Let us first take for instance the notion that the body is a prison for the soul. That is explicitly a Pythagorean ideal. Also in this dialogue the play on contraries is also a Pythagorean geared argument. The focus on Pythagorean ideals is also important considering the narrator, Phaedo, is also a Pythagorean. Without understanding this, the bias of the narration would be missed entirely.
The dialogue is not so much Socrates telling Simmias and Cebes what actually happens to the human soul, but is more of an attempt to calm them and to make his last moments alive pleasant. The Pythagorean approach which is heavily based on mathematics (body + soul = life) will not prepare someone to handle their own death. Socrates is explicit about this in his allusion to the second sailing. Even if one views death as the separation of the soul from the body, it will do little good to explain what actually happens. Actual life is not like an equation where once a body and soul are split, they can simply be brought back to life by the addition of them again.
The arguement isn't that Socrates is defending the immortality of the soul. The argument is that Socrates is trying to console Simmias and Cebes who would be devastated to think that the soul dissolves at death. The dialectical argument is geared towards Simmias and Cebes who have a way of understanding the world that will not explain death. Socrates is not teaching Simmias and Cebes about the immortality of the soul. Instead, Socrates is teaching Simmias and Cebes how to die, which they ultimately will have to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment