Plato's dialogue, the Phaedo (part 1) - Introduction to Philosophy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- support my work making Philosophy accessible - / sadler
study philosophy 1-on-1 - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
get Plato's Phaedo - amzn.to/2twvAes
In this lecture from my Spring 2013 Introduction to Philosophy class at Marist College, we begin our study of Plato's classic dialogue, the Phaedo. After discussing the context, structure, and characters of the dialogue, we discuss some of the central topics: philosophy as preparation for death, the relationship between the soul and body, the doctrine of recollection, and the doctrine of forms. We defer examining the arguments for and against the immortality of the soul until the next class session
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO or here - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Plato more generally! - click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
You can find the copy of the text I am using for this sequence on Plato's Phaedo here - amzn.to/3695oJ8
My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation
(Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)
#philosophy #introduction #plato
![มองหน้ากันไม่ติด (Awkward) - โอ๊ต ปราโมทย์ FEAT. MAIYARAP [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4b02SY_r6Gw/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm going to go ahead and say it - Greg you're an awesome philosophy professor. Thanks for the clarity.
You're welcome -- very nice to read!
You're very welcome. Yep -- Kant is particularly tough, first because of the technical vocabulary he uses, and second because he's reacting to and referencing many other philosophers
Glad you like them. We've actually long since improved the audio quality in the editing process. This is about as good as its going to get
Perfect intro to this dialouge. I am going to read it with a better understanding now. Sweet!!
Glad it was helpful for you! This was a good bunch of students, so that makes it a bit easier
Professor, thank you so much for sharing such amazing knowledge.
Well, watch the videos, and find out.
Though keep in mind two things -- it's an intro class, where we cover a lot of stuff, and we have to leave out a lot And. . . it's my class, so while you may feel we ought to focus on X, that's not necessarily a reason why I ought to have set up my class to hit on X
Glad it was that helpful!
You're welcome -- glad you enjoyed it
Great lecture and nice style with your students. You've given me some good ideas for supplementing my lecture.
It´s really awesome that you share this - thanks a lot!
Absolutely loving these lectures.
Bless you and thank you so much Gregory!!!
You're welcome!
Glad it helped
i’m taking an online philosophy class with no instruction, and these lectures saved me. thank you very much for posting these
Glad that the videos have been helpful for you
This video saved my ass. Thank you for making high quality/reliable content!!
You’re welcome!
Thank you for sharing your class with us.
N Cole you’re welcome
Thank you for your time
6:50 connected to 8:24 [good discussion]. I LOVE this discussion. Granted, I consider myself a Nietzschian and thus predisposed to "pessimistic" and nihilistic interpretations, in "opposition" to Plato's formulations, but your interpretation on "death" [the point of the discourse] is VERY interesting. sort of a "death" in one's beliefs/ideologies etc. Good analysis. 22:11 :-)
7 years later, and this is helping me pass my Intro to Philosophy class. Thank you sir!
You're welcome!
Intriguing. I am enjoying this video, I would put in the beautiful category.
I started studying Plato in the fall of 2015, but I didn’t start to take notes until close to the fall of 2017. Now I have a binder full of notes from all the lectures I have re-watched of the dialogues ‘Euthyphro’, ‘Apology’, ‘Crito’, and ‘Phaedo’. I’ve only gotten to book 4 in ‘The Republic’ reading wise…I’ll get back to that after I reread Phaedo, for I don’t know how many times now. I find Phaedo to be my favorite for now, and can’t get away from the fascination of the knowledge the dialogue provides about the soul.
I like to type up my old notes and new notes with hopes of it helping others.
If you think anything I have written is incorrect, please, let me know (even grammar). Any typos I looked over…as I once typed ‘the immoral soul’ instead of the ‘immortal soul’. Oops. 🤦♀️
--------
Plato-The Phaedo-A dialogue within a dialogue-
The life and teachings of Socrates: 469-399 BCE
The dialogue took place in the remote township, Peloponnesian of Phlius, where Echecrates asks Phaedo to tell him all that was said on the day Socrates was to die from the charge of corrupting the youth and atheism, being put to death by drinking hemlock, in which Phaedo agrees to tell Echecrates the whole conversation.
After Socrates’ crying wife is led away to be taken home by some of Crito's retinue--Crito being Socrates’ long-time friend, those present for the remaining time was Crito, Apollodorus, Phaedo, and two Pythagorean philosophers, who were both students of Phiolaus, a Pythagorean teacher, Simmias and Cebes. These two Pythagorean philosophers are most active in the dialogue aside from Socrates, as he spoke the majority of the time.
