Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Phaedo, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Immortality, the Body, and the Soul
Knowledge and Wisdom
Existence, Reality, and the Forms
Intellectual Inquiry, Discussions, and Friendship
Summary
Analysis
On his way back to Elis after witnessing Socrates’s execution in Athens, Phaedo encounters Echecrates, who asks him to repeat what Socrates said before his death. He also wants to know why Socrates wasn’t executed right away, bur rather spent time in prison awaiting his fate. In response, Phaedo explains that the Athenians have “vowed” to Apollo that they will send a ship to Delos and back every year. Until this “mission” is complete, Phaedo says, the city forbids any execution. The journey began the day before Socrates’s trial, so the officials had to wait to execute him. Phaedo then tells Echecrates that even though he was “witnessing the death” of his friend, he “had no feeling of pity,” since Socrates seemed content and ready to die a “noble” death. In keeping with the way he lived, he spent the final hours of his life in “philosophical discussion.”
The conversation that takes place between Phaedo and Echecrates in this opening scene sets the stage for Socrates’s final dialogue. The fact that Echecrates is so curious about what happened is a testament to Socrates’s influence in Greece, as philosophers yearn to know not only about the particulars of his death, but about his final thoughts. As such, Phaedo himself becomes a mouthpiece for the revered philosopher’s last words. In this initial exchange, readers learn that Socrates has been in prison for quite some time, meaning he’s had ample time to carry out philosophical discussions with his peers, who visit him regularly. What’s more, the personal drama of this dialogue comes to the forefront of the text, as Phaedo mentions his relationship with Socrates—a reminder that Phaedo and his fellow philosophers have just lost a confidante, mentor, and friend.
Themes
Phaedo begins his account of Socrates’s final hours. Along with a group of friends—including Crito, Cebes, and Simmias—he spends time in Socrates’s cell. Plato, he notes, is absent because he’s “ill.” Phaedo and his friends have gotten used to visiting Socrates, but on this particular morning they’re informed that he’ll be executed. Entering his cell, they find his wife crying next to him while holding their baby, though Socrates sends her away. He has recently been freed from his “bonds,” so he rubs his wrists and notes that Aesop (the famous fable writer) should have written about the relationship between pleasure and pain. This comment reminds Cebes that the poet Evenus wanted him to ask Socrates why he started writing poetry in this late stage of life, and Socrates says that it’s because a god told him in a dream to “practice and cultivate the arts.”
When Phaedo says that Plato was absent for Socrates’s final hours, readers understand that this account may not be very historically accurate, since Plato—the author himself—wasn’t actually present for the exchange. By highlighting this, Plato gives himself license to infuse the dialogue with some of his own philosophical ideas. This sheds light on some of the discrepancies between what Socrates says in Phaedo and what he says in other dialogues. Unlike Apology, for instance, Phaedo isn’t presented as a historical document, but rather as a somewhat fictionalized version of what happened before Socrates’s death. On another note, it’s worth mentioning that Socrates’s sudden interest in “the arts” aligns with his belief (outlined in other dialogues) in the pursuit of wisdom. Although he has spent his life thinking that philosophy is the only worthy occupation, he now decides to explore poetry as a way of accessing new kinds of knowledge.
Themes
Socrates tells Cebes to say goodbye to Evenus for him, adding, “Tell him, if he is wise, to follow me as soon as possible.” This comment strikes Simmias as strange, so he asks Socrates why he would encourage Evenus to hasten toward death. In response, Socrates says that Evenus is a philosopher and that any good philosopher should welcome death. This, however, doesn’t mean Evenus should kill himself, since this isn’t “right.” Hearing this, Cebes wonders how a philosopher can avoid suicide while also welcoming death. To answer this, Socrates asserts that it is sometimes “better” for a person “to die than to live.” However, a person doesn’t deserve to decide when he or she dies, since people are the “possessions” of the gods. Accordingly, “one should not kill oneself” unless a god shows that it is necessary to do so.
Given that this is Socrates’s final conversation, it’s unsurprising that it quickly turns to the matter of death. Socrates suggests that good philosophers ought not fear death, though they also shouldn’t kill themselves because doing so wouldn’t be “right.” His reasoning rests on the belief that people belong to the gods, a notion that underlines not only his respect for the deities, but also the ways in which he often combines philosophical logic with spiritual belief—a tendency that will bring itself to bear on the arguments he makes throughout Phaedo.
Themes
Cebes agrees with Socrates’s point about suicide, but has trouble accepting the idea that a philosopher should embrace death. After all, if the gods are wise “masters” of humans, it would be foolish for a person to want to leave their care. Instead, Cebes says, intelligent philosophers ought to “resent dying.” After Cebes makes this point, Simmias chimes in, saying that this issue is relevant to Socrates’s current situation, since he is apparently so untroubled by his coming death. Addressing this, Socrates says that he believes he’ll encounter an even “better future” when he dies, a future in which he’ll encounter more “wise and good gods” and humans who are even “better” than the ones that exist the realm of the living.
