Philosophy and Death

One central theme of Phaedo is death, and we here see some of the roots of later Stoic antisomatism (distain for the body) in Socrates' argument that since philosophy cares primarily about and for the mind/soul, it should welcome death as entailing the happy completion of that separation. This raises many questions about how literally we should take such proto-dualist talk, and the overlay of moral evaluation accompanying it (soul good, body bad). Yet the conversation does seem to have the salutary effect of reconciling Socrates' friends (two of whom, Simmias and Cebes, are Pythagoreans for whom such mystical, otherworldly talk is like mother's milk) to his impending death, and it seems to console Socrates himself, his many qualifications (I don't insist on this, if what we say is true...) notwithstanding.

What are the dangers and downsides, if any, of adopting such a provisional, contestable view about life and death and living as though it, or something like it, were literally true?

The Conceptual Frame

We have discussed some of the historical events leading up to Socrates' death, and touched on the quasi-oral poetic history underneath which gives us some insight into his work (and Plato's choice of literary form). One remaining piece is the conceptual, philosophical or scientific background, leading to the so-called "Socratic turn" away from speculation about the natural world, and inward, so to speak, to the investigation of oneself and one's place in a human community.

Here's a question about that "turn" on which you might perhaps all weigh in: Why do you suppose it seemed to Socrates as though he had to choose between these inquiries?

Greek Politics and the Philosopher

Having gotten a sense from Thucydides of how eloquent political speechifying could be in Athens, as well as how incredibly volatile the participatory political system was, we can get some sense of why Socrates steered clear of the Assembly and the law courts (and also why he was not necessarily a fan of the old democracy -- though it certainly doesn't follow that he was a supporter of the thirty tyrants!). Nonetheless, in Crito we see him as a devoted citizen of Athens, prepared to uphold its laws (nomoi in Greek -- we'll discuss the difference) to the death even when they make a mistake. This is an apotheosis of patriotism, but with some interesting twists -- Socrates is never uncritical, even of the gods themselve, much less the mortal laws of his city.

Background to Plato

As I intimated on Thursday, we will discuss several key factors that I take to be essential to making sense of Plato. One is the history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, which unfolded thoughout Plato's youth. You are reading excerpts from Thucydides' comprehensive history of that conflict, and I will give you a thumbnail overview on Tuesday of the events surrounding it as they relate directly to the execution of Plato's friend Socrates in 399 b.c.e. by the restored Athenian democracy.

Another piece of the puzzle, as I began to suggest on Thursday, is the complex relationship of Greek societies in the Fifth and early Fourth centuries b.c.e. to spoken and written language. Alphabetic writing was a relatively recent innovation (introduced probably sometime between 750 and 700 b.c.e.), and even in the late Fifth century Athens was still overwhelmingly an oral society, both in its commercial and its political dealings. Literacy was confined to a small elite, and the written word (and number) was largely a mnemonic and accounting device serving to support and reinforce memory, rather than a primary means of communication. This was changing of course, but slowly, and not without creating difficulties. As we shall see, Plato was both an advocate of new ways of doing things made possible in part by growing literacy, and at the same time deeply suspicious of writing as a substitute for interpersonal discourse (much as intellectuals today are often wary of electronics as a wholesale replacement for books, or for seminars).

Thirdly, in due course we will discuss the philosophical/scientific background to Plato's thought, beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus in particular, and with the so-called Socratic Turn away from cosmological specuation and toward committed moral (and hence social) inquiry. Some of you have a strong background in earlier Ancient Greek thought, and you can be of service to us in helping to clarify these relationships.

A note on retaining the heading "Skeptiblog," which originally referred to a course last spring on ancient and contemporary Skepticism. In part because of Plato's artful use of the dialogue form (in which he himself never speaks), I concur with Alfred North Whitehead's assessment that in every utterance as to Plato we speak under correction. We needn't throw up our hands -- Plato's surviving writings are rich with possible conclusions -- but it is wise to be alert to our fallibility in attributing them wholesale to Plato himself.
Posted by Matt Silliman at 1:49 PM 0 comments

Background to Plato

As I intimated on Thursday, we will discuss several key factors that I take to be essential to making sense of Plato. One is the history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, which unfolded thoughout Plato's youth. You are reading excerpts from Thucydides' comprehensive history of that conflict, and I will give you a thumbnail overview on Tuesday of the events surrounding it as they relate directly to the execution of Plato's friend Socrates in 399 b.c.e. by the restored Athenian democracy.

Another piece of the puzzle, as I began to suggest on Thursday, is the complex relationship of Greek societies in the Fifth and early Fourth centuries b.c.e. to spoken and written language. Alphabetic writing was a relatively recent innovation (introduced probably sometime between 750 and 700 b.c.e.), and even in the late Fifth century Athens was still overwhelmingly an oral society, both in its commercial and its political dealings. Literacy was confined to a small elite, and the written word (and number) was largely a mnemonic and accounting device serving to support and reinforce memory, rather than a primary means of communication. This was changing of course, but slowly, and not without creating difficulties. As we shall see, Plato was both an advocate of new ways of doing things made possible in part by growing literacy, and at the same time deeply suspicious of writing as a substitute for interpersonal discourse (much as intellectuals today are often wary of electronics as a wholesale replacement for books, or for seminars).

Thirdly, in due course we will discuss the philosophical/scientific background to Plato's thought, beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus in particular, and with the so-called Socratic Turn away from cosmological specuation and toward committed moral (and hence social) inquiry. Some of you have a strong background in earlier Ancient Greek thought, and you can be of service to us in helping to clarify these relationships.

A note on retaining the heading "Skeptiblog," which originally referred to a course last spring on ancient and contemporary Skepticism. In part because of Plato's artful use of the dialogue form (in which he himself never speaks), I concur with Alfred North Whitehead's assessment that in every utterance as to Plato we speak under correction. We needn't throw up our hands -- Plato's surviving writings are rich with possible conclusions -- but it is wise to be alert to our fallibility in attributing them wholesale to Plato himself.