Phaedo is widely, and rightly, considered to be one of Plato’s masterpieces. Here we witness the noble death of Socrates, perhaps the most iconic moment in the history of philosophy. As any proper philosopher should, Socrates dies in discourse, reasoning up until the very end. The subject of his arguments is, appropriately, what happens after death. By now we no longer find the skeptical Socrates of the early dialogues; here he is propounding the Platonic theory of forms. Plato's hatred of the real and love of the ideal leads him to conclude that the soul escapes the corrupting body into the pure understanding of ideas. Immortality is the natural conclusion. And with that comforting thought, Socrates drinks the poison and passes, if not into actual immortality, into the closest literary approximation.

Several things are likely to strike the modern reader. As in many Platonic dialogues, the arguments employed by Socrates can seem absurdly flimsy and faulty. Thus it is frustrating when Socrates’ interlocutors inevitably agree with his conclusions; surely real people would be able to see through these bad arguments. However, we have had a long time to develop our logical faculties, in large part thanks to the tradition initiated by Plato; so the occasional sycophantic tone we detect may have sounded quite differently not so long ago. Another striking aspect of Plato’s middle dialogues—and this one in particular—is the strong resemblance their theories have with Christian doctrine. This is no coincidence, of course, since Platonism was a strong influence on the early religion. Consequently, to a later-day reader in a Christian world this dialogue must have seemed eerily prescient and pious for a pagan writer.

As masterful as is this dialogue, in the context of Plato’s preceding dialogues it is quite discordant with Plato’s characterization of Socrates. The philosopher is transformed from a skeptic into a mystic, and even ends the dialogue with a description of the world beyond. And it must be said that convincing oneself that there is life after death is not, perhaps, the most philosophical way of facing death. But who knows what Socrates actually did and said that day? Plato himself admits that he was not present.

Diskusie Sokrata s jeho učeníkmi v deň jeho smrti. Obsahuje 4 argumenty pre nesmrteľnosť duše a mnohé ďalšie myšlienky.

Kind of a grab-bag of genres: philosophical dialogue, theosophical and theological discursion, geographical thesis, dramatic tragedy. The literary aspects here are great, but the philosophy is crippled by the mindset of its day: "I am assuming the existence of an absolute beauty and goodness and magnitude and all the rest of them. If you grant my assumption and admit they exist...". A simple 'No' from the typically sycophantic Platonic bobbleheads that make up Socrates's death-entourage would have derailed the whole thing. Socrates does, granted his assumption, of course deliver his promise and proves, among other things, that the soul is immortal. He then he describes the Oceans of Fun that is the afterlife, with souls whipped by rivers and streams down into Tartarus or to a rough equivalent of purgatory, back to earth's surface or even above it. This is where the most holy find themselves, and where, Socrates implies, he expects himself to arrive. The whole thing smacks of a certain smugness that seriously undercuts the scene, and undercuts Socrates as a great and humble man devoted to learning for its own sake, or to create better lives. Socrates dies a good and noble death not because he's stolid, or out of a Stoic "it is as it is" kind of mentality, or out of a duty to die well, but because he expects a reward, or at the very least continued life in some form. If he were convinced that he was going to simply not exist in any form, that he was going to undergo total and irrevocable ego death, it would be interesting what his attitude, and actions, would be.

Socrates spends his last hours cheerfully comforting some of his students by leading them through a process of intellectual inquiry intended to establish that we need not fear death, because the soul is immortal and its natural state is unhoused of the body. In this state, the final nature of reality will be perceived and understood, at least for a time, before the soul returns to life in a (never-ending?) cycle of birth and death. I observe many striking parallels with the depiction of the Buddha's final hours in the Mahaparinibannasutta.

"Phaedo" has rightly been called a locus classicus for many of the dualities that have underpinned much of western thinking since it was first set down, such as mind/matter, body/soul, intellect/emotion, and, I would certainly add, male/female - one of the most dramatically significant moments of the dialog is when Socrates sends his weeping wife Xanthippe out of the room.

