EUTHYPHRO

Background[edit]
The dialogue is set near the king-archon's court, where the two men encounter each other. They are both there for
preliminary hearings before possible trials (2a).
Euthyphro has come to lay manslaughter charges against his father, as his father had allowed one of his workers to die
exposed to the elements without proper care and attention (3e4d). This worker had killed a slave belonging to the
family estate on the island of Naxos; while Euthyphro's father waited to hear from the expounders of religious law
(exegetes cf. Laws 759d) about how to proceed, the worker died bound and gagged in a ditch. Socrates expresses his
astonishment at the confidence of a man able to take his own father to court on such a serious charge, even when
Athenian Law allows only relatives of the deceased to sue for murder (Dem. 43 57). Euthyphro misses the
astonishment, and merely confirms his overconfidence in his own judgment of religious/ethical matters. In an example of
"Socratic irony," Socrates states that Euthyphro obviously has a clear understanding of what is pious ( to
hosion) and impious ( to anosion).[3] Since Socrates himself is facing a charge of impiety, he expresses the
hope to learn from Euthyphro, all the better to defend himself in his own trial.
Euthyphro claims that what lies behind the charge brought against Socrates by Meletus and the other accusers is
Socrates's claim that he is subjected to a daimon or divine sign which warns him of various courses of action (3b). Even
more suspicious from the viewpoint of many Athenians, Socrates expresses skeptical views on the main stories about
the Greek gods, which the two men briefly discuss before plunging into the main argument. Socrates expresses
reservations about such accounts which show up the gods' cruelty and inconsistency. He mentions the castration of the
early sky god, Uranus, by his son Cronus, saying he finds such stories very difficult to accept (6a6c).
Euthyphro, after claiming to be able to tell even more amazing such stories, spends little time or effort defending the
conventional view of the gods. Instead, he is led straight to the real task at hand, as Socrates forces him to confront his
ignorance, ever pressing him for a definition of 'piety'. Yet, with every definition Euthyphro proposes, Socrates very
quickly finds a fatal flaw (6d ff.).
At the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro is forced to admit that each definition has been a failure, but rather than correct it,
he makes the excuse that it is time for him to go, and Socrates ends the dialogue with a classic example of Socratic
irony: since Euthyphro has been unable to come up with a definition that will stand on its own two feet, Euthyphro has
failed to teach Socrates anything at all about piety, and so he has received no aid for his own defense at his own trial
(15c ff.).
The argument[edit]

Bust of Socrates, Roman marble, Louvre museum

The argument of this dialogue is based largely on "definition by division". Socrates goads Euthyphro to offer one
definition after another for the word 'piety'. The hope is to use a clear definition as the basis for Euthyphro to teach
Socrates the answer to the question, "What is piety?", ostensibly so that Socrates can use this to defend himself against
the charge of impiety.
It is clear that Socrates wants a definition of piety that will be universally true (i.e., a universal), against which all
actions can be measured to determine whether or not they are pious. It is equally clear that to be universal, the definition
must express what is essential about the thing defined, and be in terms of genus, species, and its differentiae (this
terminology is somewhat later than Socrates, made more famous with Aristotle).
Hence this dialogue is important not just for theology, ethics, and epistemology, but even for metaphysics. Indeed:
Plato's approach here has been accused of being too overtly anachronistic, since it is highly unlikely that Socrates
himself was such a "master metaphysicist". But the more expository treatment of metaphysics we find in Aristotle has its
roots in the Platonic dialogues, especially in the Euthyphro.
The stages of the argument can be summarised as follows:
First definition[edit]
Euthyphro offers as his first definition of piety what he is doing now, that is, prosecuting his father for manslaughter (5d).
Socrates rejects this because it is not a definition; it is only an example or instance of piety. It does not provide the
fundamental characteristic which makes pious things pious.
Second definition[edit]
Euthyphro's second definition: piety is what is pleasing to the gods (6e-7a). Socrates applauds this definition because it
is expressed in a general form, but criticizes it on the grounds that the gods disagree among themselves as to what is
'pleasing'. This would mean that a particular action, disputed by the gods, would be both pious and impious at the same
time a logically impossible situation. Euthyphro tries to argue against Socrates's criticism by pointing out that not even

the gods would disagree amongst themselves that someone who kills without justification should be punished but
Socrates argues that disputes would still arise over just how much justification there actually was, and hence the
same action could still be both pious and impious. So yet again, Euthyphro's 'definition' cannot possibly be a definition.
