In this blog post, I will analyze Plato’s “Phaedo,” summarizing its background, the concept of the soul, key arguments, and Socrates’ final moments.
Key Background
The ‘Phaedo’ records the conversations Socrates had with his friends immediately before his execution, following his conviction on charges of “not believing in the gods of the state and corrupting the youth.” Socrates was executed in 399 BCE, at which time Plato was in his twenties. Although it is unclear exactly when this dialogue was written, modern scholars generally consider the ‘Phaedo’ to belong to Plato’s middle period.
The geographical setting of the ‘Phaedo’ is the region of Pleius on the Peloponnese. Echecrates asks Phaedo what was said and what happened when Socrates drank the poison and died. Phaedo is on his way back to his hometown of Elis after witnessing Socrates’ death. Phaedo gives Echecrates a detailed account of Socrates’ final words and actions, as well as the feelings of the companions who were present.
The first word of the dialogue, “autos,” can mean “himself” but also “He,” which is reminiscent of how the disciples of the Pythagorean school would refer to Pythagoras’ teachings as “He said….” In particular, the teaching that the body is the prison of the soul and the doctrine of the transmigration of souls were central tenets of Pythagorean philosophy, and the view that the soul is a form of harmony brings to mind the Pythagorean theory of musical scales. Furthermore, the purification of the soul is also a central theme in Pythagorean philosophy; in this dialogue, the lover of wisdom (i.e., the philosopher) is described as one whose soul has been purified. In other words, according to Socrates, a true lover of wisdom (philosopher) is one who purifies himself of all physical desires in order to be united with true being (such as the Forms).
Plato’s Concept of the “Soul”
In the ‘Phaedo’, the “soul” (psychē) is described as dwelling within the body and imparting life; in ancient Greek literature, psychē is originally portrayed as something akin to a shadow of the self. According to Homer’s epics and later poetry, when a person dies, their soul goes to the underworld (Hades), retaining its appearance from life but appearing lifeless and sorrowful.
Aware of these popular beliefs about the soul, Socrates seeks to prove that even when separated from the body, the soul does not perish but retains its original strength and intelligence. According to Socrates, when the soul is separated from the body, it can become purely rational. Conversely, when the soul enters the body, it is inevitably drawn into the body’s activities. The ‘Phaedo’ focuses on explaining how the soul can break free from the body’s constraints and achieve its true purpose.
Main Content
Socrates’ execution had been postponed.
The Athenians had prohibited executions during the period when they sent an annual delegation to Delos to commemorate the hero Theseus’s rescue of 14 men and women from the Minotaur, the half-man, half-beast monster of Crete. The ‘Phaedo’ portrays Socrates as a philosophical Theseus. Socrates was a hero who set out on a journey to the underworld to rescue his companions (the names of the 14 are listed).
However, while his companions mourn Socrates’ impending death, they are also astonished by his serenity in the face of death. Socrates reveals that the secret to his serenity lies in his belief in the immortality of the soul. He acquired this belief through the love of wisdom (philosophy), which enabled him to overcome his fear of death.
Socrates calls the key to overcoming the fear of death “the purification of the soul” or “the practice of dying.” According to this view, a true philosopher is dead to the body and its temptations, and philosophy is, in essence, the practice of dying. Furthermore, since the body is a kind of prison confining the soul, a true philosopher seeks to be liberated from the body in order to contemplate true being.
Socrates learned to live each day as if it were his last. Far from fearing death, he looks forward to meeting the gods and his dear friends in the afterlife; thus, even in his final moments, he continues to explore the truth through conversation with his companions, just as he always has.
However, Cebes questions Socrates’ belief that, since our lives are a gift from the gods, we must not harm ourselves. If life is a gift, how can Socrates practice dying in the name of philosophy while he is still alive? Isn’t there a contradiction between the belief that life is a precious gift and the desire to be freed from the body (in other words, to abandon life)?
