The Phaedo. Selections from. by Plato. The Death of Scorates, David, 1787.

Transcription

1 Sltions from Th Phao y Plato Th Dath of Sorats, Davi, [Th Phao tlls th story of Sorats final momnts spnt, as on woul xpt, in philosophial ialogu with his frins. Th main sujt of th ialogu is th immortality of th soul. Th Phao is on of Plato s mil prio ialogus an, as suh, rvals muh of Plato s own philosophy. In th argumnts Sorats puts forth for th immortality of th soul w fin a lar xposition of oth Plato s mtaphysis as wll as his pistmology. In th first stion w fin Sorats xplaining to his frins why a tru philosophr os not far ath. Philosophy is hr sri as a prparation for ath.] ECHECRATES: Wr you thr with Sorats yourslf, Phao, whn h was xut, or i you har aout it from somoy ls? PHAEDO: No, I was thr myslf, Ehrats. ECHECRATES: Thn what i th mastr say for h i, an how i h mt his n? I shoul vry muh lik to know. Non of th popl in Phlius go to Athns muh in ths ays, an it is a long tim sin w ha any visitor from thr who oul giv us any finit information, xpt that h was xut y rinking hmlok. Nooy oul tll us anything mor than that. PHAEDO: Thn havn't you vn har how his trial wnt? ECHECRATES: Ys, somon tol us aout that, an w wr surpris aus thr was oviously a long intrval twn it an th xution. How was that, Phao? PHAEDO: A fortunat oinin, Ehrats. It so happn that on th ay for th trial thy ha just finish garlaning th strn of th ship whih Athns sns to Dlos. ECHECRATES : What ship is that? PHAEDO: Th Athnians say that it is th on in whih Thsus sail away to Crt with th svn youths an svn mains, an sav thir livs an his own as wll. Th story says that th Athnians ma a vow to Apollo that if ths young popl's livs wr sav thy woul sn a solmn mission to Dlos vry yar, an vr sin thn thy hav kpt thir vow to th go, right own to th prsnt ay. Thy hav a law that as soon as this mission gins th ity must kpt pur, an no puli xutions may tak pla until th ship has rah Dlos an rturn again, whih somtims taks a long tim, if th wins happn to hol it ak. Th mission is onsir to gin as soon as th prist of Apollo has garlan th strn of th ship, an this happn, as I say, on th ay for th trial. That is why Sorats spnt suh a long tim in prison twn his trial an xution. ECHECRATES: But what aout th atual irumstans of his ath, Phao? What was sai an on, an whih of th mastr's ompanions wr with him? Or i th authoritis rfus thm amission, so that h pass away without a frin at his si? 57 58

2 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 2 PHAEDO: Oh no, som of thm wr thr quit a numr, in fat. ECHECRATES: I wish you woul kin nough to giv us, a rally tail aount unlss you ar prss for tim. PHAEDO: No, not at all. I will try to sri it for you. Nothing givs m mor plasur than ralling th mmory of Sorats, ithr y talking myslf or y listning to somon ls. ECHECRATES: Wll, Phao, you will fin that your auin fls just th sam aout it. Now try to sri vry tail as arfully as you an. PHAEDO: In th first pla, my own flings at th tim wr quit xtraorinary. It nvr ourr to m to fl sorry for him, as you might hav xpt m to fl at th ath of a vry ar frin. Th mastr sm quit happy, Ehrats, oth in his mannr an in what h sai; h mt his ath so farlssly an noly. I oul not hlp fling that vn on his way to th othr worl h woul unr th provin of Go, an that whn h arriv thr all woul wll with him, if it vr has n so with anyoy. So I flt no sorrow at all, as you might hav xpt on suh a solmn oasion, an at th sam tim I flt no plasur at ing oupi in our usual philosophial isussions that was th form that our onvrsation took. I flt an asolutly inomprhnsil motion, a sort of urious ln of plasur an pain omin, as my min took it in that in a littl whil my frin was going to i. All of us who wr thr wr afft in muh th sam way, twn laughing an rying; on of us in partiular, Apolloorus you know what h is lik, on't you? ECHECRATES: Of ours I o. PHAEDO: Wll, h quit lost ontrol of himslf, an I an th othrs wr vry muh upst. ECHECRATES: Who wr atually thr, Phao? PHAEDO: Why, of th loal popl thr wr this man Apolloorus, an Critoulus an his fathr, an thn thr wr Hrmogns an Epigns an Ashins an Antisthns. Oh ys, an Ctsippus of Paania, an Mnxnus, an som othr loal popl. I liv that Plato was ill. ECHECRATES: Wr thr any visitors from outsi? PHAEDO: Ys, Simmias of Ths, with Cs an Phaonas, an Eulis an Trpsion from Mgara. ECHECRATES: Why, wrn't Aristippusan Clomrotus thr? PHAEDO: No, thy wr in Agina, apparntly. ECHECRATES: Was thr anyoy ls? PHAEDO: I think that's aout all. ECHECRATES: Wll, what form i th isussion tak? PHAEDO: I will try to tll you all aout it from th vry ginning; W ha all ma it our rgular prati, vn in th prio for, to visit Sorats vry ay. W us to mt at ayrak y th ourthous whr th trial was hl, aus it was los to th prison. W always spnt som tim in onvrsation whil w wait for th oor to opn, whih was nvr vry arly; an whn it i opn, w us to go in to s Sorats, an gnrally spnt th ay with him. On this partiular ay w mt arlir than usual, aus whn w lft th prison on th vning for, w har that th oat ha just arriv ak from Dlos; so w urg on anothr to mt at th sam pla as arly as possil. Wh n w arriv, th portr, insta of ltting us in as usual, tol us to wait an not to om in until h gav us th wor. Th ommissionrs ar taking off Sorats' hains, h sai, an warning him that h is to i toay. Aftr a short intrval h am ak an tol us to go in. Whn w wnt insi w foun Sorats just rlas from his hains, an Xanthipp you knowhr! sitting y him with th littl oy on hr kn. As soon as Xanthipp saw us sh rok out into th sort of rmark 59 60