To assure his friends that he has nothing to fear, Socrates suggests that his death isn’t as final as they might think. Rather than leaving the care of the gods, he believes he’ll actually be getting closer to these benevolent “masters,” ultimately implying that his existence isn’t coming to an end. What’s interesting about this idea is that it differs from the argument he sets forth in Apology. In both cases, he states that people shouldn’t fear death, but in Apology he says that to fear death is to make an unfounded assumption about the afterlife. According to this line of thinking, fearing death is like thinking oneself wise when one is not. Now, though, Socrates doesn’t hold back from speculation. This slight discrepancy is an indicator that Plato has infused Phaedo with some of his own ideas about the afterlife.
Themes
Get the entire Phaedo LitChart as a printable PDF.
Simmias asks Socrates to explain why, exactly, he thinks a “better future” awaits him after death. Before he answers this, though, Socrates asks Crito what’s troubling him, and his friend says that the man mixing the poison for Socrates’s execution told him to inform Socrates that he shouldn’t talk too much. This, he claims, is because “people get heated when they talk,” and this decreases the efficacy of the poison, making it necessary for the condemned to drink extra portions. Casting this worry aside, Socrates insists that he doesn’t mind having to drink the hemlock two or three times, saying that what he really wants is to focus on answering Simmias’s question about the afterlife.
Socrates’s lack of concern regarding his physical well-being is indicative of his philosophical beliefs. Above all, he wants to pursue the process of intellectual inquiry, casting aside all worry regarding his death. Of course, he will no doubt be in much more physical pain if he has to drink multiple servings of hemlock, but this doesn’t matter to him because he doesn’t care about such superficial matters. This moment foreshadows Socrates’s beliefs regarding the difference between the body and the soul.
Themes
Turning to Simmias and Cebes, Socrates says that “the one aim of those who practice philosophy” is to “practice for dying and death.” To explain this, he gets Simmias to agree that death is nothing but “the separation of the soul from the body.” He then says that philosophers ought not to pay attention to the whims and desires of the body, since they should focus on the soul. Indeed, he upholds that the good philosopher “frees the soul from association with the body as much as possible.” This is because the physical senses are unreliable when it comes to “acquiring” wisdom or knowledge. Socrates argues that the soul only ever “grasp[s] the truth” when it acts independently of the body, “when it is most by itself” and thus uninfluenced by physical senses.
Once Socrates sets forth his belief that the body and soul are separate entities, he frames the body as inferior. This, it seems, is why he doesn’t care whether or not he has to drink multiple doses of hemlock—to him, the body is unimportant, so it means nothing to him if he has to undergo the pain of drinking more poison. What he’s really interested in, he says, is the soul, which he thinks separates itself from the body after death. As Socrates outlines this argument, he prepares to explain to his listeners why he thinks that a “better future” awaits him. Furthermore, he champions the practice of philosophy by speaking admiringly about philosophers who “practice for dying and death” by disregarding the unreliable aspects of the corporeal world.
Themes
Socrates asks Simmias to consider whether “there is such a thing as the Just itself,” or “the Beautiful,” or “the Good.” Simmias agrees that these and many other ideas exist, and Socrates adds that they capture the “reality” of what each thing “essentially is.” Going on, he posits that the best way to understand these realities is not to use the bodily senses to grasp them, but to use “pure thought alone.” This is because “the body confuses the soul and does not allow it to acquire truth and wisdom.”
As Socrates solidifies the distinctions between the soul and the body, he refers to the Forms, or the notion that there are certain ideas (like “the Beautiful” or “the Good”) that encapsulate essential “realities.” The Forms, he argues, can only be understood by the soul, not by the body, which is fickle and unreliable with its tendency to make observations based on superficial physical stimuli. Although he doesn’t fully explain the concept of Forms in this moment, this serves as a precursor to his in-depth examination of the idea, which appears later in the dialogue.
Themes
Since the body is constantly present in life, Socrates notes that only in death will philosophers be able to attain true wisdom, since the body and soul will no longer be entangled with one another. To state this another way, he says, “Either we can never attain knowledge or we can do so after death. Then and not before, the soul is by itself apart from the body.” However, he claims that humans still ought to try during life to live uninfluenced by the unreliable corporeal world. This kind of behavior, he believes, will help people “purify” themselves “until the god himself frees” them. In turn, he says that in death he’ll finally be able to “acquire” the wisdom and knowledge he’s been after for his entire life.
Socrates believes that the body and soul are separate, and he also believes that the soul disentangles itself from the body when a person dies. Furthermore, he sees this as a good thing, since he thinks the body only gets in the way of a person’s ability to “attain knowledge.” This is why he looks forward to a “better future” after death, happy that he’ll finally be able to rid himself of pesky physical distractions. At the same time, Socrates has also lived his entire life trying not to pay attention to the corporeal world, instead applying himself to philosophy and the pursuit of wisdom. In turn, he believes that he’ll be ready to finally part from the physical world when the time comes.