In response, Socrates explains how a lover of wisdom can face death with courage. He argues that a person who has devoted their entire life to the love of wisdom should rejoice when facing death and be confident that, upon the end of this life, they will receive the greatest blessings in the afterlife. Socrates presents arguments to prove the immortality of the soul.
The Argument from the Cycle of Opposites
Opposites arise from their opposites (for example, the small becomes large).
Two processes of generation (such as growth and decay) occur between opposites.
The opposite of life is death.
Therefore, two processes of generation exist between life and death (that is, each arises from the other).
Accordingly, the living arise from the dead.
Ultimately, the souls of the dead existed somewhere, and our souls existed somewhere before birth.
Proof Through the Theory of Recollection
Learning is recollection (the act of recalling what one already knew).
We learned what we recollect (e.g., the Idea of Equality) before birth.
Therefore, our soul existed somewhere before entering the human body and perceived the Ideas.
The Similarity Between the Soul and Forms
Socrates distinguishes between unchanging intellectual objects and changing, corruptible sensory objects. Accordingly, while the body resembles and is close to sensible objects, the soul is close to intelligible objects. Therefore, the soul resembles that which is unchanging.
While the soul dwells within the body, it becomes tainted by its physical nature through its association with the body; however, once separated from the body, it can ascend to the realm of eternity, which is immortal and unchanging. We call this state of the soul “wisdom.”
The soul of one who loves wisdom will, after death, reach a place befitting its nature, where it will completely rid itself of human evil. Therefore, the soul of one who loves wisdom need not fear that, even if separated from the body, it will be scattered by the wind and vanish.
The Objections of Simmias and Cebes
First, Simmias raises an objection to the analogy that the soul is a kind of harmony. Just as a chord disappears when a lyre is destroyed, so too will the soul be destroyed when the body perishes. This is because the soul is nothing more than a combination of physical principles.
Then Cebes joins in the rebuttal. Even if the soul is stronger than the body and can endure longer—surviving even after multiple deaths—it may still perish someday. Just as a weaver, though he lives longer than his garments and wears out many sets of clothes, will eventually die, so too can a soul that has undergone many reincarnations perish before its final body.
A Warning Against Aversion to Logos
Before responding to the objections raised by Simmias and Cebes, Socrates first warns against aversion to logos. Just as a person who trusts someone only to be betrayed may come to hate and distrust everyone, so too does a person who naively believes in an argument but then realizes that no argument is perfect come to loathe arguments altogether. In other words, people will avoid offering explanations and arguments rather than acknowledging their own incompetence. According to Socrates, both the fear of death and aversion to the Logos are Minotaurs within our minds that we must fight and overcome; however, aversion to the Logos is more dangerous than the fear of death.
Socrates’ Response to Simias’s Objection
Simias asks how the view that the soul is harmony can be reconciled with the immortality of the soul. However, Socrates rejects the theory of the soul as harmony for three reasons.
If the soul is the harmony of the body, it cannot exist prior to the body and, therefore, cannot exist during one’s lifetime. Yet the theory of recollection presupposes the soul’s pre-existence.
If the soul were merely the harmony of the body, it could not control the body and would have to follow the body’s movements. However, the soul is capable of intending actions and controlling the body.
Harmony allows for degrees of difference. If the soul were the harmony of the body, one soul could be more or less of a soul than another. But this is impossible.
Socrates’ Response to Cebes’ Objection: Proof Through the Forms as Causes
Cebes asks: Even if the soul can exist separately from the body and outlive the body, is there any guarantee that it is imperishable? In response, Socrates appeals to the theory of Forms.
What makes something beautiful is not its brilliant colors or shapes, but its participation in the Form of Beauty.
The number 3 is not the opposite of an even number, but it is opposed to an even number through its participation in the Form of Oddness.
It is not heat, but fire, that warms the body by being within it.