In this sense, this dialog shows us the Socrates excoriated by Nietzsche, who suggested in Beyond Good and Evil that we ask if he did not perhaps deserve the hemlock. Socrates' philosophy exemplifies what Hegel diagnosed as the most pernicious and inevitable outgrowth of subject/object dualism - the "inverted word," which views the actual world as unreal and insists that phantoms of the intellect are the only things that truly exist.

Certainly it is easy to feel a snarky contempt for the obvious deficiencies of Plato's writings, as though he, like us, had read Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein, and should be judged accordingly. Such a reading is largely a confession of one's own inability to get hold of the underlying ideas and to understand their role in the long history of European ideas.

For readers tempted to dismiss the "By Zeus, it is so," formalism of these dialogs, I urge that you focus not on the words, but on the meaning of the words. For myself, I can say that although I agree with Plato on pretty much nothing, very few philosophers have so completely shaken up my worldview as this towering figure, and I find him very much worth the effort.

Thank goodness Plato idealized Socrates so much otherwise so much about him would have been lost. I kind of put off reading this one because I knew that it dealt with death and the human soul, which is a subject that hangs over my head on occasion. Big mistake! This was as wonderful as Plato's other works, I always give Socrates this kind of saucy attitude in my mind, he is so quick! I wonder how much of this was actually said or what just carried over from other discussions with Socrates during his lifetime. I actually found a lot of relief at the onset of the great ending, if a man like Socrates can go down in this style (ok so poison is not terribly heroic, but at least he had a lot of great last lines) then maybe I shouldn't be so afraid as well. Wonderful dialogues on the soul, absolutely wonderful.

This book is a dialogue between Socrates and his colleagues on the day he dies.
Is the soul immortal? Does the soul survive the death of the body? This is the main subject of the dialogue. It is surprisingly easy to read and try to understand. I found it quite entertaining.

Socrates died with quiet dignity. He was sentenced to drink a fatal dose of hemlock before nightfall. But first, he spent the day with friends and family discussing philosophy. PHAEDO is Plato’s account of that day.

In PHAEDO, Plato recounts Socrates’ arguments for the immortality of the soul. These arguments are not impressive to modern readers. We easily see flaws in Socrates’ logic. This begs the question, did Socrates genuinely believe his arguments for the existence of the soul? Or was there another motive for sharing these arguments with his family and friends?

His first argument is drawn from the ancient belief among Greeks that souls reside in Hades after death. This is a confusing argument that seems to reduce to an assertion that death does not annihilate the soul. This must be so, reasons Socrates, because souls cannot be created from nothing and, therefore, must be cycled over again or eventually nature’s supply of souls would be exhausted.

The second is Socrates’ argument from reminiscence. Since knowledge preexists us (as in the case of arithmetic or abstractions such as beauty), our souls must have lived before. How else could that knowledge already reside in our understanding?

His third argument begins as a refutation. Socrates refutes the assertion that upon death, the soul is dissipated by the wind. He argues that to dissipate, a soul would have to be divisible into smaller constituent parts. But souls are indivisible.

Socrates also demonstrates that the analogy to a lyre is false. The soul is not like harmony produced by a lyre that cannot be attained ever again after the lyre is destroyed.

Socrates then responds to the objection that souls may wear out over time. Wherever the soul is found, argues Socrates, there is life. Contraries cannot co-exist in the same thing. Therefore, the soul cannot admit of death. And that which does not admit of death is immortal. Accordingly, a soul is immortal.

Having demonstrated that the soul is immortal, Socrates also wants to demonstrate that the immortality of the soul implies that there is a duty upon a man to Live virtuously so that his soul will reside in a good place after his death. Socrates attempts to demonstrate this by imagining the various regions of the underworld to which good and bad souls go after death. The souls of the virtuous go to pleasant regions.

Socrates bathes, dismisses the women and children and, though it is early, he drinks the poison. He declines to delay further because he is ready and it would be undignified to quibble or wait any longer. Socrates remains present and engaged in life, including until the very moment before death, when he reminds a friend to repay a small household debt for him.