Third definition[edit]
Euthyphro attempts to overcome Socrates's objection by slightly amending his second definition (9e). Thus the third
definition reads: What all the gods love is pious, and what they all hate is impious. At this point Socrates introduces the
"Euthyphro dilemma" by asking the crucial question: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious
because it is loved by the gods (10a)?" This is where he sets up his typical dialectic. This Socratic technique, essentially
an analogy or comparison in this instance, is used to make his question clearer. He gets Euthyphro to agree that we call
a carried thing "carried" simply because it is carried, not because it possesses some inherent characteristic or property
that we could call "carried". That is, being carried is not an essential characteristic of the thing carried; being carried is a
state. Likewise with piety: if it is defined as "what is loved by the gods," it is liked for some reason, not just because it is
liked (which would be circular in its reasoning). So the fact that the gods like a pious action does not, de facto, make the
action pious. The liking must follow from something, which, in this case, is the recognition that an action is pious prior to
its being liked, and not the other way around. Thus the piety comes before the liking both temporally and logically, yet in
Euthyphro's definition it is exactly the other way around (it is pious because the gods like it). Therefore, Euthyphro's third
definition is severely flawed.
To the modern reader, this part of the argument (10a-11a) sounds painfully convoluted. But it had to be written this way,
because the Greek of Socrates's time lacked the grammatical terminology to refer to the active voice and passive voice
which would have greatly simplified Socrates's expressions.[4] Nor can he refer to Aristotle's Categories, which also goes
into great detail on this distinction (treating it as between simple expressions of state and secondary substances). So he
explains with detailed examples ('carried', 'loved', 'seen') instead.
Without yet realizing that it makes his definition circular, Euthyphro at this point agrees that the gods like an action
because it is pious. Socrates argues that the unanimous approval of the gods is merely an attribute of piety; it is not part
of its defining characteristics. It does not define the essence of piety, what piety is in itself; it does not give the idea of
piety, so it cannot be a universal definition of 'piety.'
Fourth definition[edit]
In the second half of the discussion Socrates himself suggests a definition of piety (12d), namely that "piety is a species
of the genus 'justice'".[5] But he leads up to this with both observations and questions concerning the difference between
species and genus, starting with:
...are you not compelled to think that all that is pious is just?
However, as he then points out a little later, this is still not enough for a definition, since piety belongs to those actions
we call just or morally good. However, there are more than simply pious actions that we call just or morally good (12d);
for example, bravery, concern for others and so on. What is it, asks Socrates, that makes piety different from all those
other actions that we call just? We cannot say something is simply because we believe it to be so. We must find proof.
Euthyphro's response[edit]
Euthyphro then suggests that piety is concerned with looking after the gods (13b), but Socrates immediately raises the
objection that "looking after", if used in its ordinary sense, which Euthyphro agrees that it is, would imply that when you
perform an act of piety you make one of the gods better a dangerous example of hubris, which gods frowned upon
(13c). Euthyphro claims that "caring for" involves service. When questioned by Socrates as to exactly what is the end
product of piety, Euthyphro can only fall back on his earlier claim: piety is what is loved by all the gods (14b).
Final definition[edit]
Euthyphro then proposes yet again another definition: Piety, he says, is an art of sacrifice and prayer. He puts forward
the notion of piety as a form of knowledge of how to do exchange: giving the gods gifts, and asking favours of them in
turn (14e). Socrates presses Euthyphro to state what benefit the gods get from the gifts humans give to them, warning
that this "knowledge of exchange" is a species of commerce (14e). Euthyphro objects that the gifts are not that sort of
gift at all, but rather "honour, esteem and favor" (15a). In other words, as he admits, piety is intimately bound up with
what the gods like. The discussion has come full circle. Euthyphro rushes off to another engagement, and Socrates
faces a preliminary hearing on the charge of impiety.

APOLOGY
Introduction[edit]
The Apology begins with Socrates saying he does not know if the men of Athens (his jury) have been persuaded by his
accusers. This first sentence is crucial to the theme of the entire speech. Indeed, in the Apology Socrates will suggest

that philosophy begins with a sincere admission of ignorance; he later clarifies this, dramatically stating that whatever
wisdom he has, comes from his knowledge that he knows nothing (23b, 29b).