Themes
Socrates reiterates the fact that good philosophers try their best to separate themselves during life from their bodies in order to attain knowledge. This, he claims, is an act of “purification,” one that will only be complete when a person dies and is finally fully released from the corporeal world. In this way, practicing philosophy is like preparing for death, and it would be foolish for someone to prepare for death and then “resent it when it comes.” Consequently, he gladly embraces his imminent execution. What’s more, he welcomes death because it will enable him to pursue wisdom, which he says is the same as “true virtue.”
Again, Socrates’s reasons for embracing death become clear, as he insists that his execution will give him the opportunity to more thoroughly apply himself to philosophy and the pursuit of knowledge. Without the body to distract him, he will be “purified” and thus better able to focus on the attainment of wisdom, which he sees as an inherently virtuous task.
Themes
Socrates’s listeners now understand why he doesn’t fear death, but Cebes can’t help but voice his hesitation regarding the idea that the soul attains “true virtue” after death. He points out that most people think the soul is “destroyed” after death, “dispers[ing] like breath or smoke.” In turn, he urges Socrates to provide an argument proving that the soul doesn’t simply disappear when a person dies.
Cebes’s objection to Socrates is worth noting because it reminds readers not to simply take whatever the philosopher says at face value. Although Socrates is a meticulous debater, it’s true that he hasn’t yet sufficiently proved the immortality of the soul. Rather, he has taken it as a given that the soul exists after death, focusing instead on how the final separation from the physical world will enable him to attain true knowledge. By urging his friend to develop his argument more fully, Cebes turns the dialogue into a give-and-take discussion, pushing Socrates to more carefully outline his viewpoint and thus create a more persuasive argument.
Themes
To prove the immortality of the soul, Socrates says, “Let us examine it in some such a manner as this: whether the souls of men who have died exist in the underworld or not.” Going on, he says, “We recall an ancient theory that souls arriving [in the underworld] come from here, and then again that they arrive here and are born here from the dead.” If it is indeed the case that living souls come from the dead, he says, then it “truly appears that the living never come from any other source than from the dead.”
Socrates bases his first argument for the immortality of the soul on an old idea that the souls of people who have died “exist in the underworld.” This, of course, assumes a belief in the underworld itself, a point Socrates doesn’t challenge or feel the need to prove. Once again, then, readers see the ways in which he combines his philosophical ideas with his spiritual beliefs—beliefs that were rarely (if ever) questioned in Ancient Greece. It makes sense, then, that Socrates would use this premise as a starting point, and it’s worth noting that the logic following this assumption is sound and well-argued. As he outlines his theory, he attempts to prove not that the underworld exists, but that souls exist within it (and come back to life from it).
Themes
Cebes agrees that, by Socrates’s logic, “the living” always come from “the dead.” Taking this idea a step further, then, Socrates says that all things are this way: anything in existence comes from its opposite. For instance, something becomes “smaller” from having been “larger” before. Similarly, “the weaker comes to be from the stronger, and the swifter from the slower.” Having spelled this out, Socrates adds that two opposites come from one another by way of opposite “processes,” so that the transformation from “larger” to “smaller” happens via “decrease,” whereas the transformation from “smaller” to “larger” happens via “increase.” Using this logic, Socrates gets Cebes to state that “being alive” comes from “being dead,” since they are opposites. “Then, Cebes, living creatures and things come to be from the dead?” he asks, and Cebes agrees. “Then our souls exist in the underworld,” Socrates concludes.
The idea Socrates sets forth in this moment is known as The Cyclical Argument, and its basic underlying idea is that since all things come to be from their opposites (as something becomes “taller” from having been “smaller” before), then living souls must come from the souls of people who have already died, since it has already been agreed upon that life and death are opposites. This, in turn, helps Socrates argue that human souls “exist in the underworld”—an important point, given that he’s trying to prove the immortality of the soul. Indeed, if the soul is truly immortal, then it must exist after the death of the body, and this existence would, of course, take place in the underworld.
Themes
Having shown that souls “exist in the underworld,” Socrates notes that “processes of becoming” (in this case, dying and coming to life) must “balance each other” out. Otherwise, everyone would eventually be “absorbed” by death. To illustrate this point, he asks Cebes to consider what it would be like if there were no opposite process to match that of falling asleep. If this were the case, he explains, everyone would be eternally asleep. Cebes accepts this example and confirms that he now believes that the processes of dying and coming to life are balanced, thus implying that the soul doesn’t die, but simply circles through death and life.
The notion that “processes of becoming” must “balance each other out” helps Socrates complete The Cyclical Argument. It enables him not only to show Cebes that souls exist in the underworld, but to prove that the process of coming alive and dying will always repeat itself. This, in turn, aligns with his idea that the soul is immortal, as he frames its existence as cyclical and never-ending.