Phaedo speaks with Socrates of mislogism, which is the destruction of argument and reason, starting with:
-being too trusting
-uncritical
-disappointment
Which leads to hate:
-critics
-cynics
-pessimists
However, Socrates says this won’t happen if you talk and test the arguments and to ask questions so the other may speak their reason, seeing if they could respond with logical reasons or not, as Socrates does in the ‘Apology’ in questioning the Athenian audience when he was put on trial, questioning the politicians, poets, artisans, and the rhetoricians (which, by the way, made him very unpopular with the people, and because Socrates chose not to go into exile, he was sentenced to death, hence this dialogue).
Personally, I admire Socrates for choosing death over exile. I feel it is the ultimate way to standing with what he taught to the young. I wouldn’t call him going into exile cowardly if that is what he had chosen, for perhaps he could of continued to spread his knowledge; even with Crito begging him to go into exile (in another dialogue: ‘Crito’), arguing with him, giving Socrates reasons not to die after he had been jailed, telling him to not let his enemies win and to live in Thesile, Crito referring to fleeing as courageous. But, to me, Socrates was courageous in going by what the Athenian people ruled, even after none of the people could give a solid argument on why Socrates was guilty.
I digress, going to:
-Big Themes-
-Death: what does it mean?
-Theory of Recollection
-The Soul: is it really Immortal?
-What is Wisdom?
Socrates says: Philosophy is the preparation for death.
Philosophy is training to see the difference between the soul and the body, and to try and train your personality, who you are; when the time comes to shed the shell that traps the soul, like a nailed down coffin, death is the only escape to free the soul from the body.
If you are greedy in life, there is greed in your soul.
Greed is something you do through your body, but it is the soul that drives the body.
If you are a generous person, that is in your soul.
Courageous, cowardly, kind, unkind, pessimist, optimist, among other personality traits, they are all part of the soul, and it follows us in death.
There are those who give no attention to the soul and focus on the body.
The body is full of pleasures and desires.
The Doctrine of Recollection-The Forms that are focused on where some knowledge and some learning is recollection.
In absolute realities, there is:
-Justice itself
-Perfect equality
-Courage/temperance
-Beauty
Using Beauty as an example:
-Sunlight, but what about when it’s too bright, or when you have nothing to protect you from the sun and you get sunburn?
-Wallet, but that depends on the person and what they like.
-Landscapes, but some can be dangerous or barren.
-People, but are the attractive all the time?
-Music, but does it include all music, with or without a harmony?
----
Do you know a person perfectly just?
In my view, there is no perfectly just person, as no one is perfect-not to mention the argument of what is just and unjust, not only in ‘The Republic’, but the argument of what piety and impiety in ‘Euthyphro’. When one see something as just (pious), another sees it as unjust (impious), making it impossible for someone to ever be perfectly just/pious.
----
Have you ever seen perfect equality?
In my view, there is no such thing as equality. If anything, I find it difficult to name something with absolute equality, thinking there will always be something, no matter how small, that prevents absolute equality.
In example: there is no such thing as a perfect circle. You can see a circle on a screen: TV/computer/phone, but the circle seen is made up of tiny pixels.
You could draw a circle, but that still would not be a perfect circle.
You can find no true equality in anything that is material, anything we encounter and anything we perceive through our senses. You cannot have the ability to recognize equality when lacking the ability to find perfect equality to compare it too.
Thanks! I've got to admit that there's quite a lot I like about Nietzsche, but I end up assimilating those elements myself through a fairly Christian Platonic lens -- along the lines of Max Scheler.
As I'm sure you've seen in your own classes -- the students really do want to talk about matters of life and death. They don't get too many other occasions to do so in any fairly rigorous way, informed by classic texts and thinkers, in the rest of the their education
well that's my coursework sorted. cheers mate x
our class now moves from the Meno to the Phaedo
You're welcome
Professor, I am a humanities major at Dominican University of California and I have some thoughts on this subject. The other day I was just strolling through my family's home and I found this book on the ground right in front of me. I never had read much of Plato's Socratic dialogues (except parts of the Symposium and Republic) and I figured I'd give this a shot. Perhaps I am looking into it too much, but it really felt as if something was pushing me towards reading it. Well so I have, and it has really moved me.