Socrates imitates, parodies, and even corrects the Orators by asking the jury to judge him not by his oratorical skills, but
by the truth (cf. Lysias XIX 1,2,3, Isaeus X 1, Isocrates XV 79, Aeschines II 24). Socrates says he will not use ornate
words and phrases that are carefully arranged, but will speak using the expressions that come into his head. He says he
will use the same way of speaking that he is heard using at the agora and the money tables. In spite of his disclaimers,
Socrates proves to be a master orator who is not only eloquent and persuasive, but even wise. This is how he corrects
the Orators, showing what they should have been doing all along, speaking the truth persuasively with wisdom. Although
it is clear that Socrates was offered the opportunity to appease the listeners with even a minimal concession to avoid the
penalty, he consciously does not do so, and his speech does not allow for acquittal. Accordingly, Socrates is condemned
to death.
Socrates' accusers[edit]
The three men who brought the charges against Socrates represented most of the categorical sections of society at the
time: the workers and politicians, the informal speakers of the gods (being the poets), and the scholars. They were:
Anytus, son of a prominent Athenian, Anthemion. Socrates says Anytus joined the prosecution because he was "vexed
on behalf of the craftsmen and politicians" (23e24a). Anytus makes an important cameo appearance in Meno. Anytus
appears unexpectedly while Socrates and Meno (a visitor to Athens) are discussing the acquisition of virtue. Having
taken the position that virtue cannot be taught, Socrates adduces as evidence for this that many prominent Athenians
have produced sons inferior to themselves. Socrates says this, and then proceeds to name names, including Pericles
and Thucydides. Anytus becomes very offended, and warns Socrates that running people down ("kakos legein") could
get him into trouble someday (Meno 94e95a).
Plutarch gives some information that might help us realize the real reason behind Anytus' worries. He says that Anytus
wanted to be friends with Alcibiades but he preferred to be with Socrates. And also we hear that Anytus' son had a
sexual relationship with Socrates, which was an accepted relationship between teacher and pupil in classical Athens.
Meletus, the only accuser to speak during Socrates' defense. Socrates says Meletus joined the prosecution because he
was "vexed on behalf of the poets" (23e). He is mentioned in another dialogue, the Euthyphro, but does not appear in
person. Socrates says there that Meletus is a young unknown with an aquiline nose. In the Apology, Meletus allows
himself to be cross-examined by Socrates and stumbles into a trap. Apparently not paying attention to the very charges
he is bringing, he accuses Socrates both of atheism and of believing in demi-gods.
Lycon, about whom, according to one scholar, "we know nothing except that he was the mouthpiece of the professional
rhetoricians."[6] Socrates says Lycon joined the prosecution because he was "vexed on behalf of the rhetoricians" (24a).
Some scholars, such as Debra Nails, identify Lycon as the father of Autolycus, who appears in Xenophon's Symposium
2.4ff. Nails also identifies Socrates' prosecutor with the Lycon who is the butt of jokes in Aristophanes and became a
successful democratic politician after the fall of the Four Hundred; she suggests that he may have joined in the
prosecution because he associated Socrates with the Thirty Tyrants, who had executed his son, Autolycus. [7] Others,
however, question the identification of Socrates' prosecutor with the father of Autolycus; John Burnet, for instance,
claims it "is most improbable".[8]
Socrates says that he has to refute two sets of accusations: Socrates was charged with disrespect toward the gods and
corruption of the youth. He did believe in the gods, but questioned their abilities.
Socrates says that the old charges stemmed from years of gossip and prejudice against him and hence were difficult to
address. These so-called 'informal charges' Socrates puts into the style of a formal legal accusation: "Socrates is
committing an injustice, in that he inquires into things below the earth and in the sky, and makes the weaker argument
the stronger, and teaches others to follow his example" (19b-c). He says that these allegations are repeated in a certain
comic poet, namely Aristophanes. In his play, The Clouds, Aristophanes lampooned Socrates by presenting him as the
paradigm of atheistic, scientific sophistry. Yet it is unlikely that Aristophanes would have intended these charges to be
taken seriously, since Plato depicts Aristophanes and Socrates as being on very good terms with each other in the
Symposium.
Socrates says that he cannot possibly be mistaken for a sophist because they are wise (or at least thought to be) and
highly paid. He says he lives in "ten-thousandfold poverty" (23c) and claims to know nothing noble and good.
Socrates sets the stage first by displacing any presumption by him of his own wisdom. He indicates that Chaerephon,
reputed to be impetuous, went to the Oracle of Delphi and asked the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than
Socrates. The Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser. Socrates indicates that he was astounded by
this statement: on the one hand, it is against the nature of the oracle to lie, but, on the other hand, he knew he was not
wise. Therefore, he sought to find someone wiser than himself, so that he could bring the evidence to the oracle. This is
the cause of his examination of everyone who appeared wise, and his cause to test the politicians, poets and scholars.