3 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 3 you woul xpt from a woman, Oh, Sotats, this is th last tim that you an your frins will al to talk togthr! Sorats look at Crito. Crito, h sai, somon ha ttr tak hr hom. Som of Crito's srvants l hr away rying hystrially. Sorats sat up on th an rw up his lg an massag it, saying as h i so, What a qur thing it is, my frins, this snsation whih is popularly all plasur! It is rmarkal how losly it is onnt with its onvntional opposit, pain. Thy will nvr om to a man oth at on, ut if you pursu on of thm an ath it, you ar narly always ompll to hav th othr as wll; thy ar lik two ois attah to th sam ha. I am sur that if Asop ha thought of it h woul hav ma up a fal aout thm, somthing lik this Go want to stop thir ontinual quarrling; an whn h foun that it was impossil, h fastn thir has togthr; so whrvr on of thm appars, th othr is sur to follow aftr. That is xatly what sms to happning to m. I ha a pain in my lg from th fttr, an now I fl th plasur oming that follows it. Hr Cs rok in an sai, Oh ys, Sorats, I am gla you rmin m. Evnus ask m a ay or two ago, as othrs hav on for, aout th lyris whih you hav n omposing latly y aapting Asop s fals an Th Prlu to Apollo. H want to know what inu you to writ thm now aftr you ha gon to prison, whn you ha nvr on anything of th kin for. If you woul lik m to al to answr Evnus whn h asks m again as I am sur h will tll m what I am to say. Tll him th truth, sai Sorats, that I i not ompos thm to rival ithr him or his potry whih I knw woul not asy. I i it in th attmpt to isovr th maning of rtain rams, an to lar my onsin, in as this was th art whih I ha n tol to prati. It is lik this, you s. In th ours of my lif I hav oftn ha th sam ram, apparing in iffrnt forms at iffrnt tims, ut always saying th sam thing, Sorats, prati an ultivat th arts. In th past I us to think that it was implling an xhorting m to o what I was atually oing; I man that th ram, lik a sptator nouraging a runnr in a ra, was, urging m on to o what I was oing alray, that is, pratiing th arts, aus philosophy is th gratst of th arts, an I was pratiing it. But vr sin my trial, whil th fstival of th go has n laying my xution, I hav flt that prhaps it might this popular form of art that th ram intn m to prati, in whih as I ought to prati it an not isoy. 1 thought it woul safr not to tak my partur for I ha lar my onsin y writing potry an so oying th ram. I gan with som vrss in honor of th go whos fstival it was. Whn I ha finish my hymn, I rflt that a pot, if h is to worthy of th nam, ought to work on imaginativ thms, not sriptiv ons, an I was not goo at invnting storis. So I avail myslf of som of Asop s fals whih wr ray to han an familiar to m, an I vrsifi th first of thm that suggst thmslvs. You an tll Evnus this, Cs, an i him farwll from m, an tll him, if h is wis, to follow m as quikly as h an. I shall going toay, it sms; thos ar my ountry s orrs. What a pi of avi for Evnus, Sorats! sai Simmias. I hav ha a goo al to o with him for now, an from what I know of him h will not at all ray to oy you. Why? h ask. Isn't Evnus a philosophr? So I liv, sai Simmias. Wll thn, h will quit willing, just lik anyon ls who is proprly groun in philosophy. Howvr, h will harly o himslf violn, aus thy say that it is not lgitimat. As h spok h lowr his ft to th groun, an sat lik this for th rst of th isussion. 61

4 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 4 Cs now ask him, Sorats, what o you man y saying that it is not lgitimat to o onslf violn, although a philosophr will willing to follow a frin who is? Why, Cs, hav you an Simmias nvr har aout ths things whil you hav n with Philolaus? Nothing finit, Sorats. Wll, vn my information is only as on harsay, ut I on't min at all tlling you what I hav har. I suppos that for on who is soon to lav this worl thr is no mor suital oupation than inquiring into our viws aout th futur lif, an trying to imagin what it is lik. What ls an on o in th tim for sunst? Tll m thn, Sorats, what ar th grouns for saying that suii is not lgitimat? I hav har it sri as wrong for now, as you suggst, oth yphilolaus, whn