Themes
Cebes realizes Socrates could also argue for the soul’s immortality by using his theory of “recollection.” When he says this, Simmias admits that he doesn’t remember this idea, so Cebes explains it by saying, “[…] when men are interrogated in the right manner, they always give the right answer of their own accord, and they could not do this if they did not possess the knowledge and the right explanation inside of them.” Expanding upon this, Socrates says that “learning is recollection.” Going on, he asks Simmias to consider the fact that when people look at something, they often are reminded of something else. For instance, Simmias might look at two objects of similar size and call to mind the idea of “the Equal.” That is, even if the objects aren’t exactly the same size, he “recollects” the idea of equality, proving that he previously “possess[ed] knowledge of the Equal.”
Socrates’s ideas about the attainment of knowledge and wisdom lead to the second argument for the soul’s immortality, which is commonly known as The Theory of Recollection. Socrates has already spoken about this idea in Meno, proving that people don’t learn new knowledge, but simply “recollect” the knowledge their souls acquired before birth. This, of course, means that the soul exists before birth, which is why the theory is useful for proving immortality. In this dialogue, though, Socrates goes beyond what he says in Meno, combining The Theory of Recollection with his ideas about the Forms. To illustrate the fact that humans possess knowledge that they themselves didn’t learn in their own lives, he shows Simmias that he understands the Form of equality, a concept his soul grasps without his having to learn the idea. In this way, Socrates once again prepares his listeners to think about the Forms, which he addresses in more detail later in the dialogue.
Themes
Simmias is convinced that the soul exists before birth. However, he urges Socrates to prove that it continues to exist after death, which he thinks Socrates hasn’t yet properly supported with sound rhetoric. Socrates, for his part, thinks he actually has proved this, but he indulges Simmias because he recognizes that he and Cebes are still afraid that the soul will simply “dissolve and scatter” after death. He begins his next argument, saying that the only kind of thing that is “likely to be scattered” is that which is “composite and a compound by nature.” Composites, he says, can be “split up into” different parts, whereas “noncomposites” will always remain the same. Things like “the Equal” or “the Beautiful” are noncomposites, for they can never be anything other than what they are. Things in the corporeal world, on the other hand, are composite and thus subject to change.
When Simmias asks Socrates to explicitly prove the continued existence of the soul, readers see once again the nature of this philosophical discourse, in which Socrates’s peers implore him to make himself as clear as possible and Socrates strengthens his argument in response. In this case, his friends’ concerns prompt Socrates to present his third argument for the immortality of the soul, which is known as The Affinity Argument. In keeping with Socrates’s ideas regarding the unreliability of the physical world, this argument suggests that the things that make up the corporeal world are “composites” (things made up of multiple pieces) that are always changing. The Forms, on the other hand, are entities in and of themselves, meaning that they are “noncomposite” and thus unchanging. This is only part of the first premise of The Affinity Argument, but it’s already clear that Socrates is once again making use of the idea of Forms to outline his views regarding existence and reality.
Themes
Socrates makes a distinction between that which is visible and that which is invisible, saying that composite, changeable things are visible and noncomposite, immutable things are invisible. In other words, things in the corporeal world—humans and “clothing,” for instance—are visible, whereas things like “the Equal” or “the Beautiful” are invisible. The soul, Socrates gets Cebes to remark, is invisible. What’s more, it has already been determined that “when the soul investigates [something] by itself it passes into the realm of what is pure, ever existing, immortal and unchanging.” This kind of existence “resembles the divine.” As such, the soul itself is “most like” that which is “divine” and “deathless,” “whereas the body is most like that which is human [and] mortal.”
To put The Affinity Argument more simply, what Socrates is effectively saying is that there’s a certain kind of existence that “resembles the divine.” Because the soul itself aligns with this kind of existence, then it too “resembles the divine.” This is an important point, since anything that shares properties with the divine must also share its immortality.
Themes
Continuing, Socrates says that because the soul belongs to the “invisible” and “noncomposite” category of existence, it cannot be broken up or changed. This, in turn, means that it won’t simply “dissolve” or disappear when the body dies. Moving on from this point, Socrates says that if a soul is “pure” when it exits the body, it will achieve a “divine” existence amongst the gods. If, however, a person has not pursued philosophy to separate the soul from the body as much as possible during life, then his or her soul is “impure” and will thus go to the nether reaches of the underworld before coming back to life in an inferior bodily form.
Solidifying The Affinity Argument, Socrates emphasizes the fact that nothing that is unchangeable can “dissolve” or disappear, since this would require it to change. Because it’s noncomposite and invisible, the soul is unchangeable. As such, it will not “dissolve” or disappear after death. After having established the immortality of the soul (though he will later present a final argument), Socrates suggests not only that the soul exists for eternity, but that its destination depends upon how a person has lived his or her life. In this way, he once again combines his logical reasoning with his more general—spiritual—ideas regarding the afterlife.
