A piece of chalk broken and two pieces of chalks put together both result in two pieces of chalks because of twoness. From this, the Theory of Forms is introduced, that being, the cause of a thing’s being P is always (it’s participation in) the form of P-hood.’ (p 152. Bostock. 1986) Therefore a piece of chalk can only be chalk through the chalk-ness it participates in. Many aspects of this recall the explanation of elements by Anaxagoras saying that all (things) have a portion of everything. However, Plato’s leaning toward searching for a single answer to causes leads to opposing Anaxagoras’ other opinion on the dual operation of elements.

I find it appropriate to mention at this point, what Anaxagoras’ take is on the soul and body; as this is the main subject that holds the text of Phaedo. Anaxagoras says,

Unfortunately, we are not left with many fragments by Anaxagoras that give details on how things work in his explanation to the rotation and evolution of elements in the cosmos.