Fascinant este discursul lui Socrate cu privire la filosofie ca exercițiul al trecerii în neființă. Prin asocierea plăcerii cu durere și având în vizor eliberarea sufletului de metempsihoză, mi s-a părut foarte aproape de mentalitatea budistă. În schimb, argumentele pentru nemurirea sufletului le-am găsit truncheate: teoria contrariilor pretinde că subiectul transformării e același (sufletul), pe când teoria reminiscenței e incompletă fără o cosmogonie (ok, cunoașterea-i o reamintite din viețile trecute, dar cum am dobândit-o în prima viață?)

محاورة "فيدون" - او: في خلود النفس - تنتمي إلى مرحلة "نضج" أفلاطون، ولكن في رأي المترجم وأستاذ الفلسفة الدكتور عزت قرني في مقاله النقدي بنهاية الكتاب، فإن هذه المحاورة بعيدة عن أن تكون من الأعمال "المعتمدة" لأفلاطون، بمعنى أنها لا تحتوي على رأيه النهائي في القضية التي يناقشها، بل إن أسلوبها يميل أكثر إلى البحث والتأمل والشك أكثر من ان تكون ذات رأي قاطع في خلود النفس. أما أراؤه القاطعة فيفترض أن نجدها في محاورات "الجمهورية" و"فايدروس"و"المأدبة". وبالرغم من ذلك فهذه المحاورة تحتوي على أوضح تفسير لرأي أفلاطون في نظرية المُثُل وهي الأساس في فكره الفلسفي.

لا يظهر أفلاطون بشخصه في أي من محاوراته، وهو ينسب آراءه كلها إلى أستاذه سقراط بطل هذه المحاورات. في المحاورات الأولى (مثلا: يوثيفرو والدفاع وكريتو، وهي المحاورات الثلاثة التي ترجمها عزت قرني تحت عنوان "محاكمة سقراط") يظهر سقراط التاريخي كما نعرفه بأسلوبه الساخر وتركيزه على تعريف وتحديد المفاهيم في أذهان من يحاورهم. أما محاورة فيدون، فرغم انها تحكي عن الساعات الأخيرة لسقراط في سجنه قبل إعدامه بشرب السم، إلا أن أسلوب ومحتوى المحاورة يختلف كثيرا عن فلسفة سقراط البسيطة والعملية.
وهناك شيء مثير للسخرية قليلا في هذه المحاورة، فسقراط هو الذي يتكلم تقريبا طوال الوقت، ثم يسأل "محاوريه" من حين ﻵخر إن كانوا يتفقون معه، وفي أغلب الأحيان لا نجد منهم إلا عبارات الموافقة التامة بدون أي تعليق، أي أن الشكل الظاهري للمحاورة ما هو إلا فرصة لعرض آراء أفلاطون

في المحاورة هناك أربع براهين على خلود النفس، تدور أساسا حول نظرية المُثُل وحول نظرية التذكر لدى أفلاطون : أن النفس تدرك الشيء المحسوس من خلال "مثال" لهذا الشيء في ذهنها، وهذا المثال لا يعتمد على الحواس الجسدية، وبالتالي فالنفس "تعرف" هذه المثال لأنها قبل دخولها في الجسد كانت تعيش إلى جوار الآلهة وترى هذه المُثُل بوضوح لأنها كانت غير مقيدة بقيود الجسد والحواس. وعندما تدخل النفس إلى الجسد فإنها "تتذكر" هذه المُثُل التي تدرك الأشياء المحسوسة عن طريقها.

وعندما يعترض أحد الحضور على أن هذا يمكن أن يثبت فقط وجود النفس قبل الميلاد ولكنه لا يثبت خلودها بعد الموت، يظهر برهان آخر: فالنفس "بسيطة" وليست مركبة مثل الأشياء المادية، ذلك لأنها تستطيع أن تعرف المُثُ��، ومادامت المُثُل بسيطة غير مركبة، ومادام الشبيه يعرف الشبيه، فإن النفس بسيطة أيضا غير مركبة، والبسيط لا يمكن ان يتحلل أو يتفكك إلى ما هو أبسط منه، فالنفس إذن خالدة

يقدم المترجم للمحاورة بمقدمة طويلة، ويختمها بمقالة نقدية كتبها بالفرنسية وترجمها بنفسه. ويلاحظ الدكتور عزت قرني أن أفلاطون بالرغم من تأكيده المستمر على دور العقل في الوصول إلى حلول فلسفية، فإنه يتحدث عن خلود "النفس" بدون أن يحدد ما هي هذه النفس بالضبط وما هي طبيعتها.
وفي نهاية الكتاب مقالة نقدية أخرى لمفكر فرنسي هو جورج رودييه يحلل فيها براهين خلود النفس الأربعة، وفي رايه أن البرهان الثالث على خلود النفس -أن النفس خالدة لأنها من نفس طبيعة المُثُل الخالدة - هو أهم هذه البراهين.