h was staying with us, an y othrs as wll, ut I hav nvr yt har any finit xplanation for it. Wll, you must not los hart, h sai. Prhaps you will har on somay. Howvr, no out you will fl it strang that this shoul th on qustion that has an unqualifi answr I man, if it nvr happns in th as of lif an ath, as it os in all othr onntions, that somtims an for som popl ath is ttr than lif. An it proaly sms strang to you that it shoul not right for thos to whom ath woul an avantag to nfit thmslvs, ut that thy shoul hav to await th srvis of somon ls. Cs laugh gntly an, ropping into his own ialt, sai, Ay, that it os. Ys, wnt on Sorats, put in that way it rtainly might sm unrasonal, though prhaps it has som justifiation. Th allgory whih th mystis tll us that w mn ar put in a sort of guar post, from whih on must not rlas onslf or run away sms to m to a high otrin with iffiult impliations. All th sam, Cs, I liv that this muh is tru; that th gos ar our kprs, an w mn ar on of thir possssions. Don't you think so? Ys, I o, sai Cs. Thn tak your own as. If on of your possssions wr to stroy itslf without intimation from you that you want it to i, wouln't you angry with it an punish it, if you ha any mans of oing so? Crtainly. So if you look at it in this way I suppos it is not unrasonal to say that w must not put an n to ourslvs until Go sns som ompulsion lik th on whih w ar faing now. That sms likly, I amit, sai Cs. But what you wr saying just now, that philosophrs woul raily willing to i that sms illogial, Sorats, assuming that w wr right in saying a momnt ago that Go is our kpr an w ar his possssions. If this srvi is irt y th gos, who ar th vry st of mastrs, it is inxplial that th vry wisst of mn shoul not griv at quitting it, aus h surly annot xpt to provi for himslf any ttr whn h is fr. On th othr han a stupi prson might gt th ia that it woul to his avantag to sap from his mastr. H might not rason it out that on shoul not sap from a goo mastr, ut rmain with him as long as possil, an so h might run away unrfltingly. A snsil man woul wish to rmain always with his suprior. If you look at it in this way, Sorats, th proal thing is just th opposit of what w sai just now. It is natural for th wis to griv whn thy i, an for fools to happy. Whn Sorats ha listn to this h sm to m to amus at Cs prsistn, an looking roun at us h sai, You know, Cs is always invstigating argumnts, an h is not at all willing to apt vry statmnt at its fa valu. Simmias sai, Wll, ut, Sorats, I think that this tim thr is somthing in what h says. Why shoul a rally wis man want to srt mastrs who ar ttr than himslf, an to gt 62 63

5 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 5 ri of thm so lightly? I thinkcs is aiming his ritiism at you, aus you ar making so light of laving us, an th gos too, who as you amit ar goo mastrs. What you an Cs say is prftly fair, sai Sorats. You man, I suppos, that I must mak a formal fns against this harg. Exatly, sai Simmias. Vry wll thn, lt m try to mak a mor onvining fns to you than I ma at my trial. If I i not xpt to ntr th ompany, first, of othr wis an goo gos, an sonly of mn now a who ar ttr than thos who ar in this worl now, it is tru that I shoul wrong in not griving at ath. As it is, you an assur that I xpt to fin myslf among goo mn. I woul not insist partiularly on this point, ut on th othr I assur you that I shall insist most strongly that I shall fin thr ivin mastrs who ar suprmly goo. That is why I am not so muh istrss as I might, an why I hav a firm hop that thr is somthing in stor for thos who hav i, an, as w hav n tol for many yars, somthing muh ttr for th goo than for th wik. Wll, what is your ia, Sorats? ask Simmias. Do you man to kp this knowlg to yourslf now that you ar laving us, or will you ommuniat it to us too? I think that w ought to hav a shar in this omfort; sis, it will srv as your fns, if w ar satisfi with what you say. Vry wll, I will try, h rpli. But for I gin, Crito hr sms to hav n wanting to say somthing for som tim. Lt us fin out what it is. Only this, Sorats, sai Crito, that th man who is to giv you th poison has n asking m for a long tim to tll you to talk as littl as possil. H says that talking maks you hat, an that you ought not to o anything to afft th ation of th poison. Othrwis it is somtims nssary to tak a son os, or vn a thir. That is his affair, sai Sorats. Lt him mak his own prparations for aministring it twi or thr tims if nssary. I was prtty sur you woul say that, sai Crito, ut h's n othring m for a long tim. Nvr min him, sai Sorats. Now for you, my jury. I want to xplain to you how it sms to m natural that a man who has rally vot his lif to philosophy shoul hrful in th fa of ath, an onfint of fining th gratst lssing in th nxt worl whn his lif is finish. I will try to mak lar to you, Simmias an Cs, how this an so. Orinary popl sm not