It is not life, but the soul, that gives the body life by being within it. The soul brings life to the body when it is within it. Furthermore, the opposite of life is death. Therefore, the soul does not permit that which is opposed to the life that accompanies it—that is, death. Now, that which does not permit death is immortal; just as 3 cannot be an even number, the soul does not die.
The True Nature of the World
After completing his final proof, Socrates describes how good and evil souls live in the afterlife. According to Socrates, the world consists of three layers: the true Earth (the Upper World), the world where we live, and another world beneath us (the Underworld). We live in the middle world, between the best and the worst worlds, and the world in which we will live after death is determined by how we live now. In the true world (the Upper World), there is no chaos or violence, and those who dwell there live happily in communion with the gods. Meanwhile, the Underworld is rife with violence and chaos.
The Death of Socrates
Washing the dead and preparing them for burial was an important religious ritual in ancient Greece. Since the time of Homer, conducting a proper funeral was believed to ensure a safe journey to the afterlife. Therefore, Socrates says that he will go and bathe himself so as to spare the women the trouble of washing his body after his death. When Crito asks Socrates how he wishes to be buried, Socrates urges his companions to care for his soul rather than his body.
Holding the cup of poison, Socrates suggests offering a portion of it as a libation to the gods. Here, he refers to the poison as “pharmakon,” a word that can mean “poison” but is also used to mean “(healing) medicine.” In other words, while people might think Socrates drank poison, from his perspective, he was taking a remedy to purify his soul from physical desires. For this reason, when Socrates drinks the poison, all his companions—including Phaedo—shed tears, but Socrates rebukes them. Then, as the poison takes effect, Socrates leaves his final words to Crito. “We owe Asclepius a rooster. Pay that debt for me.”
Regarding the rooster, some interpreters suggest that Socrates was offering a gift of gratitude to Asclepius, the god of medicine, for freeing him from the illness of life. Furthermore, the rooster was a sacrificial offering to the Egyptian god Anubis (the guide who leads the souls of the dead to the underworld, corresponding to the Greek god Hermes). If so, offering a rooster to the gods could be an expression of gratitude that his soul is about to enter the realm of the gods.
Meanwhile, in the early part of the ‘Phaedo’, Socrates introduces himself as a prophet; in ancient society, prophesying on the verge of death was understood as a prophecy regarding the death of another person. Therefore, it may be that Socrates is both expressing gratitude that his own soul is about to be liberated from the body and prophesying that his companions will eventually experience the same! If so, it would be only natural for his companions to offer gifts of gratitude to the gods.
Reading Reflections
“Oh, Echecrates! I have often marveled at Socrates. But I have never respected him more than I do now. It was not at all surprising that he had a response to offer, but it was truly astonishing that he willingly, kindly, and courteously engaged with the young men’s arguments. He keenly grasped the impact the young men’s arguments had on us, and when we were defeated in the debate and fleeing in disarray, he healed and restored us. Then he encouraged us to follow him and examine the arguments together.”
The ‘Phaedo’ begins with the word “-self (autos).” Echecrates is asking Phaedo whether he himself was present when Socrates died. This question evolves into a discussion of what exactly constitutes “-self” or “-itself.” In response, Socrates states that the element that defines a person’s identity is the soul, while the element that defines the identity of things is the Idea.
Meanwhile, the fact that Phaedo was a freed slave raises the question of whether we, too, are those who have been liberated from the shackles of the body that bind us. Socrates’ exhortation to care for the soul may sound like an overly old-fashioned tale to today’s readers. However, Socrates’ passion—which he demonstrated through his own life right up until his death, showing what constitutes a good life and how one should bring one’s life to a close—prompts us today to reconsider not only well-being but also the concept of “dying well.”
Socrates engaged in intense debates with his colleagues right up until his death, and even when his interlocutors presented arguments contrary to his own, he responded willingly, kindly, and respectfully rather than taking offense. Through this book, I hope readers will learn from Socrates’ spirit of logos and his spirit of tolerance.
