Teaching Plato in Translation
by Susan Gorman, Boston University
Original text © 2004 Susan Gorman
The Phaedo
Argumentation
The Phaedo is a difficult text. I find it hard to figure out exactly what is going on, through all of the various philosophical twists and turns. My students, while enjoying the general ideas of the Phaedo, often get bogged down in the particular movements of the text. The basic kernel of discussion is the immortality of the soul. When I talk about this text with my students (especially since we only had one class session allotted to it on our syllabus), I told them to focus not simply on the details but on the big picture.
In our focus on the big picture, we talked about the methods of argumentation, the frame and certain key concepts. The key concepts of this text that I emphasized are:
- Immortality of the Soul
- Opposites
- Participation in Forms
- Recollection
- Socrates' Description of the Afterlife
- Socratic Dialogue and Irony
- Ensuring the understanding of these basic concepts can open up the larger questions of the text. I put these terms on the board at the very beginning of class, before we even discuss anything. I then ask my students whether they can think of any additional key concepts. Then, in the course of our discussion, I mark somehow (check marks, page numbers, etc.) each time our conversation leads to one of these key concepts. By the end of class, the students leave with a grasp of how focused Plato's text is - even if it seems to veer off course at times - , textual evidence for the key concepts, and further reading to do if they do not quite understand the major ideas.
- Turning to the method of argumentation, I emphasize the assertions that need to be stipulated by Socrates' argument. Sometimes I think that it is too easy to simply poke holes in Socrates' thinking, though. So, despite the fact that we all realize after our discussion that there are many gaping holes to be found in argumentation, we cannot simply leave it like that. For example, the very basis of the argument from recollection is that the soul can know the forms, that there is an ideal "form" of physical objects. If we assert that forms do not necessarily exist, that we can conceive of a lack of forms, then the entirety of the discussion of the forms falls apart. Can we then leave the discussion at that point, discounting the rest of the Platonic texts? I do not see the usefulness in simply tearing down assumptions and then moving on. However, working with the students to see the holes in order to have them critically evaluate the argument (instead of simply accepting it because they have an idea in their heads that Socrates should be listened to and not argued with) is very important and should be a goal of this lesson.
|
|
|