But, in doing so, and although he found genius at times, he found that none of them possessed wisdom. But, yet, each
was thought wise and thought themselves wise; therefore, he was the better, since neither of them were wise, but he
knew he was not wise and they did not.
Socrates indicates that the young rich men in Athens do not have much to do so follow him around to observe the
examinations. Then they imitate him. For those examined, they do not know how to displace the fact that they have been
made to be pretenders of wisdom, so not to be at a loss of a defense, merely re-state the prejudicial stock charges that
Socrates is an abomination and corrupts the youth.
"For those who are examined, instead of being angry with themselves, are angry with me!" This is the essential
reconciliation for why Socrates is considered wise, and, at the same time, acquired a bad reputation among the most
socially powerful Athenians.
The dialogue[edit]
The Apology can be divided into three parts. The first part is Socrates' own defense of himself and includes the most
famous parts of the text, namely his recounting of the Oracle at Delphi and his cross-examination of Meletus. The
second part is the verdict, and the third part is the sentencing.
Part one[edit]
Socrates begins by telling the jury that their minds were poisoned by his enemies when they were young and
impressionable. He says his reputation for sophistry comes from his enemies, all of whom are envious of him, and
malicious. He says they must remain nameless, except for Aristophanes, the comic poet. He later answers the charge
that he has corrupted the young by arguing that deliberate corruption is an incoherent idea. Socrates says that all these
false accusations began with his obedience to the oracle at Delphi. He tells how Chaerephon went to the Oracle at
Delphi, to ask if anyone was wiser than Socrates. When Chaerephon reported to Socrates that the god told him there is
none wiser, Socrates took this as a riddle. He himself knew that he had no wisdom "great or small" but that he also knew
that it is against the nature of the gods to lie.
Socrates then went on a "divine mission" to solve the paradox (that an ignorant man could also be the wisest of all men)
and to clarify the meaning of the Oracles' words. He systematically interrogated the politicians, poets and craftsmen.
Socrates determined that the politicians were imposters, and the poets did not understand even their own poetry, like
prophets and seers who do not understand what they say. Craftsmen proved to be pretentious too, and Socrates says
that he saw himself as a spokesman for the oracle (22e). He asked himself whether he would rather be an impostor like
the people he spoke to, or be himself. Socrates tells the jury that he would rather be himself than anyone else.
Socrates says that this questioning earned him the reputation of being an annoying busybody. Socrates interpreted his
life's mission as proof that true wisdom belongs to the gods and that human wisdom and achievements have little or no
value. Having addressed the cause of the prejudice against him, Socrates then tackles the formal charges, corruption of
the young and atheism.
Socrates' first move is to accuse his accuser, Meletus (whose name means literally, "the person who cares," or "caring")
of not caring about the things he professes to care about. He argues during his interrogation of Meletus that no one
would intentionally corrupt another person (because they stand to be harmed by him at a later date). The issue of
corruption is important for two reasons: first, it appears to be the heart of the charge against him, that he corrupted the
young by teaching some version of atheism, and second, Socrates says that if he is convicted, it will be because
Aristophanes corrupted the minds of his audience when they were young (with his slapstick mockery of Socrates in his
play, "The Clouds", produced some twenty-four years earlier).
Socrates then proceeds to deal with the second charge, that he is an atheist. He cross-examines Meletus, and extracts
a contradiction. He gets Meletus to say that Socrates is an atheist who believes in spiritual agencies and demigods.
Socrates announces that he has caught Meletus in a contradiction, and asks the court whether Meletus has designed an
intelligence test for him to see if he can identify logical contradictions.
Socrates repeats his claim that it will not be the formal charges which will destroy him, but rather the prejudicial gossip
and slander. He is not afraid of death, because he is more concerned about whether he is acting rightly or wrongly.
Further, Socrates argues, those who fear death are showing their ignorance: death may be a great blessing, but many
people fear it as an evil when they cannot possibly know it to be such. Again Socrates points out that his wisdom lies in
the fact that he is aware that he does not know. Socrates was considered wise because of his ability to recognize his
own ignorance. "I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he
knows something when he does not."[9]
Socrates states clearly that a lawful superior, whether human or divine, should be obeyed. If there is a clash between the
two, however, divine authority should take precedence. "Gentlemen, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a
greater obedience to God than to you; and as long as I draw breath and have my faculties I shall never stop practicing
philosophy". Since Socrates has interpreted the Delphic Oracle as singling him out to spur his fellow Athenians to a

greater awareness of moral goodness and truth, he will not stop questioning and arguing should the people forbid him to
do so, even if they were to withdraw the charges. Nor will he stop questioning his fellow citizens. "Are you not ashamed
that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give
no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?"
