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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
OK. I just wrote a long answer to this short question, and in the writing (which I have saved for my own reflection later) I came up with an answer I didn't expect.
The short of it (which for me is rare in itself) is this: the danger, or downside of adopting "such a provisional, contestable view about life and death" is that it closes your mind to other possibilities, or even engaging the mind in considering there *might be* other possibilities, which is exactly what this question did to me (very clever, Matt).
So now I find myself in need of more time to contemplate the subtlties of this issue, rather than being ready to post a thoughtful, subtantive (and I thought, rather clever) comment. To paraphrase a quote from "A Course In Miracles," -- humility is the way I walk in gratitude (grin).
I look forward to your answer when you've crafted it -- and boiled it down to its essence!
The dangers of adopting such a view of life and death similar to the one illustrated by Socrates come about from the questions that easily follow from the beliefs of his view. If separation of the body and soul is good, then death is good. If this is the case, what is wrong with suicide or murder? Socrates answers this question with the premise that our bodies are possessions of divine beings. If there are no other sound reasons than the one Socrates provides, this belief may come dangerously close to justifying the taking of one's own and others' lives.
Socrates' beliefs seem to take a step away from valuing life. In fact, it is reasonable to say that he does not value life. If this belief was instilled in Socrates before some of his other most dear principles, it may have been easy for him to succumb to a life of pessimism. Luckily he also strongly believed that pursuits of knowledge will benefit him later in his soul's existence, which encouraged a him to live a healthy life of active learning (and reflexive teaching). For this reason, Socrates did value being alive and the activities that are made possible by living, but not life itself.
Post a Comment