to raliz that thos who rally apply thmslvs in th right way to philosophy ar irtly an of thir own aor prparing thmslvs for ying an ath. If this is tru, an thy hav atually n looking forwar to ath all thir livs, it woul of ours asur to troul whn th thing oms for whih thy hav so long n prparing an looking forwar. Simmias laugh an sai, Upon my wor, Sorats, you hav ma m laugh, though I was not at all in th moo for it. I am sur that if thy har what you sai, most popl woul think an our fllow ountrymn woul hartily agr that it was a vry goo hit at th philosophrs to say that thy ar half a alray, an that thy, th normal popl, ar quit awar that ath woul srv th philosophrs right. An thy woul quit orrt, Simmias xpt in thinking that thy ar quit awar. Thy ar not at all awar in what sns tru philosophrs ar half a, or in what sns thy srv ath, or what sort of ath thy srv. But lt us ismiss thm an talk among ourslvs. Do w liv that thr is suh a thing as ath? Most rtainly, sai Simmias, taking up th rol of answring. Is it simply th rlas of th soul from th oy? Is ath nothing mor or lss than this, th sparat onition of th oy y itslf whn it is rlas from th soul, an th sparat onition y itslf of th soul whn rlas from th oy? Is ath anything ls than this? 64

6 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 6 No, just that. Wll thn, my oy, s whthr you agr with m. I fany that this will hlp us to fin out th answr to our prolm. Do you think that it is right for a philosophr to onrn himslf with th so-all plasurs onnt with foo an rink? Crtainly not, Sorats, sai Simmias. What aout sxual plasurs? No, not at all. An what aout th othr attntions that w pay to our ois? Do you think that a philosophr attahs any importan to thm? I man things lik proviing himslf with smart loths an shos an othr oily ornamnts; o you think that h valus thm or spiss thm in so far as thr is no ral nssity for him to go in for that sort of thing? I think th tru philosophr spiss thm, h sai. Thn it is your opinion in gnral that a man of this kin is not onrn with th oy, ut kps his attntion irt as muh as h an away from it an towar th soul? Ys, it is. So it is lar first of all in th as of physial plasurs that th philosophr frs his soul from assoiation with th oy, so far as is possil, to a gratr xtnt than othr mn? It sms so. An most popl think, o thy not, Simmias, that a man who fins no plasur an taks no part in ths things os not srv to liv, an that anyon who thinks nothing of physial plasurs has on foot in th grav? That is prftly tru. Now tak th aquisition of knowlg. Is th oy a hinran or not, if on taks it into partnrship to shar an invstigation? What I man is this. Is thr any rtainty in human sight an haring, or is it tru, as th pots ar always inning into our ars, that w nithr har nor s anything auratly? Yt if ths snss ar not lar an aurat, th rst an harly so, aus thy ar all infrior to th first two. Don't you agr? Crtainly. Thn whn is it that th soul attains to truth? Whn it tris to invstigat anything with th hlp of th oy, it is oviously l astray. Quit so. Is it not in th ours of rfltion, if at all, that th soul gts a lar viw of fats? Ys. Surly th soul an st rflt whn it is fr of all istrations suh as haring or sight or pain or plasur of any kin that is, whn it ignors th oy an oms as far as possil inpnnt, avoiing all physial ontats an assoiations as muh as it an, in its sarh for rality. That is so. Thn hr too in spising th oy an avoiing it, an navoring to om inpnnt th philosophr s soul is aha of all th rst. It sms so. Hr ar som mor qustions, Simmias. Do w rogniz suh a thing as asolut uprightnss? In w o. An asolut auty an goonss too? Of ours. Hav you vr sn any of ths things with your ys? Crtainly not, sai h. 65

7 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 7 Wll, hav you vr apprhn thm with any othr oily sns? By thm I man not only asolut tallnss or halth or strngth, ut th ral natur of any givn thing what it atually is. Is it through th oy that w gt th trust prption of thm? Isn't it tru that in any inquiry you ar likly to attain mor narly to knowlg of your ojt in proportion to th ar an auray with whih you hav prpar yourslf to unrstan that ojt in itslf? Crtainly. Don't you think that th prson who is likly to su in this attmpt most prftly is th on who approahs ah ojt, as far as possil, with th unai intllt, without taking aount of any sns of sight in his thinking, or ragging any othr sns into his rkoning th man who pursus th truth y applying his pur an unaultrat thought to th pur an unaultrat ojt, utting himslf off as muh as possil from his ys an ars an virtually all th rst of his oy, as an impimnt whih y its prsn prvnts th soul from attaining to truth an lar thinking? Is not this th prson, Simmias, who will rah th goal of rality, if anyoy an? What you say is asolutly tru, Sorats, sai Simmias. All ths onsirations, sai