Themes
After Socrates finishes his most recent argument for the immortality of the soul, Simmias and Cebes confer with one another, eventually admitting that they have qualms about his theories. However, they’re hesitant to voice these objections, since Socrates will soon be executed and they don’t want to further upset him. Hearing this, Socrates only laughs, telling them once again that he isn’t upset about his imminent death. Taking him at his word, Simmias outlines his concern, pointing out that a person could counter Socrates’s argument for the immortality of the soul by referencing the harmony made by a lyre and its strings. Like the soul, the harmony is invisible, whereas the lyre—much like the body—is visible. However, if one were to break the lyre and its strings, the harmony would cease to exist, suggesting that Socrates’s view of the relationship between corporeal and incorporeal entities is flawed.
Socrates’s willingness to hear Simmias and Cebes’s misgivings about his argument proves once again that he values the process of intellectual inquiry more than he cares about being right. Wanting to find the truth, he welcomes their objections. Simmias’s argument is a good one, for it puts Socrates’s otherwise confusing concepts into a more tangible framework, one that might help Simmias and the others more easily grasp the relationship between the body and the soul.
Themes
When Simmias finishes his analogy, Socrates asks Cebes to voice his own objection. Cebes says that, although Socrates’s logic has been convincing, he still has a hard time believing that the soul lasts forever. To illustrate this, he gives an example, asking Socrates to imagine a weaver. In this example, the weaver fashions a cloak, and when it wears out, he makes a new one. He does this for his entire life. However, when he’s quite old, he weaves a new cloak and then dies. As a result, this cloak outlasts him. “That does not mean that a man is inferior and weaker than a cloak,” Cebes says, adding that this analogy mirrors the relationship between the body and the soul. Just because the soul lives after the death of the body, he argues, that doesn’t mean it will live forever.
Like Simmias, Cebes is concerned with the relationship between the body and the soul, specifically taking issue with the fact that Socrates has implied that the soul lasts forever simply because it lasts longer than the body. Whereas Simmias’s objection is that the soul cannot exist without the body, Cebes’s argument is that the resilience of the soul doesn’t automatically prove its indestructibility.
Themes
Phaedo admits to Echecrates that he and his fellow philosophers were “depressed” after Simmias and Cebes voiced their objections, since they were previously so convinced of Socrates’s logic, but were then plunged into confusion. However, he was astonished by the way Socrates answered. “What I wondered at most in him was the pleasant, kind, and admiring way he received the young men’s argument,” Phaedo says.
Once more, Socrates shows his willingness to engage in friendly debate. Rather than angrily rejecting Simmias and Cebes’s arguments, he welcomes their objections, “admiring” them for speaking up. Here, as elsewhere, Socrates encourages his peers to pursue a dynamic discourse, clearly wanting them to seek the truth above all else.
Themes
Resuming his narration, Phaedo explains that Socrates warns his listeners about the danger of becoming “misologues,” or people who “hate reasonable discourse.” If he confuses them too much, he says, he might instill in them a distaste for intellectual discussion, turning them into apathetic debaters who are loath to believe anything. In contrast, Socrates welcomes Simmias and Cebes’s counterarguments, since they give him a chance to clarify what he means. In keeping with this, he assures his listeners that he’s uninterested in getting them to agree with him. What he really hopes to achieve is the truth, so he encourages anyone present to speak up if they find a flaw in his logic.
Again, Socrates demonstrates his commitment to finding the truth, something he hopes to do through levelheaded debate and intellectual inquiry. What’s more, he doesn’t assume that he already knows the truth for certain; he can only become sure of it through talking with others. In this moment, Socrates also recognizes that he often confounds the people he talks with, which is why he insists that anyone who is confused shouldn’t hesitate to speak up. As a proponent of philosophical discourse, he doesn’t want to frustrate his fellow thinkers, for this would do nothing to help them attain wisdom.
Themes
First, Socrates addresses Simmias’s idea that the soul is a harmony. He quickly disproves this by pointing out that Simmias previously agreed that all learning is recollection, which means that the soul acquires knowledge before birth. Because of this, the soul can’t be a harmony produced by and in conjunction with the body, since it existed before the body. Indeed, claiming that the soul is a harmony would be like saying that the music an instrument makes existed before the instrument itself was built. Committing himself once again to The Theory of Recollection, Simmias withdraws his objection.
Simmias’s original objection focuses mainly on what happens when a person dies. As such, he forgets to consider what happens before birth. Since he has already committed himself to the idea that the soul exists before birth (as proved by The Theory of Recollection), he renders his own argument illogical, realizing that what he’s said is like suggesting that music can exist without a musical instrument to make it.
Themes
Despite the fact that he has already convinced Simmias that the soul isn’t a harmony, Socrates provides another argument. He upholds that one soul can’t be more of a soul than another, though harmonies can have varying degrees of harmoniousness. What’s more, Socrates says that “wickedness” is a kind of “disharmony.” This means that if the soul is a harmony, it can’t be wicked, since wickedness would make it disharmonious. And if a soul can never be wicked, that must mean that all souls are good. But this is clearly not the case, since there are indeed people with unvirtuous souls. For this reason, the soul can’t be a harmony. Furthermore, Socrates shows that the soul and body don’t constitute a harmony, since this would require them to always align with one another. In reality, the soul constantly “opposes” the body, forcing it to ignore its desires.