Anyway, over the last year or so of my life I've experienced what some may describe as a "spiritual awakening". For most of my young adult life I described myself as being an agnostic atheist, and I of course basked and delighted in sensory/bodily pleasures. I was heavily critical of spirituality and philosophy, being purely scientifically, empirically minded. I had the idea that only by the scientific method and strict adherence to its tenets may man lift itself up, and transcend the Earthly shackles that seem to consume us. I've since discovered, well, perhaps this isn't the case completely as I began to read the message of Christ. Strangely enough, I began reading it with the purpose of being able to critically evaluate Christianity so as to put up a more robust argument against spiritually inclined folks of that particular persuasion. This is not to discredit the merits of science completely, as I believe they provide a logical basis for understanding the nature of physical reality, but I began to garner more of an interest in what lie beyond it, and it is in this arena that I believe science fails, and philosophy succeeds (at least for now). In reading Phaedo, I learned many of the themes, for that matter, even the language itself, had distinct similarities to the message of figures like Buddha, Krishna, and to me most importantly, Christ.
In particular, this theme of bodily temperance to me rings true. It does seem in fact to be a major tenet of the message Christ had, and I so happen to look at the parallels between Socrates and Christ as comparable in nature.
-That by our very nature, we are imperfect beings, and as such, what we garner with our bodies as knowledge tends to be imperfect understanding.
-That in the world beyond, these forms you speak of are perhaps present. You stated it interestingly when mentioning specific examples of beauty that we can relate to, such as sunlight, or other people. You stated, that while these things are beautiful, they aren't absolutely beautiful.
-That they together make up "sub-components" if you will, of the absolute "form of beauty". It has also led me to conclude that such things as the "form of good" and "form of beauty" are also themselves sub-components of what many would call or describe as "God".
-That perhaps "God" is the absolute form of all things in their utter totality. Probably not a striking conclusion, and I am positive someone else has realized this prior, but I wonder what your thoughts on these conclusions are.
These things a lot of people who call themselves "Christians" claim for themselves in a sort of moral monopoly, seem to have a very similar foundation in the ideas of body/soul rationalized in Phaedo. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter, that is to say, the relationship between the ethics and philosophies in some of the Abrahamic religions, and eastern religions (you even mentioned Hinduism and Buddhism in this lecture) and the themes of Plato's work. It seems to me there was a cultural drift of sorts into these philosophies which would later arise in the New Testament. It makes me believe, personally, there is a degree of truth in the underlying sentiments of these "philosopher-kings" about purely truthful, absolute reality, which can be called for all intents and purposes "heaven".
Terrific lecture by the way sir, I thoroughly enjoyed it, just wish I could have been there.
I'm glad you enjoyed the video. To give a pretty short response to your questions/comments. . .
Much early Christian thought -- not the Scriptures, but the massive body of thoughtful interpretation of what the Christian life would be, how it would fit into or challenge classical culture, etc. that you find in the Church Fathers -- is knowledgeable about, and at times incorporates Greek philosophy, particularly neo-Platonism, but also some stuff from the Stoics and the Aristotelians (usually not from the Epicureans!) So, Forms often become archetypal ideas in the mind of God, and the Form of the Good becomes God, a personal reality with agency.
Do many Christians have a model of the soul like that in the Phaedo? Yes. Do all? No. They definitely don't think that the soul is reincarnated multiple times though.
I mentioned a few eastern religions as examples pertaining to the notion of reincarnation. I don't buy the notions -- that have been bandied around for a long time -- that there was a cultural drift of ideas from east to west, which then shows up in philosophy. There's plenty of ideas that get worked out or thought up in a variety of places independently of each other -- perhaps because we're actually working with the same basic human nature
Gregory B. Sadler
Thank you for the timely response and insight sir, particularly this: "There's plenty of ideas that get worked out or thought up in a variety of places independently of each other -- perhaps because we're actually working with the same basic human nature".
I understand it's a complicated subject, perhaps you can point me to some of your lectures that explore this subject more thoroughly. I look forward to watching more!
I couldn't say which lectures treat that topic -- keep in mind I've now got over 600 videos in my main channel
Understood, I will probably check out some of your religion topics later. Thanks again.
ebannaw But why the christian god and not any of the other religions?
Good empathy and articulateness.
Thanks!
Thank you!
You’re welcome!
