Search

Plato's Phaedo is a literary gem that develops many of his most famous ideas. David Ebrey's careful reinterpretation argues that the many debates about the dialogue cannot be resolved so long as we consider its passages in relative isolation from one another, separated from their intellectual background. His book shows how Plato responds to his literary, religious, scientific, and philosophical context, and argues that we can only understand the dialogue's central ideas and arguments in light of its overall structure. This approach yields new interpretations of the dialogue's key ideas, including the nature and existence of 'Platonic' forms, the existence of the soul after death, the method of hypothesis, and the contemplative ethical ideal. Moreover, this comprehensive approach shows how the characters play an integral role in the Phaedo's development and how its literary structure complements Socrates' views while making its own distinctive contribution to the dialogue's drama and ideas.

In the Phaedo, Socrates leads us to expect that his final argument will address the details of Cebes’ cloakmaker objection. Nonetheless, almost all commentators treat the final argument as unconnected to these details. This paper argues that close attention to Cebes’ objection, Socrates’ restatement of it, and Socrates’ final argument shows that the final argument does offer a detailed response. According to the objection, the soul suffers as it brings life to the body, which ultimately leads to its destruction. Socrates argues that, on the contrary, bringing life to the body is precisely what ensures the soul’s immortality and indestructability. Cebes’ objection targets Socrates’ so-called ‘affinity argument’. In responding to Cebes’ objection, the final argument fills in the account of the soul that Socrates put forward in the affinity argument. In doing so, it identifies one precise way in which the soul is akin to the divine.

I argue that according to Socrates in the

According to many interpreters, Socrates in the Euthyphro thinks that an answer to ‘what is the holy?’ should pick out some feature that is prior to being holy. While this is a powerful way to think of answers to the ‘what is it?’ question, one that Aristotle develops, I argue that the Euthyphro provides an important alternative to this Aristotelian account. Instead, an answer to ‘what is the holy?’ should pick out precisely being holy, not some feature prior to it. I begin by showing how this interpretation allows for a straightforward reading of a key argument: Socrates’ refutation of Euthyphro’s proposal that the holy is the god-loved. Then I address considerations that seem to favour the Aristotelian account. I end by explaining how answers to ‘what is f-ness?’ questions are informative on this account, even though they do not identify anything other than f-ness.

Plato’s Phaedo is set on the last day of Socrates’ life, ending with his moving death scene. The dialogue is one of Plato’s literary masterpieces, with classic discussions of forms, the immortality of the soul, and the value of the philosophical life. It is typically considered one of Plato’s middle-period dialogues due to its contrast between forms and sensible things, defense of the immortality of the soul, interest in natural science, and engagement with Pythagorean ideas. The primary interlocutors are Socrates, Simmias, and Cebes. Early in the dialogue, Socrates suggests that the poet Evenus should follow him in death. This shocks Simmias, leading Socrates first to defend the claim that a philosopher’s soul would be better separated from its body, and then the claim that the soul is immortal. Socrates’ four arguments for the immortality of the soul rely on considerations about the nature of change, causation, and the contrast between forms and sensible things. The two parts of the Phaedo that have received the most scholarship since the 1950s—among the most scholarship on any topic in ancient philosophy—are Socrates’ second argument for immortality, the Recollection Argument, which discusses central issues in Plato’s metaphysics and epistemology, and the so-called Autobiographical Section, which discusses Socrates’ earlier interest in natural science, the method of hypothesis, and his approach to providing causes. The dialogue ends with a long myth followed by Socrates’ death scene. For more on Plato, see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Classics article “Plato.”

I argue that Meno's Paradox targets the type of knowledge that Socrates has been looking for earlier in the dialogue: knowledge grounded in explanatory definitions. Socrates places strict requirements on definitions and thinks we need these definitions to acquire knowledge. Meno's challenge uses Socrates' constraints to argue that we can neither propose definitions nor recognize them. To understand Socrates' response to the challenge, we need to view Meno's challenge and Socrates' response as part of a larger disagreement about the value of inquiry.

Aristotle argued that in theory one could acquire knowledge of the natural world. But he did not stop there; he put his theories into practice. This volume of new essays shows how Aristotle's natural science and philosophical theories shed light on one another. The contributors engage with both biological and non-biological scientific works and with a wide variety of theoretical works, including Physics, Generation and Corruption, On the Soul, and Posterior Analytics. The essays focus on a number of themes, including the sort of explanation provided by matter; the relationship between matter, teleology, and necessity; cosmic teleology; how an organism's soul and faculties relate to its end; how to define things such as sleep, void, and soul; and the proper way to make scientific judgments. The resulting volume offers a rich and integrated view of Aristotle's science and shows how it fits with his larger philosophical theories.