كتاب مهم للمهتمين بالفلسفة الكلاسيكية اليونانية، والمحاورة بصرف النظر عن محتواها الفلسفي تعتبر من الكتابات الأدبية الرفيعة في الأدب الإغريقي الكلاسيكي

Philosophy liberates us from the cave/prison by converting our care, from the seeming bodies towards incorporeal reality.

The Phaedo is the fourth and last dialogue in Plato's first tetralogy, which is on the subject of "What should be the life of the philosopher?", as Diogenes said. This dialogue is also the culmination of the inquiry into piety that started in the Euthyphro.

1. In the Euthyphro we learned that piety has to do with serving the gods, but not in a master/slave relationship as the seer mistakenly accepts. What "work", Socrates asks, is produced by the service—or might we even say "commerce"—between man and divinity?

2. In the Apology, Socrates shows himself to be the pious man, as he heeds the mission given to him by his divine sign, hence serving/working with the gods. The theanthropic work produced is what Socrates provocatively calls "the greatest good Athens has ever known": the conversion of people's care for their bodies towards the care for their souls.

3. In Crito, we learn that we should not escape prison (the body). Socrates must accept suffering injustice in the body if he wants to remain consistent with his mission to "care more for the soul than the body." The physical prison is shown to be irrelevant. "The most important is not to live, but to live well".

4. In Phaedo, it is the end of the philosophical or pious life that is revealed, or in other words, what the man who lives such a life can hope for. Philosophy is uncovered to be the art of dying, as knowledge requires a separation from the body and its cares. The philosopher liberates people from their incorporeal prison, from the chains that worldly cares put on their souls. The interlude on misology links it with misanthropy: the hate of man precedes the hate of logos. If Athens hated philosophy, reason, and put to death its foremost icon, it is because they were deceived, through their care for worldly things, by the false promises of the sophists whom they hated first.

Socrates, that most comedic man, suffers a tragic end, which he sought to live out joyfully, as the swan (84e-85a) sings melodiously on the day of its death, knowing that it will join the god whose pious servant he is.

Contrary to The Symposium and The Republic, this book is as dull as a dishwasher. The most exciting part of the book for me was the abstract distinctions of 1 plus 1. Or as Socrates [allegedly] describes, when 'one' approaches another 'one'. The book is describing the last conversation of Socrates with his students, yet Plato admits that he wasn't there. Therefore the whole thing is a second-hand description of the event by Phaidon to Echecrates.

When I was reading the book, I thought to myself, that either Socrates had cabbage students or at that time the smart people were as smart as cabbages.

In this book, Plato -as the founder of philosophy- is indirectly showing us how philosophy has the 'essence' of religion in it. Half of the book is stuck in the binary of 'body and soul'. The soul is 'old'; meaning that it exists before we are born. It is through 'recollection' that we learn the things that we have already learned in the previous life. We see a similar idea later in the Sufi philosophy, where the human soul is seen as something preexisting and old (قدیم).

The book also reveals the inherent racism of the early philosophers. For example when Socrates tells Cebes: “'if one of your own possessions, your slave, should kill himself, without your indicating to him that you wanted him to die, you would be angry with him, and punish him if there were any punishment?'
“Certainly,” said he."

Socrates wanted to establish a hierarchic way of categorization in which people could rank who is the wisest, or at least to find out who is wiser than someone else. In this process, he had to verbally challenge people with a sporty mentality and using an inductive reasoning method.
However, in this book, the ultimate goal of Plato was to establish philosophy or 'love of wisdom' as a better and more valuable replacement for the dominant political ideas of the time, which was hostage to the Greek Hellenic religions. He is giving a semi-alternative for the idea of the afterlife, death, incarnation, and immortality of the soul. The Philosopher's job is to free the body from the soul. The philosophy here is presented as some sort of spiritual savior, a better way to buy afterlife for yourself.

Η βαθμολόγηση είναι για το κείμενο (περί της αθανασίας της ψυχής), που κατά την γνώμη μου είναι ένα από τα καλύτερα (αν και δύσκολο στην κατανόηση) έργο του Πλάτωνα.
Δυστυχώς το διάβασα από την μετάφραση του Ι.Πετράκη (Εστία) που είναι πολύ 'ακαδημαϊκή', δηλαδή δίνει μεγαλύτερο βάρος στην πιστότητα της μεταφοράς (σχεδόν κατά λέξη) και λιγότερο στη ροή και στην ζωντάνια του κειμένου, που για μένα είναι το ζητούμενο, με αποτέλεσμα ένα δύσκολο κείμενο να γίνεται εντελώς δυσνόητο και σε αναγκάζει να το ξαναδιαβάσεις πολλές φορές για να το κατανοήσεις.... Το ίδιο ισχύει και για τα σχόλια, που χαρακτηρίζονται μεν από την ακρίβεια τους αλλά είναι πολύ λεπτομερή και αναλυτικά για τον μέσο αναγνώστη.
πχ: "Μου φαίνεται δηλαδή ότι εφ' όσον υπάρχει κάποιο όμορφο πλάι στο όμορφο καθεαυτό, αυτό είναι όμορφο για κανέναν άλλο λόγο παρά μόνο επειδή μετέχει σε εκείνο το όμορφο."