Socrates’s assertion that a harmony can’t also be a disharmony at the same time serves as a precursor to his final argument for the immortality of the soul, which heavily depends upon the idea that something can’t be both itself and its opposite simultaneously. This notion has to do with his Theory of Forms. In this moment, then, he once again prepares his listeners to examine the Forms and the essential nature of existence.
Themes
Having given Simmias three good reasons to discount the idea that the soul is a harmony, Socrates addresses Cebes’s concern that just because the soul outlives the body doesn’t mean it’s immortal. To formulate a satisfactory response, Socrates says the group must consider “the cause of generation and destruction.” He explains that he used to be interested in “natural science,” wanting to know “the causes of everything.” When he tried to study why things are the way they are, though, he only further confused himself, as he suddenly doubted everything he previously took for granted. To this day, he remains unwilling to say that he understands why one and one make two, not knowing how, exactly, to grasp the process. He has, however, formulated a “new method of investigation,” one that helps him avoid these problems.
By inviting his listeners to experience confusion regarding the underpinnings of the natural world, Socrates prepares them to question why, exactly, things are the way they are. In turn, he paves the way for his last argument for the immortality of the soul, which is known as The Final Argument—an argument that encourages thinkers to scrutinize the very nature of existence in a fashion that has nothing to do with physical observation.
Themes
Explaining his “new method of investigation,” Socrates says he came across the teachings of Anaxagoras, who believes that the Mind “directs and is the cause of everything.” This, Socrates says, seemed reasonable to him, and he adopted the subsequent notion that the Mind would “direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best.” He took this to mean that a person need only discover “the best way” for a thing to be in order to understand its “cause.” However, Socrates’s excitement soon dwindled when he realized that Anaxagoras determined what was “best” for a thing by relying on the physical senses and the visible world. At that point, Socrates knew he had figure out for himself why things are the way they are.
When Socrates uses the word “cause,” he is referring to that which makes a thing what it is. He doesn’t necessarily justify why, exactly, he thinks that the Mind will “direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that [is] best,” but this particular detail is quickly made irrelevant by the fact that he discounts Anaxagoras as a thinker altogether. Searching for a way to conceptualize reality, then, he’s desperate to think of a way to understand the “cause” of things without relying on physical observation.
Themes
“I am going to try to show you the kind of cause with which I have concerned myself,” Socrates says. To begin, he considers the essential idea of something, using Beauty as an example. “[…] If there is anything beautiful besides the Beautiful itself, it is beautiful for no other reason than that it shares in that Beautiful, and I say so with everything,” he says. To put this another way, “all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful.” Similarly, “it is through Bigness that big things are big.”
At this point, Socrates finally unveils what’s known as The Theory of Forms, a philosophical argument that Plato revisits in many of his texts. Explaining that “all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful,” he effectively avoids having to point to specific physical attributes to describe why something is the way it is. Instead, he suggests that a thing is the way it is simply because it partakes in a certain Form of existence or reality. “Bigness,” for instance, is a Form, so anything that is big is big because of Bigness.
Themes
Phaedo tells Echecrates that everyone present “agreed that each of the Forms existed.” Resuming his narration, he says that Socrates calls attention to the fact that Simmias is taller than Socrates himself but shorter than Phaedo. Simmias, Socrates says, is taller than Socrates not because it is “the nature of Simmias to be taller than Socrates,” but because “of the tallness he happens to have.” Similarly, Simmias is shorter than Phaedo simply because of “the shortness” Simmias has. However, if Simmias is at one time shorter and at another time taller, he would seem to have both shortness and tallness. But he is never both tall and short at the same time, because “Tallness itself is never willing to be tall and short at the same time.” As such, Socrates determines that tallness either “flees and retreats whenever its opposite, the short, approaches, or it is destroyed by its approach.”
In this moment, Socrates makes an important distinction about the nature of opposites. Whereas he has previously argued that things come to be from their opposites, now he suggests that something cannot be both itself and its opposite at the same time. Whenever a thing’s opposite brings itself to bear on that thing, the thing will cease to be what it was before. This is worth keeping in mind as the dialogue progresses, since Socrates leans heavily on this new approach to the idea of opposites.
Themes
Continuing his final argument for the immortality of the soul, Socrates proposes that a Form can never admit its opposite—neither Tallness nor anything else can “become” its opposite “while still being what it was.” Responding to this, one of the men listening remarks that Socrates has already suggested that things come to be from their opposites. Socrates notes that he did indeed say this, but he asserts that the listener misunderstands him. Whereas before he said that a thing becomes itself by way of its opposite, now he says that a thing cannot remain itself while also embodying its opposite. In other words, “an opposite will never be opposite to itself.”