And thus, Socrates dies in a fashion plainly intended to be exemplary for philosophers.

It is a seminal moment in the western canon comparable even to the passing of Jesus. Everyone should read PHAEDO.

U ovom dijalogu u dijalogu, Fedon prepričava Sokratov poslednji dan, nekoliko sati pre nego što će popiti otrov. Platon nije tamo ("mislim da je bio bolestan"), što daje misliti. Možda imamo pred sobom prvog nepouzdanog pripovedača u istoriji književnosti?

Vraćamo se ovde teoriji formi i teoriji sećanja ("učenje nije saznavanje ničeg novog, već samo sećanje na ono što već znamo", ponavlja iz Menona). Ali ipak, "filozofija je priprema za smrt", tako da se najduže zadržavamo na postojanju i besmrtnosti duše.

Telo nakon smrti truli i kroz zemlju polako postaje deo drugih tela, ali duša ne. Duša ode na neko drugo mesto, a odatle u Had. Pa kasnije uđe u drugo telo.

Neki argumenti su ovde poprilično loši ("ne može biti da sve samo umire, mora nešto i da oživljava"), a Sokrat bitno menja svoje mišljenje o besmrtnosti. Na svom suđenju u Odbrana Sokratova, kaže da se ne treba plašiti smrti, jer smrt je sigurno jedna od dve stvari. Možda je to samo san bez snova, potpuno miran, a takav san je najbolji. Ako ne, onda je smrt prelazak duše na neko drugo mesto, gde ćemo sresti jako interesantne ljude. Kako god okreneš, nije loše. U Fedonu zaboravlja na san i insistira na besmrtnosti duše. Da li to čini blizina smrti? Da li pod stare dane svi postajemo vernici?

Platon generalno, a pogotovo Fedon, je imao ogroman uticaj na hrišćanstvo. Duša u hrišćanstvu nije postojala sve dok se Toma Akvinski nije oduševio Platonom i postavio dušu u centar hrišćanske dogme (usput zaboravio na reinkarnaciju). Gledajući tako, ovo je verovatno i Platonovo najuticajnije delo. Ja bih rekao, ne i najbolje.

Tiene ideas interesantes aunque no me convence mucho lo propuesto. Al menos, no del todo.

Far from being abstract speculation, this dialogue is immediately relevant to us all, as Socrates winsomely argues for the immortality of the soul on the day that he knows he is to die. It fills me with the desire to attain wisdom and virtue through practicing philosophy--the true philosophy, Christianity--so that I too can die well.

One of the greatest books i ever read.
Its an account of Socrates on his last days, giving lessons to his students about the soul, the end of life and the importance of seeking wisdom and philosophy to one's soul.
Simply, an amazing teacher.

Platons Phaidon gehört zu den bedeutendsten Werken der Philosophie und behandelt die Frage nach der Unsterblichkeit der Seele in einem packenden Dialog, der die letzten Stunden von Sokrates schildert. Mit einer Mischung aus philosophischem Tiefgang und poetischer Sprache diskutiert Sokrates mit seinen Schülern über die Natur der Seele, ihre Beziehung zum Körper und die Möglichkeit eines Weiterlebens nach dem Tod.

Besonders beeindruckend ist, wie Platon abstrakte Gedanken durch lebendige Dialoge vermittelt. Argumente wie das der Gegensätze, das Erinnerungsargument oder die Einfachheit der Seele regen zum Nachdenken an und machen das Werk zeitlos relevant. Phaidon ist dabei mehr als reine Philosophie – es ist eine Meditation über Leben, Tod und Tugend, die Herz und Verstand gleichermaßen anspricht.

Das Werk erfordert allerdings Konzentration, da die Argumente anspruchsvoll und die Perspektive stark von Platons eigenen Überzeugungen geprägt ist. Trotzdem mindert dies nicht die Bedeutung des Textes, der sich an alle richtet, die sich mit den großen Fragen des Lebens befassen möchten.

ein Meisterwerk der Philosophie und ein zeitloser Klassiker.