You've recently been condemned to be executed by poison for corrupting the youth. What would you do? If you're Socrates you kick out your grieving wife and child from your cell so you can chat philosophy with the boys for the last time.
Socrates claims that death is not only nothing to fear for a philosopher but should even be embraced. The boys find this rather puzzling so Socrates explains his reasoning and comes up with a proof for the immortality of the soul in the process. Lots of Plato's ideas are spelled out in some detail in this dialogue: True knowledge can only be attained by the mind and not via sensory experience, Platonic ideals and forms, the soul's immortality, "knowledge is recollection" and his omnipresent appeal to live a life in pursuit of truth and justice.
And it ends with some science fiction about how we actually live in a large cave inside the real earth, rather than on its real surface. 5/5

read this for a philosophy course im currently watching !

Ottima lettura!!
E' un opera che va letta assolutamente,soprattutto per l'effetto ottenuto.Ti lascia con il pensiaro che corre.
Non è assolutamente un libro sulla morte,come si può pensare,ma affronta altri temi che oggi non hanno proprio risposte certe.Ho deciso inoltre che Socrate è un bel personaggio... ;-)

Phaedo would have been much easier to understand if he communicated with someone who had more brain capacity than a chestnut.

In summary:
Socrates: Bla bla bla!
Cebes and Simmias: But why do you think that!?
Socrates: Poop bla bla bla!
Cebes and Simmias: Oh.....but what about goop de floop?
Socrates: No! No goop de floop! Poop bla bla bla!
Cebes and Simmas: Oh.... okay.
Socrates: Do you understand?
Cebes and Simmas: No...we don't want to offend you because you're about to die.
Socrates: I WANT to talk about this.
Cebes and Simmas: Well....if you're sure...
Socrates: I love talking about this!!! Poop bla bla bla!
Cebes and Simmas: Ok.........
Cebes and Simmas (aside): I don't understand him.... Socrates, who can we talk to about this when you die?

No wonder Socrates thought death was a cure for life.

"Such was the end of our comrade...a man who, we must say, was of all those we have known the best, and also the wisest and the most upright."

[March, 2013]

The grand finale of the wise man of Athens. This was Plato's account of Socrates last hours before his death. One has to say that while the Apology is the most "pop-friendly" of the Socratic dialogues, Phaedo is the greatest, personal, and most human of them all.

We are taught two things in this dialogue that have both set the tone of western philosophy (I think) to this very day. We learn what the ultimate goal of philosophy is and in learning that we are introduced to Plato's Theory of the Forms. I believe, as others said, that all philosophers in the western school have basically responded to one or the other. I won't get into an in-depth explanation of the philosophy for like Socrates I know my limits and I would never be able to do it quite the bit of justice it deserves.

Now what is the goal of philosophy according to Socrates [and /or Plato]...preparing oneself for death. This had been strongly implied by Socrates during his trial in Athens but here it is the prime subject.

"...the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death."

This explains his calmness and pleasantness at his imminent demise; his almost annoying bewilderment at his friends and family's grief. This also sets up the dialogue of why he has nothing to fear as he will be moving to a much better state of being and we see him spending the remainder of the dialogue trying to convince every one that he will be fine as he lived his life the right way (practicing philosophy) so he will go to the underworld and live with "the God". During the conversation he explains the immortality of the soul, the world of the Forms and why said Forms are eternal. I'm not gonna try to explain it all but one is always marveled at the Socratic questioning method and it is on good display here.

I did have one thought that occurred to me, though I am not really troubled by it. In Apology, Socrates said that he started undertaking philosophy when the Oracle at Delphi said he was the wisest man in all of Athens. He disputed that and devoted his life to finding someone smarter than him. I simply wonder when it donned on him that philosophy was "practice for dying and death." I wish that had been explained.

Another thing of significance is Socrates (or Plato) prefiguring Immanuel Kant in the theory of the "ding an sich" or thing-in-itself. As he says, "When then, does the soul grasp the truth? For whenever it attempts to examine anything with the body, it is clearly deceived." He is more direct (and Kantian) when he says, "if we are ever to have pure knowledge we must escape from the soul and observe things in themselves with the soul by itself." Wow you can't get any pre-Kantian than that. So you see that this is my favorite Socratic dialogue because of its prophesying of aspects of Kant and existential philosophy.