This unnamed listener’s objection gives Socrates a chance to clarify the distinction between The Cyclical Argument and what he’s now saying about the nature of opposites. In the Cyclical Argument, he uses opposites to show where things come from, whereas now he is solely concerned with looking at the exact nature of a thing at one time. As such, he does not contradict himself, because the idea of a thing coming from its opposite doesn’t affect whether or not a thing can be both itself and its opposite at the same time (which, of course, Socrates says it can’t).
Themes
To exemplify what he means by the fact that something can never “be opposite to itself,” Socrates asks his listeners to consider “hot” and “cold.” These are not, he says, the same thing as “fire” and “snow,” even if fire is hot and snow is cold. “Snow will not admit the hot,” he says, “but when the hot approaches it will either retreat before it or be destroyed.” As such, it’s clear that, in the same way that something can’t be itself while also being its opposite, things that are defined by a certain Form (the Hot or the Cold, for instance) will always have the “character” of that Form. Snow, then, will cease to be snow if it doesn’t align with the Cold. Put another way, snow will always “bring” the Cold, which means snow can never “bring” the Hot without ceasing to be snow.
The idea of opposites never “admit[ting]” one another is a crucial part of Socrates’s argument for the immortality of the soul, since he will eventually apply this theory to the relationship between life, death, and the soul. For now, though, he simply outlines the general notion that a thing’s adherence to a Form dictates the nature of its existence.
Themes
Socrates reiterates his point by saying, “That which brings along some opposite […] will not admit the opposite to that which it brings along.” He then shows that the soul “brings along” life, since it is what makes a person alive. As such, “whatever the soul occupies, it always brings life to it.” Furthermore, life’s opposite is death, meaning that won’t allow death, since it can’t “admit the opposite of that which it brings along.” For these reasons, Socrates upholds that the soul is “deathless.” In addition, that which is “deathless” must also be “indestructible,” which means that the soul cannot be destroyed.
The soul, Socrates says, always “brings alongs life.” This means that it can never “admit” death. That is, in the same way that snow always “brings” the Cold, the soul cannot exist without “bringing” life. In this way, Socrates effectively defines the soul by way of its aliveness, explaining the nature of its existence without having to use unreliable physical observations.
Themes
Socrates tells Cebes that, since the soul is “deathless” and “indestructible,” it does not die with the body. Instead, it continues to live, going to the underworld. This has certain implications for “wicked” people, since the immortality of the soul makes it impossible for such people to “escape” their wrongdoings through death. Having suggested this, Socrates presents a vision of the afterlife, telling his listeners what he thinks happens to the soul when the body dies.
Now that Socrates has proved the immortality of the soul, he turns his attention to what, exactly, this immortality means for humans. Again, Socrates doesn’t feel the need to prove that there is an underworld, instead taking it for granted that “wicked” souls will pay for their misdeeds in the afterlife. Again, he combines the results of his philosophical reasoning with broader religious beliefs—ones that would have been very familiar and acceptable to his audience.
Themes
According to Socrates’s conception of the afterlife (which accords with various ancient myths), a spirit guides the soul to “a certain place,” where the soul is “judged” before going to the underworld. After staying there for an “appointed” amount of time, the soul is led back to corporeal life by yet another spirit. Going into more detail, Socrates says that “impure” souls inadvertently repel their spirit guides, since “everybody shuns” them and is “unwilling to be [their] fellow traveler” or guide. Because of this, impure souls make their way aimlessly through the underworld, lonely and lost until they reach their “proper dwelling place.”
As Socrates continues to present his vision of the underworld, readers see the extent to which knowledge of the soul’s immortality affects the way people might live their lives. Indeed, if people know that bad behavior will force them to wander aimlessly through the underworld, they will likely try their hardest to be virtuous. In this way, Socrates’s story about the afterlife lends his arguments about immortality a moralistic element.
Themes
Socrates says that the earth is “a sphere in the middle of the heavens” and that humans live in a “hollow of the earth,” though everyone believes they live on the planet’s surface. This, Socrates says, is not actually the case, since there is also the “upper limit of the air,” where the divine dwell. There are also regions of the earth in which humans exist who have lived virtuous lives. These regions are currently inaccessible to Socrates and the others, since such areas are close to the true surface of the earth, where people mingle with the gods and live for much longer than the average human in Socrates’s realm. In keeping with this, there are also regions that are “deeper” and “have a narrower opening” than the space in which Socrates and his friends occupy.
Socrates’s description of the “upper limit of the air” sounds quite appealing, as the people who live there are able to convene with the gods and live long lives. This, it seems, isn’t quite the same as traditional western notions of heaven, since the people in this region apparently still die. Through these descriptions, it becomes clear that Socrates’s view of immortality accords with something like reincarnation, a notion implying that virtuous people will go on to lead better and better lives. Once again, then, his conception of the afterlife gives people an incentive to live virtuously.