Well, that's your opinion, all right. I suspect we teach our philosophy classes rather differently
I hope that you're pointing out that some of the reasoning used in Phaedo may be deliberately "spurious" - that more than anything, at least from one viewpoint, it could be considered an exercise in logical thinking. And also that some of these philosophers may have actually gone to Greece/Athens etc. with the purpose of deliberately corrupting them and undermining their society. It's a historical theory which is important and i.m.o. shouldn't be ignored.
Yes, one takes the "new and improved" soul that one has made better in this, bodily life into the next, bodiless life -- though that doesn't seem to guarantee that it will be in a better condition in the next, embodied life after a period of bodiless existence.
What Socrates says in this particular dialogue is that, if you can purify yourself three times in a row -- i.e. in three different embodied lives -- by doing philosophy, you get to stay with the gods and good people -- you're not reborn
Thanks!
You're welcome - and thanks!
Awesome teaching!
Thanks!
Student: "Do you have the time?"
Professor: "Yes!"
Yes because in the Phaedo it states "For it takes nothing with it to the next world world except its education and training" but as one gets older one can change and for the better .Through knowledge and maturity. Better with age like a nice wine.Do we still have to carry with us the immature soul or do we start with the more educated and mature soul next time. What does Socates say about that. Thank you very much for answering
I think that for the most part, it's during this kind of life, i.e. in the body, that one can make those sorts of changes.
The soul on its own in the next world does seem to undergo, in many cases, punishments and purifications, but that seems a lot more passive, much less determined by one's own choosing something better for oneself
You mean between living one life and living the next one?
Your lectures are awesome....
please improve the audio quality...
Amazing...
Thanks!
Professor I have just recently started following you. I am currently in a Philosophy course with focusing on evaluating the arguments of Socrates. I came across a handout that you provided on academia.edu and added you, and then while searching for cited material for my counter argument for my thesis, found the webpage with the 12 video lectures...which then brought me here to TH-cam, and have just subscribed to your video posts. While my Philosophy course ends on Monday, I plan to continue my thirst for knowledge of Philosophy through readings and videos in hopes to take what I learn into my direction of a Soul Therapist. Just thank you for the knowledge that you have put out there for persons like me, who need the assistance of analyzing and evaluating philosophical argument.
Niccole Anne
Niccole Anne You're very welcome! I'll be putting out some materials for self-directed study of Plato in May -- you might find that interesting/useful
I still don't get it why 80's metal doesn't equal absolute beauty, could you clarify this point, please?
Well, of being a gadfly to his fellow citizens -- he freely admitted that
can one change the soul. so you can change what you don't like about yourself for the next time. what does Plato say about that
Yo, doc. Never knew why PKD was called Horselover until I worked out Socrates' much-younger wife was called "Xanthippe" which means "yella horse". Aw shucks.
What's that got to do with this dialogue?
Do you think they were wrong to say that the opposite of life is death? Is not life equivalent to having a soul (self-motion)? So the opposite of life is not having a soul. Death is never defined as not having a soul, but as the soul separated from the body.
Then to follow the reprise, having a soul comes from not having a soul and not having a soul from having a soul. But regardless, if we can be given a soul when we did not have a soul to begin with, it is probable that we can have a soul (whether the same or other) after not having a soul.
There's no "we" without a soul, in Plato's account, now is there?
Think about we as coming into existence simultaneously with the soul. Then there is no we without soul. Or think about humans before any existed as an idea only but nonexistent, so in a sense we existed though not having a soul. DENNY WAZE, I think my definition of the opposite of life is what Cebes argues, and this was my main question I wished for you to address. Glad you're still responding to a video posted years ago though
In my opinion the correct answer is, "Well first tell me what *YOU* think!" ;)
Mr Sadler do you feel that Socrates was guilty
Sorry but I don't understand Plato's views here. Does one take the new improved soul that one worked on through knowledge and maturity to start the next world. I can't find that answer. If Im bugging you just say.
Here, here for the liking of drinking coffee.
Plato was very depress but very much true about 80% of his philosophy. I myself experience a time in my life where I felt as if I wanted to not exist no more and I would tell this to myself for almost a year and I begin to notice that I was dead consciously and why I was in that state I figured out there is no death and I Witness numerous things and I'm not making that astronomical guess these are physical experiences with some mental experiences. So I believe he was truly made a long walk around the truth stating There Is No Death
There's no evidence Plato was depressed