I will definitely be reading this over again for years to come until "the God" says otherwise.

This was read as a part of The Trial and Death of Socrates.

¡Por Zeus! Este es el último -y más impactante- diálogo socrático de Platón. Sócrates está en su celda, después de haber sido condenado a beber cicuta, y les da sus motivos a sus pupilos para haber elegido cumplir su sentencia, es decir, la muerte, y no escapar o apelar. Fedón es el nombre de uno de sus pupilos, quien fue testigo directo de sus últimos momentos y sus últimas palabras. Platón no estuvo porque al parecer cayó enfermo, pero transcribe lo que Fedón le contó. A pesar de ser una de las mayores muestras de la lógica y Mayéutica socráticas, en realidad se trata de la búsqueda de un aliciente para sus discipulos: quiere darles la tranquilidad de que irá a un lugar mejor, y de que el alma existe y es indestructible. Estos son los orígenes del pensamiento platónico: la relación entre cuerpo y alma, y también las bases del pensamiento occidental (incluido el Cristianismo). Pero a diferencia de este último, Sócrates plantea la posibilidad de la reencarnación en repetidas ocasiones hasta que esa alma se gasta y perece con el cuerpo. No obstante, precisa que el objetivo de la virtud, de perseguir el bien, lo bello y lo bueno es justamente evitar que esa alma perezca y que así ascienda a otro plano, siendo indestructible. Por ello insta a sus pupilos a obrar siempre en el bien para purificar su alma y alcanzar la inmortalidad. Según dialogan, quienes han estado demasiado carnalizados en su vida, es decir, se han dejado llevar por los placeres y pasiones, sufren una especie de fusión de alma y cuerpo: su alma se encarna y perece con el cuerpo cuando éste muere. Todo esto suena fabulístico a día de hoy, pero en realidad estamos frente a un momento histórico en el pensamiento y la ciencia: Sócrates y sus pupilos se preguntan por el origen de las cosas: de la vida, del hombre, de la existencia misma. Tratan de buscar el origen de todo: si es la esencia misma de las cosas o es el pensamiento (o la mente) la que crea la realidad. Por más que Sócrates suene seguro de lo que dice, la verdad deja entrever que no lo sabe a ciencia cierta. Es más, como a la mitad del libro deja abierta la posibilidad de que no haya nada más allá de la muerte: ni alma, ni Hades, ni reencarnaciones. Pero, luego continúa con su discurso de esperanza, lo cual, deja intuir que lo hacía más por la tranquilidad de sus pupilos que por conocimiento verdadero. Y es que la única manera de saberlo era muriendo... Sin embargo, el final es una recreación narrada del Hades, en la que cita a Homero y La odisea, y trata de dejar a sus discípulos con el encargo de hacer el bien para alcanzar esa especie de "paraíso del filósofo" que se supone habrá en el Hades. Sí, para Sócrates eran los filósofos que obraran en la virtud los que alcanzarían este lugar. Finalmente, la narración se torna algo triste, Sócrates debe beber el veneno, sacan a sus familiares, mujeres y niños, y se quedan sus pupilos, quienes lloran desconsoladamente, pero callan cuando éste les dice que precisamente ha mandado a sacar a las mujeres y niños para no ver esas escenas. Ahora, pese a toda la tragedia final (aunque se describe una muerte dulce), queda espacio para el humor (no se sabe si así pasó, fue invento de Fedón o cosecha de Platón). Contrario a lo que se pudiese pensar en un momento tan solemne, las últimas palabras de Sócrates fueron: "Eh Critón, recuerda que le debemos un gallo a Asclepio"... También podría pensarse que fue puesto para que se recordase lo justo y recto que fue hasta el final, pero prefiero la idea del chascarrillo.

a good post-election read lmaooooo (also continuing the Myth of Sisyphus / Norris death thoughts). finished @ 9 am @ ian’s first wrestling tournament of the year.



feels apt for this time / coming generation of superfluity of information & opinions with no training on how to interact with those concepts. Misologists:

“Well, isn't it an ugly thing, and isn't it clear that such a person was setting about handling human beings, without any skill in human relations? Because if one handled them with skill one would surely have recognized the truth, that extremely good and bad people are both very few in number, and the majority lie in between.”

…. yet owing to association with arguments of the
sort that seem now true and now false, one blamed neither oneself nor one's own lack of skill, but finally relieved one's distress by shifting the blame from oneself to arguments, and then finished out the rest of one's life hating and abusing arguments, and was deprived both of the truth and of knowledge of realities.'


Goodness, that certainly would be pitiful,' I said


'Then let's guard against that first, and let's not admit e into our soul the thought that there's probably nothing sound in arguments; but let's far rather admit that were not yet sound ourselves, but must strive manfully to
become sound.“