Sorats, must surly prompt srious philosophrs to rviw th position in som suh way as this. It looks as though this wr a ypath laing to th right trak. So long as w kp to th oy an our soul is ontaminat with this imprftion, thr is no han of our vr attaining satisfatorily to our ojt, whih w assrt to truth. In th first pla, th oy provis us with innumral istrations in th pursuit of our nssary sustnan, an any isass whih attak us hinr our qust for rality. Bsis, th oy fills us with lovs an sirs an fars an all sorts of fanis an a grat al of nonsns, with th rsult that w litrally nvr gt an opportunity to think at all aout anything. Wars an rvolutions an attls ar u simply an solly to th oy an its sirs. All wars ar unrtakn for th aquisition of walth, an th rason why w hav to aquir walth is th oy, aus w ar slavs in its srvi. That is why, on all ths aounts, w hav so littl tim for philosophy. Worst of all, if w o otain any lisur from th oy's laims an turn to som lin of inquiry, th oy intrus on mor into our invstigations, intrrupting, isturing, istrating, an prvnting us from gtting a glimps of th truth. W ar in fat onvin that if w ar vr to hav pur knowlg of anything, w must gt ri of th oy an ontmplat things y thmslvs with th soul y itslf. It sms, to jug from th argumnt, that th wisom whih w sir an upon whih w profss to hav st our harts will attainal only whn w ar a, an not in our liftim. If no pur knowlg is possil in th ompany of th oy, thn ithr it is totally impossil to aquir knowlg, or it is only possil aftr ath, aus it is only thn that th soul will sparat an inpnnt of th oy. It sms that so long as w ar aliv, w shall ontinu losst to knowlg if w avoi as muh as w an all ontat an assoiation with th oy, xpt whn thy ar asolutly nssary, an insta of allowing ourslvs to om inft with its natur, purify ourslvs from it until Go himslf givs us livran. In this way, y kping ourslvs unontaminat y th follis of th oy, w shall proaly rah th ompany of othrs lik ourslvs an gain irt kkowlg of all that is pur an unontaminat that is, prsumaly, of truth. For on who is not pur himslf to attain to th ralm of purity woul no out a rah of univrsal justi. Somthing to this fft, Simmias, is what I imagin all ral lovrs of larning must think thmslvs an say to on anothr. Don t you agr with m? Most mphatially, Sorats. Vry wll, thn, sai Sorats, if this is tru, thr is goo rason for anyon who rahs th n of this journy whih lis for m to hop that thr, if anywhr, h will attain th 66 67

8 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 8 ojt to whih all our fforts hav n irt uring my past lif. So this journy whih is now orain for m arris a happy prospt for any othr man also who livs that his min has n prpar y purifiation. It os in, sai Simmias. An purifiation, as w saw som tim ago in our isussion, onsists in sparating th soul as muh as possil from th oy, an austoming it to withraw from all ontat with th oy an onntrat itslf y itslf, an to hav its wlling, so far as it an, oth now an in th futur, alon y itslf, fr from th shakls of th oy. Dos not that follow? Ys, it os, sai Simmias. Is not what w all ath a fring an sparation of soul from oy? Crtainly, h sai. An th sir to fr th soul is foun hifly, or rathr only, in th tru philosophr. In fat th philosophr's oupation onsists prisly in th fring an sparation of soul from oy. Isn't that so? Apparntly. Wll thn, as I sai at th ginning, if a man has train himslf throughout his lif to liv in a stat as los as possil to ath, woul it not riiulous for him to istrss whn ath oms to him? It woul, of ours. Thn it is a fat, Simmias, that tru philosophrs mak ying thir profssion, an that to thm of all mn ath is last alarming. Look at it in this way. If thy ar thoroughly issatisfi with th oy, an long to hav thir souls inpnnt of it, whn this happns woul it not ntirly unrasonal to frightn an istrss? Woul thy not naturally gla to st out for th pla whr thr is a prospt of attaining th ojt of thir liflong sir whih is wisom an of saping from an unwlom assoiation? Surly thr ar many who hav hosn of thir own fr will to follow a lovrs an wivs an sons to th nxt worl, in th hop of sing an mting thr th prsons whom thy lov. If this is so, will a tru lovr of wisom who has firmly grasp this sam onvition that h will nvr attain to wisom worthy of th nam lswhr than in th nxt worl will h griv at ying? Will h not gla to mak that journy? W must suppos so, my ar oy, that is, if h is a ral philosophr, aus thn h will of th firm lif that h will nvr fin wisom in all its purity in any othr pla. If this is so, woul it not quit unrasonal, as I sai just now, for suh a man to afrai of ath? It woul, in. So if you s anyon istrss at th prospt of ying, sai Sorats, it will proof nough that h is a lovr not of wisom ut of th oy. As a mattr of fat, I suppos h is also a lovr of walth an rputation on or th othr, or oth.... * * * 68...