In a highly inflammatory section of the Apology, Socrates claims that no greater good has happened to Athens than his
concern for his fellow citizens, that wealth is a consequence of goodness (and not the other way around), that God does
not permit a better man to be harmed by a worse, and that, in the strongest statement he gives of his task, he is a
stinging gadfly and the state a lazy horse, "and all day long I will never cease to settle here, there and everywhere,
rousing, persuading, and reproving every one of you."
As further evidence of his task, Socrates reminds the court of his daimon which he sees as a supernatural experience.
He recognizes this as partly behind the charge of believing in invented beings. Again Socrates makes no concession to
his situation.
Socrates claims to never have been a teacher, in the sense of imparting knowledge to others. He cannot therefore be
held responsible if any citizen turns bad. If he has corrupted anyone, why have they not come forward to be witnesses?
Or if they do not realize that they have been corrupted, why have their relatives not stepped forward on their behalf?
Many relatives of the young men associated with him, Socrates points out, are presently in the courtroom to support
him.
Socrates concludes this part of the Apology by reminding the judges that he will not resort to the usual emotive tricks
and arguments. He will not break down in tears, nor will he produce his three sons in the hope of swaying the judges. He
does not fear death; nor will he act in a way contrary to his religious duty. He will rely solely on sound argument and the
truth to present his case.
The verdict[edit]
Socrates is voted guilty by a narrow margin (36a). Plato never gives the total number of Socrates' judges nor the exact
numbers of votes against him and for his acquittal,[10] though Socrates does say that if only 30 more had voted in his
favor then he would have been acquitted. Many scholars assume the number of judges was 281 to 220 and was
sentenced to death by a vote of 361 to 140.[11][12]
Part two[edit]
It was the tradition that the prosecutor and the defendant each propose a penalty, from which the court would choose. In
this section, Socrates antagonises the court even further when considering his proposition.
He points out that the vote was comparatively close: he only needed 30 more votes for himself, and he would have been
found innocent. He engages in some dark humour by suggesting that Meletus narrowly escaped a fine for not meeting
the statutory one-fifth of the votes (in order to avoid frivolous cases coming to court, plaintiffs were fined heavily if the
judges' votes did not reach this number in a case where the defendant won). Assuming there were 501 or 500 jurymen,
the prosecution had to gain at least 100 of the judges' votes. Taken by itself however Meletus' vote (as representing onethird of the prosecution case) would have numbered only 93 or 94 (assuming 501 or 500 total judges). Regardless of the
number of plaintiffs, it was their case that had to reach the requisite one-fifth. Not only that, the prosecutors had won.
Instead of proposing a penalty, Socrates proposes a reward for himself: as benefactor to Athens, he should be given free
meals in the Prytaneum, one of the important buildings which housed members of the Council. This was an honour
reserved for athletes and other prominent citizens.
Finally Socrates considers imprisonment and banishment before settling on a fine of 100 drachmae, as he had little
funds of his own with which he could pay the fine. This was a small sum when weighed against the punishment
proposed by the prosecutors and encouraged the judges to vote for the death penalty. Socrates' supporters immediately
increased the amount to 3,000 drachmae, but in the eyes of the judges this was still not an alternative.
So the judges decided on the sentence of death.
Part three[edit]
Plato indicates that the majority of judges voted in favor of the death penalty (Apology 38c), but he does not indicate
exactly how many did. Our only source for the actual numbers of these votes is Diogenes Laertius, who says that 80
more voted for the death sentence than had voted for Socrates' guilt in the first place (2.42); but the details of this
account have been disputed.[13] Others have concluded from this that Socrates' speech angered the jury. [14]
Socrates now responds to the verdict. He first addresses those who voted for death.
He claims that it is not a lack of arguments that has resulted in his condemnation, but rather lack of time and his
unwillingness to stoop to the usual emotive appeals expected of any defendant facing death. Again he insists that the
prospect of death does not absolve one from following the path of goodness and truth.
Socrates prophesises that younger and harsher critics will follow him vexing them even more.(39d)
To those who voted for his acquittal, Socrates gives them encouragement: He says that his daimon did not stop him from

conducting his defense in the way that he did, that this was a sign that it was the right thing to do.
In this way, his daimon was even telling him that death must be a blessing. For either it is an annihilation (thus bringing
eternal peace from all worries, and therefore not something to be truly afraid of) or a migration to another place to meet
souls of famous people such as Hesiod and Homer and heroes like Odysseus. With these, it will be a joy to continue the
practice of Socratic dialogue.
