Socrates’ hope: a question of arguments or incantations? (Notes to the Phaedo)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_16_5Keywords:
poetry-philosophy, incantations-arguments, life-death, body-soul, pleasure-painAbstract
In this paper, I would like to make a comparison between non-argumentative resources (such as Socrates’ decision to write poetry, the mention of the teletai and the bakchoi as those who have philosophized correctly and the 'incantations' to soothe the soul) on the one hand, and the well-known rational arguments presented in the dialogue, on the other hand, with the aim of establishing what weight each of them has to hold Socrates’ hope. I assume that it is not possible to separate these two types of resources, though they can be clearly distinguished and subordinated. I understand that Plato deliberately provides a fine web made of both powers, because emotion and reason, myth and logos, imagination and argument, poetry and philosophy, desire and intellectual prescriptions are for him an expression of man's natural constituent elements that deserve our care in due proportion. This Socratic devotion to reduce the fear in the hearts of his friends and to awaken in them the desire of spending their lives philosophizing, turns out to be an interesting challenge to us. I will also attempt to make sense of some of the issues that provoke Socrates’ puzzles, such as the mixed nature of pleasure, the divine ‘order’ to produce poetry at the last moment (i.e. a lower kind of music, compared to philosophy) and the meaning of a hope founded on a risky belief.
Downloads
References
BOSSI, B. (2001). “Which Is the Right Exchange to Attain Virtue? Phaedo, 69a5 -c2). In: HAVLICEK, A.; KARFIK, F. (eds.). Plato’s Phaedo, Proceedings of the Second Symposium Platonicum Pragense. Prague, Oik-oumene, p. 193 -207._(2015). “Una lettura irriverente: ‘monismo’ e ‘dua-lismo’ in Platone e Aristotele”, In: CANDIOTTO, L. (ed.). Senza Dualismo. Milano -Udine, Mimesis Edi-zioni (de próxima aparición).DIXSAUT, M. (1991). Platon: Phédon. Traduction, introduction et notes. Paris, GF -Flammarion._(2001). “Immortel et indestructible: le dernier problème du Phédon”. In: HAVLICEK, A.; KARFIK,F. (eds.) (2001), p. 384 -405.DORTER, K. (2001). “Deathless Is Indestructible, If Not We Need Another Argument: An Implicit Ar-gument in the Phaedo”. In HAVLICEK, A.; KARFIK,F. (2001) (eds.), p. 406 -423.GALLOP, D. (2001). “Emotions in the Phaedo”. In: HAVLICEK, A.; KARFIK, F. (2001) (eds.), p. 275 -286.HACKFORTH, R. (1945). Plato’s Examination of Pleasure. Cambridge, CUP.HAVLICEK, A.; KARFIK, F. (eds.) (2001). Plato’s Phaedo, Proceedings of the Second Symposium Platoni-cum Pragense, Prague, Oikoumene, p. 193 -207.KAHN, C. H. (1996). Plato and the Socratic Dia-logue. Cambridge, CUP.
LONG, A. (2010). Plato. Meno and Phaedo. Trans-lation (introduction by D. Sedley). New York, Cam-bridge, CUP.NIGHTINGALE, A. W (1995). Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy. Cambridge, CUP.NUSSBAUM, M. (1986). The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridge, CUP.REALE, G. (2001). “Temi di fondo. Struttura e concetti -chiave del Fedone”. In: HAVLICEK, A.; KAR-FIK, F. (eds.) (2001), p. 9 -32.ROWE, C. (1993). Plato: Phaedo. Introduction, translation and notes. Cambridge, CUP._(2001). “The Concept of Philosophy (philosophia) in Plato’s Phaedo”. In: HAVLICEK, A.; KARFIK, F. (eds.) (2001), p. 34 -47.VIGO, A. (2009). Platón. Fedón, Introducción, tra-ducción y notas.Buenos Aires, Colihue Clásica.SEDLEY, D. (1995). The Dramatis Personae of Pla-to’s Phaedo. In: SMILEY, T. (ed.) Philosophical Dia-logues: Plato, Hume, Wittgenstein, Proceedings of the British Academy 85. Oxford, p. 3 -26.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Beatriz Bossi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.
