Teaching Plato in Translation
by Susan Gorman, Boston University
Original text © 2004 Susan Gorman
The Phaedo
The Underworld
The Phaedo culminates in a description of the afterlife. Following the detailed arguments for the immortality of the soul, we finally get a glimpse of what reward the philosophical soul could expect. Before arriving at the text in which Plato's Socrates describes the afterlife, we already have been given clues to what it may be like.
For example, we know from the argument from opposites that the soul can be without the body. That is, we know that (1) because opposites come from opposites and (2) because life is the opposite of death that (3) life comes from death. Therefore, according to this argument, life, that is the soul, can be without the body and the soul exists prior to its incarnation.
Further, we know that the soul can know things prior to its incarnation (in fact, we realize that the process of incarnation causes the body to forget information that the soul has already known). The proof for this assertion is that we all have an innate knowledge of the Forms, despite the fact that none of us have ever seen them. We either acquire knowledge of the Forms at birth or we were aware of them before birth and must remember them (through the process of anamnesis). But, many people do not work to know the forms (that is, we do not all know that we know the forms). So, we must remember that information that we knew prior to our incarnation.
At this point, we already know two things about the afterlife. We assert that the soul exists and we realize that the soul can know the Forms. After learning these different points about the soul and the afterlife, we are presented with the Simmias and the Cebes objections.
Plato, as the author of the dialogue, knows that we may have forgotten some of this information. He reminds us of it through Socrates. Towards the end of the dialogue, Socrates explains the afterlife. Although, interestingly, Socrates admits that he does not know for sure whether this description of the afterlife is true. And, in fact, we are presented with an altogether different Platonic afterlife in the Republic.
In this depiction of the afterlife, philosophic souls can be entirely separated from their bodies. Other souls, those of people who do not practice philosophy and have not learned to separate their souls from the control of their bodies, may be given different human bodies or, even, end up in bodies of animals, doled out according to the particularities of their souls (in an especially humourous passage). If we practice philosophy correctly, our souls can be rendered distinct from our bodies. At that point, the wicked (whose souls are not separate) will be punished and the good (who have explored philosophy) will live in light and happiness.
What is the point of this description of the afterlife? In my more skeptical moments, and my students generally bring up this point as well, this seems like pure propaganda for philosophy. What better way to gain followers to your thought than through promises of everlasting happiness? Especially through promises that cannot be immediately verified or debunked. However, perhaps that conclusion is not so skeptical. The afterlife description is a bit of strong, persuasive writing. Maybe this passage is another take on the argument. After an argumentative, logical portrayal of the benefits of philosophy, we are presemted with a more aesthetic and lyrical portrayal of the same benefits. I like to ask my students what they think of this Platonic afterlife and whether it seems like someplace they would want to stay. If given this incentive, would they find themselves more or less likely to delve into Socratic philosophy? Most importantly, which of the methods of persuasion - logic or poetics - seems more effective?