Socrates concludes his Apology with the claim that he bears no grudge against those who accused and condemned
him, and asks them to look after his three sons as they grow up, ensuring that they put goodness before selfish
interests.
PHAEDO
Plato's Phdo or Phaedo (/fido/; Greek: , Phaidn, Greek pronunciation: [padn]), also known to ancient
readers as Plato's On The Soul,[1] is one of the great dialogues of his middle period, along with the Republic and the
Symposium. The Phaedo, which depicts the death of Socrates, is also Plato's fourth and last dialogue to detail the
philosopher's final days, following Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito.
In the dialogue, Socrates discusses the nature of the afterlife on his last day before being executed by drinking hemlock.
Socrates has been imprisoned and sentenced to death by an Athenian jury for not believing in the gods of the state
(though some scholars think it was more for his support of "philosopher kings" as opposed to democracy) [2] and for
corrupting the youth of the city. The dialogue is told from the perspective of one of Socrates' students, Phaedo of Elis.
Having been present at Socrates' death bed, Phaedo relates the dialogue from that day to Echecrates, a Pythagorean
philosopher. By engaging in dialectic with a group of Socrates' friends, including the Thebans Cebes and Simmias,
Socrates explores various arguments for the soul's immortality in order to show that there is an afterlife in which the soul
will dwell following death. Phaedo tells the story that following the discussion, he and the others were there to witness
the death of Socrates.
One of the main themes in the Phaedo is the idea that the soul is immortal. Socrates offers four arguments for the soul's
immortality:
The Cyclical Argument, or Opposites Argument explains that Forms are eternal and unchanging, and as the soul always
brings life, then it must not die, and is necessarily "imperishable". As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death,
the soul must be its indestructible opposite. Plato then suggests the analogy of fire and cold. If the form of cold is
imperishable, and fire, its opposite, was within close proximity, it would have to withdraw intact as does the soul during
death. This could be likened to the idea of the opposite charges of magnets.
The Theory of Recollection explains that we possess some non-empirical knowledge (e.g. The Form of Equality) at birth,
implying the soul existed before birth to carry that knowledge. Another account of the theory is found in Plato's Meno,
although in that case Socrates implies anamnesis (previous knowledge of everything) whereas he is not so bold in
Phaedo.
The Affinity Argument, explains that invisible, immortal, and incorporeal things are different from visible, mortal, and
corporeal things. Our soul is of the former, while our body is of the latter, so when our bodies die and decay, our soul will
continue to live.
The Argument from Form of Life, or The Final Argument explains that the Forms, incorporeal and static entities, are the
cause of all things in the world, and all things participate in Forms. For example, beautiful things participate in the Form
of Beauty; the number four participates in the Form of the Even, etc. The soul, by its very nature, participates in the
Form of Life, which means the soul can never die.
The Phaedo was first translated into Latin from Greek by Henry Aristippus in 1160.
Summary[edit]
Introductory conversation[edit]
The scene is set in Phlius where Echecrates who, meeting Phaedo, asks for news about the last days of Socrates.