9 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 9 [Sorats argumnt that a tru philosophr os not far ath, an that philosophy is atually a prparation for ath, for sparating th soul from th oy, oviously pns upon th immortality of th soul. At this point Sorats gins laying out a numr of argumnts for th immortality of th soul. Th first two argumnts aim to stalish that th soul xist prior to this lif. Th son of ths argumnts, whih w pik up hr, involvs on of Plato s famous pistmologial thoris that all larning is rally rolltion, that whn w gain knowlg, w ar rally only rollting what w alray knw for irth. Aftr this argumnt, Sorats givs anothr argumnt whih aims to stalish that th soul livs on aftr ath. It is in this argumnt that w fin an xpostion of Plato s mtaphysis in whih th invisil an imprishal ralm of th Forms is istinguish from th visil an prishal ralm of snsil things.] An if you on't fin that onvining, Simmias, sai Sorats, s whthr this appals to you. I suppos that you fin it har to unrstan how what w all larning an rolltion? Not at all, sai Simmias. All that I want is to hlp to o what w ar talking aout to rollt. I an pratially rmmr nough to satisfy m alray, from Cs' approah to th sujt, ut I shoul nonthlss gla to har how you mant to approah it. I look at it in this way, sai Sorats. W ar agr, I suppos, that if a prson is to rmin of anything, h must first know it at som tim or othr? Quit so. Ar w also agr in alling it rolltion whn knowlg oms in a partiular way? I will xplain what I man. Suppos that a prson on sing or haring or othrwis notiing on thing not only oms onsious of that thing ut also thinks of a somthing ls whih is an ojt of a iffrnt sort of knowlg. Ar w not justifi in saying that h was rmin of th ojt whih h thought of? What o you man? Lt m giv you an xampl. A human ing an a musial instrumnt, I suppos you will agr, ar iffrnt ojts of knowlg. Ys, rtainly. Wll, you know what happns to lovrs whn thy s a musial instrumnt or a pi of lothing or any othr privat proprty of th prson whom thy lov. Whn thy rogniz th thing, thir mins onjur up a pitur of its ownr. That is rolltian. In th sam way th sight of Simmias oftn rmins on of Cs, an of ours thr ar thousans of othr xampls. Ys, of ours thr ar, sai Simmias. So y rolltion w man th sort of xprin whih I hav just sri, spially whn it happns with rfrn to things whih w ha not sn for suh a long tim that w ha forgottn thm. Quit so. Wll, thn, is it possil for a prson who ss a pitur of a hors or a musial instrumnt to rmin of a prson, or for somon who ss a pitur of Simmias to rmin of Cs? Prftly. An is it possil for somon who ss a portrait of Simmias to rmin of Simmias himslf? Ys, it is. Dos it not follow from all this that rolltion may aus ithr y similar or y issimilar ojts? Ys, it os. Whn you ar rmin y similarity, surly you must also onsious whthr th similarity is prft or only partial

10 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 10 Ys, you must. Hr is a furthr stp, sai Sorats. W amit, I suppos, that thr is suh a thing as quality not th quality of stik to stik an ston to ston, an so on, ut somthing yon all that an istint from it asolut quality. Ar w to amit this or not? Ys in, sai Simmias, most mphatially. An o w know what it is? Crtainly. Whr i w gt our knowlg? Was it not from th partiular xampls that w mntion just now? Was it not from sing qual stiks or stons or othr qual ojts that w got th notion of quality, although it is somthing quit istint from thm? Look at it in this way. Is it not tru that qual stons an stiks somtims, without hanging in thmslvs, appar qual to on prson an unqual to anothr? Crtainly. Wll, now, hav you vr thought that things whih wr asolutly qual wr unqual, or that quality was inquality? No, nvr, Sorats. Thn ths qual things ar not th sam as asolut quality. Not in th last, as I s it, Sorats. An yt it is ths qual things that hav suggst an onvy to you your knowlg of asolut quality, although thy ar istint from it? Prftly tru. Whthr it is similar to thm or issimilar? Crtainly. It maks no iffrn, sai Sorats. So long as th sight of on thing suggsts anothr to you, it must a aus of rolltion, whthr th two things ar alik or not. Quit so. Wll, now, h sai, what o w fin in th as of th qual stiks an othr things of whih w wr spaking just now? Do thy sm to us to qual in th sns of asolut quality, or o thy fall short of it in so far as thy only approximat to quality? Or on't thy fall short at all? Thy o, sai Simmias, a long way. Suppos that whn you s somthing you say to