SHORT EXERCISE 24.01 Classics of Western Philosophy, Fall 2011 Prof. Rae Langton Due Date: Friday September 23 in your Section. 64a. ‘Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead’ [...] Simmias laughed at this and said: ‘Goodness, Socrates, you’ve made me laugh even though I wasn’t much inclined to laugh just now.’ [...] ‘Let’s discuss it among ourselves... do we suppose that death is something?’ ‘Certainly,’ rejoined Simmias. ‘And that it is nothing but the separation of the soul from the body? And that being dead is this: the body’s having come to be apart, separated from the soul, alone by itself, and the soul’s being apart, alone by itself, separated from the body? Death can’t be anything else but that, can it?’ ‘No, it’s just that.’ [...] 64d. ‘Do you think it befits a philosophical man to be keen about the socalled pleasures of, for example, food and drink? ‘Not in the least, Socrates’ said Simmias. ‘And what about those of sex?’ ‘Not at all.’ ‘And what about the other services to the body? ...For instance, the possession of smart clothes and shoes, and the other bodily adornments—do you think he values them highly, or does he disdain them, except in so far as he’s absolutely compelled to share in them?’ ‘I think the genuine philosopher disdains them.’[...] 65a. ‘Then it is clear that, first, in such matters as these, the philosopher differs from other men in releasing his soul, as far as possible, from its communion with the body?’ ‘It appears so.’ ‘...One who cares nothing for the pleasures that come by way of the body runs pretty close to being dead.’ ‘Yes, what you say is quite true.’ ‘And now, what about the actual gaining of wisdom? Is the body a hindrance or not, if one enlists it as a partner in the quest? This is the sort of thing I mean: do sight and hearing afford men any truth, or aren’t even the poets always harping on such themes, telling us that we neither hear nor see anything accurately? And yet if all these bodily senses are neither accurate nor clear, the others will hardly be so; because they are, surely, all inferior to these. Don’t you think so? ‘Certainly.’ ‘So when does the soul attain the truth? Because plainly, whenever it sets about examining anything in company with the body, it is completely taken in by it.’
‘That’s true.’ 65c. ‘So isn’t it in reasoning, if anywhere at all, that any of the things that are become manifest to it?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘And it reasons best, presumably, whenever none of these things bothers it, neither hearing nor sight nor pain, nor any pleasure either, but whenever it comes to be alone by itself as far as possible, disregarding the body, and whenever, having the least possible communion and contact with it, it strives for that which is.’ ‘That is so.’ [...] 67d. ‘And is it just this that is named “death”—a release and parting of the soul from body?’ ‘Indeed it is.’ ‘And it’s especially those who practise philosophy aright, or rather they alone, who are always eager to release it, as we say, and the occupation of philosophers is just this, isn’t it—a release and parting of soul from body?’ ‘Indeed it is.’ [...] ‘Truly then, Simmias, those who practise philosophy aright are cultivating dying, and for them least of all men does being dead hold any terror.’ Plato, Phaedo, excerpted from 64a-67e Write 2 pages analysing this argument, concentrating on the parts that you see as essential. See if you can find a way to put the argument in the form of numbered premises, and conclusion, or conclusions. Note that the main argument may have subarguments supporting one or more of the premises: be alert to the possibility of different arguments that might look similar at first sight. After giving your interpretation of the argument, briefly evaluate it in your own words. Comment on its significance: what’s the point of arguing for this conclusion? Comment on its cogency: which premises are true or plausible, which are false or implausible? Is the inference, as you’ve described it, a valid one? In this kind of exercise, you’ll be focusing in on the bare bones of the argument, and won’t need to do justice to the whole text. Occasionally you may need to supply a premise, or a conclusion, that is not explicitly stated. Occasionally you may need to briefly draw on what was said elsewhere. Sometimes there can be more than one defensible interpretation. For this and all written work, keep in mind your commitment to academic integrity, and fair use of sources: see the 24.01 Syllabus for more details and references. You may find it useful to consult the resources at the 24.01 course website, in particular the ‘Pink Guide’ by Helena de Bres, and the advice about writing philosophy papers from Jim Pryor.