Phaedo explains why a delay occurred between his trial and his death, and describes the scene in a prison at Athens on
the final day, naming those present. He tells how he had visited Socrates early in the morning with the others. Socrates'
wife Xanthippe was there, but was very distressed and Socrates asked that she be taken away. Socrates' relates how,
bidden by a recurring dream to "make and cultivate music", he wrote a hymn and then began writing poetry based on
Aesop's Fables.[3]
Socrates tells Cebes to "bid him (his friend) farewell from me; say that I would have him come after me if he be a wise
man" Simmias expresses confusion as to why they ought hasten to follow Socrates to death. Socrates then states "...he,
who has the spirit of philosophy, will be willing to die; but he will not take his own life." Cebes raises his doubts as to why
suicide is prohibited. He asks, "Why do you say...that a man ought not to take his own life, but that the philosopher will

be ready to follow one who is dying?" Socrates replies that while death is the ideal home of the soul, man, specifically
the philosopher, should not commit suicide except when it becomes necessary. [4]
Man ought not to kill himself because he possesses no actual ownership of himself, as he is actually the property of the
gods. He says, "I too believe that the gods are our guardians, and that we men are a chattel of theirs". While the
philosopher seeks always to rid himself of the body, and to focus solely on things concerning the soul, to commit suicide
is prohibited as man is not sole possessor of his body. For, as stated in the Phaedo: "the philosopher more than other
men frees the soul from association with the body as much as possible". Body and soul are separate, then. The
philosopher frees himself from the body because the body is an impediment to the attainment of truth. [5]
Of the senses' failings, Socrates says to Simmias in the Phaedo:
Did you ever reach them (truths) with any bodily sense? -- and I speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and
health, and strength, and, in short, of the reality or true nature of everything. Is the truth of them ever perceived through
the bodily organs? Or rather, is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so
orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of each thing he considers? [6]
The philosopher, if he loves true wisdom and not the passions and appetites of the body, accepts that he can come
closest to true knowledge and wisdom in death, as he is no longer confused by the body and the senses. In life, the
rational and intelligent functions of the soul are restricted by bodily senses of pleasure, pain, sight, and sound. [7] Death,
however, is a rite of purification from the "infection" of the body. As the philosopher practices death his entire life, he
should greet it amicably and not be discouraged upon its arrival, for, since the universe the Gods created for us in life is
essentially "good," why would death be anything but a continuation of this goodness? Death is a place where better and
wiser Gods rule and where the most noble souls exist: "And therefore, so far as that is concerned, I not only do not
grieve, but I have great hopes that there is something in store for the dead..., something better for the good than for the
wicked."[8]
The soul attains virtue when it is purified from the body: "He who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so
to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements when they associate with the soul hinder her
from acquiring truth and knowledge--who, if not he, is likely to attain to the knowledge of true being?" [9]
The Cyclical Argument[edit]
Cebes voices his fear of death to Socrates: "...they fear that when she [the soul] has left the body her place may be
nowhere, and that on the very day of death she may perish and come to an end immediately on her release from the
body...dispersing and vanishing away into nothingness in her flight." [10]
In order to alleviate Cebes' worry that the soul might perish at death, Socrates introduces his first argument for the
immortality of the soul. This argument is often called the Cyclical Argument. It supposes that the soul must be immortal
since the living come from the dead. Socrates says: "Now if it be true that the living come from the dead, then our souls
must exist in the other world, for if not, how could they have been born again?". He goes on to show, using examples of
relationships, such as asleep-awake and hot-cold, that things that have opposites come to be from their opposite. One
falls asleep after having been awake. And after being asleep, he awakens. Things that are hot can become cold and
vice versa. Socrates then gets Cebes to conclude that the dead are generated from the living, through death, and that
the living are generated from the dead, through birth. The souls of the dead must exist in some place for them to be able
to return to life.[11]
The Theory of Recollection Argument[edit]
Cebes realizes the relationship between the Cyclical Argument and Socrates' Theory of Recollection. He interrupts
Socrates to point this out, saying:
...your favorite doctrine, Socrates, that our learning is simply recollection, if true, also necessarily implies a previous time
in which we have learned that which we now recollect. But this would be impossible unless our soul had been
somewhere before existing in this form of man; here then is another proof of the soul's immortality. [12]
Socrates' second argument, the Theory of Recollection, shows that it is possible to draw information out of a person who
seems not to have any knowledge of a subject prior to his being questioned about it (a priori knowledge). This person
must have gained this knowledge in a prior life, and is now merely recalling it from memory. Since the person in
Socrates' story is able to provide correct answers to his interrogator, it must be the case that his answers arose from
recollections of knowledge gained during a previous life.[13]
The Affinity Argument[edit]
Socrates presents his third argument for the immortality of the soul, the so-called Affinity Argument, where he shows
that the soul most resembles that which is invisible and divine, and the body resembles that which is visible and mortal.
From this, it is concluded that while the body may be seen to exist after death in the form of a corpse, as the body is
mortal and the soul is divine, the soul must outlast the body. [14]
As to be truly virtuous during life is the quality of a great man who will perpetually dwell as a soul in the underworld.