Themes
The regions Socrates mentions are “connected” by rivers beneath earth’s surface, he argues. There are four rivers (Oceanus, Acheron, Pyriphlegethon, and Cocytus). When souls “arrive” in the underworld, they are “judged.” Souls of “average” virtue go to the Acheron, which takes them to the Acherusian lake, where they “dwell and are purified” of their misdeeds. If they are “incurable,” they’re thrown into Tartarus—the “deepest” waters—never to return. Souls whose wrongdoings are “curable” are also jettisoned into Tartarus but ejected a year later, at which point they’re sent to the Acherusian lake, where they yell apologies to the people they’ve wronged. If they’re forgiven, their “punishment” ends. If not, though, they’re sent back to Tartarus to repeat the process until they’re forgiven.
It’s worth noting that people who lead immoral lives are given a chance to plead for forgiveness. Because Socrates believes the soul is immortal and that it often comes back to occupy new bodies, his idea of the afterlife is a bit more forgiving than Christian notions of Hell. At the same time, though, he upholds that certain souls are “incurable” and thus condemned forever. This, in turn, once again gives people an incentive to be virtuous, lest they end up spending eternity in the thrashing waters of Tartarus.
Themes
Socrates says that “extremely pious” souls are “freed and released from the regions of the earth,” at which point they ascend to a “pure dwelling place” on the earth’s surface. Furthermore, souls who have fully “purified” themselves through the practice of philosophy exist in a bodiless state, living “in the future” that Socrates says is difficult to depict. This, Socrates says, is why people should try hard to attain “virtue and wisdom” in life, since “the reward is beautiful.” At the same time, he notes that it would be ridiculous to think of the afterlife as exactly as he has described it. Still, though, he thinks believing in this structure is worthwhile, since doing so might encourage people to “ignore the pleasures of the body” and invest themselves in “the pleasures of learning.”
While Socrates suggests that good, “pious” people enjoy a superior existence amongst the gods, he believes that people who have truly “purified” themselves ascend to something even beyond this, achieving a state of being that transcends corporeal existence. This opinion makes sense, considering that Socrates thinks so lowly of the physical realm. In turn, it’s rather unsurprising that he thinks the ultimate manifestation of a virtuous life would be completely untethered from the body. Furthermore, this idea once again frames the practice of philosophy as incomparably virtuous and good, since involving oneself in this kind of thought is—according to Socrates—the only way to reach a “beautiful” incorporeal existence. And though Socrates admits that the afterlife might not be exactly the way he has suggested, he maintains his belief that thinking in this manner will only lead to good things; that is, learning remains of utmost importance in its own right, even if its outcomes are uncertain.
Themes
Turning his attention to Socrates’s coming execution, Crito asks if he’d like his friends to do anything for his children once he’s gone. “Nothing new, Crito,” Socrates says, adding that he only wants his friends to take “good care” of themselves. Crito then asks how they should bury him, but Socrates says he doesn’t care, since he knows he’ll no longer be associated with his corpse after he dies. He then goes to bathe himself for the final time, and when he returns, he speaks to his children and “the women of his household.” When they leave, a jailer—who admits that he’s become quite fond of Socrates—enters and tells him he’ll soon have to drink the poison, and Socrates shows no hesitation in saying that he’s ready to receive it.
In keeping with his belief that the body is unimportant compared to the soul, Socrates has no qualms embracing his imminent death. After all, he not only believes that his soul will go on living, but that it will achieve a higher form of existence. In this moment Socrates demonstrates the depth of his belief that he has no reason to fear or resent the end of his life.
Themes
The poison is brought in, and Socrates pours a “libation” to the gods before drinking it. After he swallows the poison, he walks around the cell to let it circulate through his blood. As he does this, his friends cry for him, and even Phaedo admits that he couldn’t stop himself from shedding tears. “I was weeping for myself, not for him—for my misfortune in being deprived of such a comrade,” he says. However, Socrates tells them all to stop, urging them to “control” themselves. At this point, he lies down and feels the poison work toward his heart. Just as it reaches that vital organ, he utters his final words: “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius; make this offering to him and do not forget.” “It shall be done,” says Crito, adding, “tell us if there is anything else,” but Socrates is already gone.
Asclepius is the Greek god of medicine. In Ancient times, people used to make sacrifices to him for healing their illnesses. It seems, then, that Socrates’s final request that Crito offer a “cock to Asclepius” indicates that he sees life as a malady or illness of which Asclepius is about to cure him (through death). This accords with his belief that the body and physical world distract the soul from attaining true wisdom and, thus, virtue. On the verge of death, then, Socrates remains committed to his low opinion of corporeal life, eagerly embracing the separation of his soul from his body because he believes he’s about to attain a superior form of existential purity. Additionally, the emotional reaction of Socrates’s friends again shows how crucial genuine interpersonal connection is to the practice of philosophy.
Themes