yourslf, This thing whih I an s has a tnny to lik somthing ls, ut it falls short an annot rally lik it, only a poor imitation. Don't you agr with m that anyon who rivs that imprssion must in fat hav prvious knowlg of that thing whih h says that th othr rsmls, ut inaquatly? Crtainly h must. Vry wll, thn, is that our position with rgar to qual things an asolut quality? Exatly. Thn w must hav ha som prvious knowlg of quality for th tim whn w first saw qual things an raliz that thy wr striving aftr quality, ut fll short of it. That is so. An at th sam tim w ar agr also upon this point, that w hav not an oul not hav aquir this notion of quality xpt y sight or touh or on of th othr snss. I am trating thm as ing all th sam. Thy ar th sam, Sorats, for th purpos of our argumnt. So it must through th snss that w otain th notion that all snsil quals ar striving aftr asolut quality ut falling short of it. Is that orrt? Ys, it is. 75

11 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 11 So for w gan to s an har an us our othr snss w must somwhr hav aquir th knowlg that thr is suh a thing as asolut quality. Othrwis w oul nvr hav raliz, y using it as a stanar for omparison, that all qual ojts of sns ar sirous of ing lik it, ut ar only imprft opis. That is th logial onlusion, Sorats. Di w not gin to s an har an possss our othr snss from th momnt of irth? Crtainly. But w amitt that w must hav otain our knowlg of quality for w otain thm. Ys. So w must hav otain it for irth. So it sms. Thn if w otain it for our irth, an possss it whn w wr orn, w ha knowlg, oth for an at th momnt of irth, not only of quality an rlativ magnitus, ut of all asolut stanars. Our prsnt argumnt applis no mor to quality than it os to asolut auty, goonss, uprightnss, holinss, an, as I maintain, all thos haratristis whih w signat in our isussions y th trm asolut. So w must hav otain knowlg of all ths haratristis for our irth. That is so. An unlss w invarialy forgt it aftr otaining it w must always orn knowing an ontinu to know all through our livs, aus to know mans simply to rtain th knowlg whih on has aquir, an not to los it. Is not what w all forgtting simply th loss of knowlg, Simmias? Most rtainly, Sorats. An if it is tru that w aquir our knowlg for our irth, an lost it at th momnt of irth, ut aftrwar, y th xris of our snss upon snsil ojts, rovr th knowlg whih w ha on for, I suppos that what w all larning will th rovry of our own knpwlg, an surly w shoul right in alling this rolltion. Quit so. Ys, aus w saw that it is possil for th prption of an ojt y sight or haring or any of th othr snss to suggst to th pripint, through assoiation, whthr, thr is any similarity or not, anothr ojt whih h has forgottn. So, as I maintain, thr ar two altrnativs. Eithr w ar all orn with knowlg of ths stanars, an rtain it throughout our livs, or ls, whn w spak of popl larning, thy ar simply rollting what thy knw for. In othr wors, larning is rolltion. Ys, that must so, Sorats. Whih o you hoos, thn, Simmias? That w ar orn with knowlg, or that w rollt aftr w ar orn th things of whih w possss knowlg for w wr orn? I on't know whih to hoos on th spur of th momnt, Sorats. Wll, hr is anothr hoi for you to mak. What o you think aout this? Can a prson who knows a sujt thoroughly xplain what h knows? Most rtainly h an. Do you think that vryon an xplain ths qustions aout whih w hav just n talking? I shoul lik to think so, sai Simmias, ut I am vry muh afrai that y this tim tomorrow thr will no on on this arth who an o it proprly. So you on't think, Simmias, that vryon has knowlg aout thm? Far from it. Thn thy just rollt what thy on larn. 76

12 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 12 That must th right answr. Whn o our souls aquir this knowlg? It annot aftr th ginning of our mortal lif. No, of ours not. Thn it must for. Ys. Thn our souls ha a prvious xistn, Simmias, for thy took on this human shap. Thy wr inpnnt of our ois, an thy wr possss of intllign. Unlss prhaps it is at th momnt of irth that w aquir knowlg of ths things, Sorats. Thr is still that tim availal. No out, my ar fllow, ut just tll m, what othr tim is thr to los it in? W hav just agr that w o not possss it whn w ar orn. Do w los it at th sam momnt that w aquir it? Or an you suggst any othr tim? No, of ours not, Sorats. I in't raliz what nonsns I was talking. Wll, how o w stan now, Simmias? If all ths asolut ralitis, suh as auty an goonss, whih w ar always talking aout, rally xist, if it is to thm, as w risovr our