Check out the Valentine’s Day Heart Hunt!
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Phaedo by Plato.,

Phaedo (edition 1999)

by Plato.,

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
1,153910,558 (3.87)20
Info:Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, [1999]
Collections:Your library

Work details

Phaedo [Translation] by Plato (Author)



Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 20 mentions

English (8)  Spanish (1)  All languages (9)
Showing 1-5 of 8 (next | show all)
The introduction to this one seems related to the text only in that they're both on the same subject; it's not introducing Plato as much as it's lining up a more modern set of questions about the soul and immortality. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but it goes...all over the place. (Either that or it's trying to apologize that Plato isn't Christian; I'm not entirely sure which.)

But Plato isn't at all Christian, as is clear by the very first discussion of death being a *leaving* of the gods, rather than a going to join them. Or the cyclical nature of life and death, or the suggestion (even though rejected) that the body might sometimes outlive the soul. This is the kind of thing that's fascinating even if you disagree with it in every particular, simply because it's so *different* - and yet similar, too, in the places where Plato was used by the medieval theologians.

There's a really interesting idea to be picked out if you combine Socrates's argument about knowledge already had at birth implying the persistence of the soul and what we now know about instincts and biology (plus a rejection of Cartesian Dualism), but I don't know if anyone's done that yet. ( )
  jen.e.moore | Dec 17, 2016 |
I have noticed that a number of people consider that this text is the crowning piece that defines the Western philosophical method. In a way I agree and in a way I disagree. In one sense one can see how the idea of the separation of the body and the soul has come down to us and which has formed a major part of Western spiritual thought and in turn forms one of the bases of what I tend to term as our civil religion. However there are two things that it is not. First of all it is not Christian, and secondly it is not Socratic.
I will deal with both in turn and I will outline my argument about how it is not Socratic first and then how it is not Christian secondly. Before I go on, one of my primary sources of the fact that it is not Socratic is my Classical History lecturer David Hester (who is now retired). Secondly, since this not an academic essay to be handed up to a university to be marked I will not be referencing or sourcing my arguments. However, if anybody wishes to debate either point I more than welcome them, since that is what the comment section below the commentary is for.
Anyway, the first thing that stood out when I read this work was that it differs from a lot of other Socratic dialogues as it is a second hand account. Most of the Socratic dialogues come across as first hand accounts, and we know that Plato was present at the trial because we are told that he was (and I also suspect that he was present when Crito visited Socrates on the night before his execution). However, this particular work is based around a conversation that occurred months, or even a couple of years, after the event. We are told that Plato was not present at the execution (apparently he was sick), so we are relying not just on Plato being present at this conversation, but also on the accuracy of Phaedo, who claims to have been present at the execution. As such we see that Plato appears to be distancing not so much himself, but rather Socrates, from the philosophy that is being outlined.
Secondly, the theory of forms is being discussed in this work (I am hesitant to call it a dialogue because it is not actually a dialogue in the way that the other Platonic works are dialogues). The theory of forms, as my lecturer explained, was purely a Platonic idea and not a Socratic one (and I will give my reasoning below). The theory of forms, though, is the idea that everything in our reality is flawed, however they are shadows of a much greater reality. Therefore a table that we see is not a perfect table but rather a shadow of the real table. We see this argument developed elsewhere, and in particular with the cave analogy that Plato expounds in The Republic.
Thirdly, this particular dialogue deals with what I would term as pseudo-scientific speculation, in particular the nature of the body and the soul, and what happens to the soul after death. We note that the Socrates in this dialogue talks about the purpose of life is to pursue knowledge, or gnosis. However, and while I have not read the Socratic dialogues in Greek, I get the idea that Socrates is not so much interested in gnosis, but rather in sophos, or wisdom. In the dialogues of Socrates that I have read and commented on I have noticed that Socrates' main focus is on how were are to live in society, which is the idea of wisdom, as opposed to gaining knowledge of things, which is gnosis.
Finally, we have Socrates, for a large part, lecturing, which is something that Socrates simply does not do. Granted, in the Apology, we do have him providing a defence, but even in his defence we see him falling back on what we call the Socratic method, that is taking the position of ignorance and asking a series of questions that tend to guide the person in the argument around to your point of view. However, it is interesting to note that there are a lot of spurious arguments and questions that seem to come from nowhere only to try to bring the point around to what Plato wanted to prove.
Now, I make the statement about it not being Christian. Most of you, I hope, would look at me oddly and say 'of course it is not Christian, idiot, it was written by an Ancient Greek five hundred years before Christ walked the Earth'. However, while this text may not be Christian, it has had a tremendous impact upon Christian thought (along with other Platonic works). The first and main thing that has influenced Western thought is the idea that the body and the soul are connected but not the same. Many of us, and it has permeated the church for centuries, believe that when we die our body rots in the ground and our spirit goes to heaven or to hell. Just take a look at Dante where we see him travelling through hell and seeing it full of spirits. That, my friend, is Platonic.
However, here is an extract from 1 Corinthians chapter 15:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain ... but in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.