However, regarding those who were not virtuous during life, and so favored the body and pleasures pertaining
exclusively to it, Socrates also speaks. He says that such a soul as this is:
...polluted, is impure at the time of her departure, and is the companion and servant of the body always and is in love
with and bewitched by the body and by the desires and pleasures of the body, until she is led to believe that the truth
only exists in a bodily form, which a man may touch and see, and drink and eat, and use for the purposes of his lusts,
the soul, I mean, accustomed to hate and fear and avoid that which to the bodily eye is dark and invisible, but is the
object of mind and can be attained by philosophy; do you suppose that such a soul will depart pure and unalloyed? [15]
Persons of such a constitution will be dragged back into corporeal life, according to Socrates. These persons will even
be punished while in Hades. Their punishment will be of their own doing, as they will be unable to enjoy the singular
existence of the soul in death because of their constant craving for the body. These souls are finally "imprisoned in
another body". Socrates concludes that the soul of the virtuous man is immortal, and the course of its passing into the
underworld is determined by the way he lived his life. The philosopher, and indeed any man similarly virtuous, in neither
fearing death, nor cherishing corporeal life as something idyllic, but by loving truth and wisdom, his soul will be eternally
unperturbed after the death of the body, and the afterlife will be full of goodness. [16]
Simmias confesses that he does not wish to disturb Socrates during his final hours by unsettling his belief in the
immortality of the soul, and those present are reluctant to voice their skepticism. Socrates grows aware of their doubt
and assures his interlocutors that he does indeed believe in the soul's immortality, regardless of whether or not he has
succeeded in showing it as yet. For this reason, he is not upset facing death and assures them that they ought to
express their concerns regarding the arguments. Simmias then presents his case that the soul resembles the harmony
of the lyre. It may be, then, that as the soul resembles the harmony in its being invisible and divine, once the lyre has
been destroyed, the harmony too vanishes, therefore when the body dies, the soul too vanishes. Once the harmony is
dissipated, we may infer that so too will the soul dissipate once the body has been broken, through death. [17]
Socrates pauses, and asks Cebes to voice his objection as well. He says, "I am ready to admit that the existence of the
soul before entering into the bodily form has been...proven; but the existence of the soul after death is in my judgment
unproven." While admitting that the soul is the better part of a man, and the body the weaker, Cebes is not ready to infer
that because the body may be perceived as existing after death, the soul must therefore continue to exist as well. Cebes
gives the example of a weaver. When the weaver's cloak wears out, he makes a new one. However, when he dies, his
more freshly woven cloaks continue to exist. Cebes continues that though the soul may outlast certain bodies, and so
continue to exist after certain deaths, it may eventually grow so weak as to dissolve entirely at some point. He then
concludes that the soul's immortality has yet to be shown and that we may still doubt the soul's existence after death.
For, it may be that the next death is the one under which the soul ultimately collapses and exists no more. Cebes would
then, "...rather not rely on the argument from superior strength to prove the continued existence of the soul after
death."[18]
Seeing that the Affinity Argument has possibly failed to show the immortality of the soul, Phaedo pauses his narration.
Phaedo remarks to Echecrates that, because of this objection, those present had their "faith shaken," and that there was
introduced "a confusion and uncertainty". Socrates too pauses following this objection and then warns against misology,
the hatred of argument.[19]
The Argument from Form of Life[edit]
Socrates then proceeds to give his final proof of the immortality of the soul by showing that the soul is immortal as it is
the cause of life. He begins by showing that "if there is anything beautiful other than absolute beauty it is beautiful only
insofar as it partakes of absolute beauty". Consequently, as absolute beauty is a Form, and so is the soul, then anything
which has the property of being infused with a soul is so infused with the Form of soul. As an example he says, "will not
the number three endure annihilation or anything sooner than be converted into an even number, while remaining
three?". Forms, then, will never become their opposite. As the soul is that which renders the body living, and that the
opposite of life is death, it so follows that, "...the soul will never admit the opposite of what she always brings." That
which does not admit death is said to be immortal.[20]
Socrates thus concludes, "Then, Cebes, beyond question, the soul is immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly
exist in another world. "Once dead, man's soul will go to Hades and be in the company of," as Socrates says, "...men
departed, better than those whom I leave behind." For he will dwell amongst those who were true philosophers, like
himself.[21]
Legacy[edit]
Plato's Phaedo had a significant readership throughout antiquity, and was commented on by a number of ancient
philosophers, such as Harpocration of Argos, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Paterius, Plutarch of Athens, Syrianus and Proclus.
[22]
The two most important commentaries on the dialogue that have come down to us from the ancient world are those
by Olympiodorus of Alexandria and Damascius of Athens.[23]

The Phaedo has come to be considered a seminal formulation, from which "a whole range of dualities, which have
become deeply ingrained in Western philosophy, theology, and psychology over two millennia, received their classic
formulation: soul and body, mind and matter, intellect and sense, reason and emotion, reality and appearance, unity and
plurality, perfection and imperfection, immortal and mortal, permanence and change, eternal and temporal, divine and
human, heaven and earth."[24]
In her autobiography, Naomi Mitchison recalled that after the death of her father John Scott Haldane, she and her
brother devised for him a non-religious funeral service including readings from the Phaedo.[25]