So, as you can see from this passage (which has been truncated a bit, but can be found in its entirety here), the biblical position on life after death is not a spirit drifting around a spiritual realm, but a restored and resurrected physical body in a restored and resurrected physical world. Oh, and there is also discussions and proofs on reincarnation in the Phaedo as well, which as we all know, it pretty much not a Christian belief (but was, in fact, an Ancient Greek belief).
Now, the other interesting thing I noticed is that I recently read a book called Gospel and Wisdom, and in that book it tries to identify what it is that the bible terms as worldly wisdom. The writer suggested that it was attempting to determine biblical truths through human reason and logic. Pretty much as soon as I began to read this text it struck me that this is probably what he was referring too. Here we have a discussion on the idea of life after death from what effectively is pure speculation. Remember that, according to Christianity, the only person that can actually comment on life after death is Jesus Christ and that is because he died and rose again. As such, according to the bible, he is the only person with authority to speak on the subject because he is the only historical person that has ever travelled there (in an identifiable historical period) and come back to talk about it. ( )
  David.Alfred.Sarkies | Apr 18, 2014 |
Edition: // Descr: // Series: Call No. { 888 P69 7 } Edited by M. Wonirab. // //
  ColgateClassics | Oct 26, 2012 |
Edition: // Descr: lix, 158 p. 19.5 cm. // Series: Call No. { 888 P69 6 } Edited with Introduction and Notes by John Burnet Contains Appendix and Index to the Notes. // //
  ColgateClassics | Oct 26, 2012 |
Edition: Ninth Edition // Descr: viii, 198 p. 18 cm. // Series: Call No. { 888 P69 8 } With Notes, Critical and Exegetical and an Analysis by Wilhelm Wagner. // //
  ColgateClassics | Oct 26, 2012 |
Showing 1-5 of 8 (next | show all)
no reviews | add a review

» Add other authors (137 possible)

Author nameRoleType of authorWork?Status
PlatoAuthorprimary authorall editionsconfirmed
靖夫, 岩田翻訳secondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Fabrini, PierangioloTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Gallop, DavidTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Herwerden, Henricus vanTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Lami, AlessandroIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Molegraaf, MarioTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Rouse, W.H.D.Translatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Schleiermacher, FriedrichTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Warren, HansTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
Information from the German Common Knowledge. Edit to localize it to your language.
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
Information from the Russian Common Knowledge. Edit to localize it to your language.
First words
Information from the German Common Knowledge. Edit to localize it to your language.
Die Personen des Dialogs: Echekrates, Phaidon.
Ort: Phleius (im Nordosten der Peleponnes), kurz nach dem Tode Sokrates.

Echekrates: Phaidon, warst du selbst bei Sokrates an jenem Tage, als er das Gift trank im Gefängnis, oder hast du es von einem anderen gehört?
Echekrates: Warst du selbst, Phaidon, beim Sokrates an jenem Tage, als er im Gefängnis den Giftbecher trank, oder hast du von einem anderen darüber gehört? (neu durchgesehene Übersetzung von Friedrich Schleiermacher)
Last words
Information from the German Common Knowledge. Edit to localize it to your language.
(Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)
Disambiguation notice
Please separate and combine only LT works having substantially the same content. For example, this LT work includes one of Plato's dialogues: Phaedo. Thank you.

Phaedo and Phaedrus are two separate works by Plato.
Publisher's editors
Publisher series
Original language
Information from the German Common Knowledge. Edit to localize it to your language.
Canonical DDC/MDS

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English


Book description
Haiku summary

Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0915144182, Paperback)

The book is written for anyone seriously interested in Plato's thought and in the history of literary theory or of rhetoric. No knowledge of Greek is required. The focus of this account is on how the resources both of persuasive myth and of formal argument, for all that Plato sets them in strong contrast, nevertheless complement and reinforce each other in his philosophy.

(retrieved from Amazon Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:16:11 -0400)

(see all 7 descriptions)

Socrates is in prison, sentenced to die when the sun sets. In this final conversation, he asks what will become of him once he drinks the poison prescribed for his execution. Socrates and his friends examine several arguments designed to prove that the soul is immortal. This quest leads him to the broader topic of the nature of mind and its connection not only to human existence but also to the cosmos itself. What could be a better way to pass the time between now and the sunset?… (more)

(summary from another edition)

» see all 3 descriptions

Quick Links

Popular covers


Average: (3.87)
1 2
2 4
2.5 1
3 29
3.5 8
4 41
4.5 3
5 31

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.


About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 132,434,511 books! | Top bar: Always visible