own formr knowlg of thm, that w rfr, as opis to thir pattrns, all th ojts of our physial prption if ths ralitis xist, os it not follow that our souls must xist too vn for our irth, whras if thy o not xist, our isussion woul sm to a wast of tim? Is this th position, that it is logially just as rtain that our souls xist for our irth as it is that ths ralitis xist, an that if th on is impossil, so is th othr? It is prftly ovious to m, Sorats, sai Simmias, that th sam logial nssity applis to oth. It suits m vry wll that your argumnt shoul rly upon th point that our soul's xistn for our irth stans or falls with th xistn of your gra of rality. I annot imagin anything mor slf-vint than th fat that asolut auty an goonss an all th rst that you mntion just now xist in th fullst possil sns. In my opinion th proof is quit satisfatory. What aout Cs? sai Sorats. W must onvin Cs too. To th st of my lif h is satisfi, rpli Simmias. It is tru that h is th most ostinat prson in th worl at rsisting an argumnt, ut I shoul think that h ns nothing mor to onvin him that our souls xist for our irth. As for thir xisting aftr w ar a as wll, vn I on't fl that that has n prov, Sorats. Cs ojtion still hols th ommon far that a man's soul may isintgrat at th vry momnt of his ath, an that this may th n of its xistn. Supposing that it is orn an onstitut from som sour or othr, an xists for it ntrs a human oy. Aftr it has ntr on, is thr any rason why, at th momnt of rlas, it shoul not om to an n an stroy itslf? Quit right, Simmias, sai Cs. It sms that w hav got th proof of on half of what w want that th soul xist for irth ut now w n also to prov that it will xist aftr ath no lss than for irth, if our proof is to omplt. As a mattr of fat, my ar Simmias an Cs, sai Sorats, it is prov alray, if you will omin this last argumnt with th on aout whih w agr for, that vry living thing oms from th a. If th soul xists for irth, an if whn it pros towar lif an is orn it must orn from ath or th a stat, surly it must also xist aftrath, if it must orn again. So th point whih you mntion has n prov alray. But in spit of this I liv that you an Simmias woul lik to spin out th isussion still mor. You ar afrai, as hilrn ar, that whn th soul mrgs from th oy th win may rally puff it away an sattr it, spially whn a prson os not i on a alm ay ut with a gal lowing. 77

13 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 13 Cs laugh. Suppos that w ar afrai, Sorats, h sai, an try to onvin us. Or rathr on't suppos that it is w that ar afrai. Proaly vn in us thr is a littl oy who has ths hilish trrors. Try to prsua him not to afrai of ath as though it wr a ogy. What you shoul o, sai Sorats, is to say a magi spll ovr him vry ay until you hav harm his fars away. But, Sorats, sai Simmias, whr shall w fin a magiian who unrstans ths splls now that you... ar laving us? Gr is a larg ountry, Cs, h rpli, whih must hav goo mn in it, an thr ar many forign ras too. You must ransak all of thm in your sarh for this magiian, without sparing mony or troul, aus you oul not spn your mony mor opportunly on any othr ojt. An you must sarh also y your own unit fforts, aus it is proal that you woul not asily fin anyon ttr fitt for th task. W will s to that, sai Cs. But lt us rturn to th point whr w lft off, if you hav no ojtion. Of ours not. Why shoul I? Thank you, sai Cs. W ought, I think, sai Sorats, to ask ourslvs this. What sort of thing is it that woul naturally suffr th fat of ing isprs? For what sort of thing shoul w far this fat, an for what shoul w not? Whn w hav answr this, w shoul nxt onsir to whih lass th soul longs, an thn w shall know whthr to fl onfin or far aout th fat of our souls. Quit tru. Woul you not xpt a omposit ojt or a natural ompoun to lial to rak up whr it was put togthr?' An ought not anything whih is rally inomposit to th on thing of all othrs whih is not afft in this way? That sms to th as, sai Cs. Is it not xtrmly proal that what is always onstant an invarial is inomposit, an what is inonstant an varial is omposit? That is how it sms to m. Thn lt us rturn to th sam xampls whih w wr isussing for. Dos that asolut rality whih w fin in our isussions rmain always onstant an invarial, or not? Dos asolut quality or auty or any othr inpnnt ntity whih rally xists vr amit hang of any kin? Or os ah on of ths uniform an inpnnt ntitis rmain always onstant an invarial, nvr amitting any altration in any rspt or in any sns? Thy must onstant an invarial, Sorats, sai Cs. Wll, what aout th onrt instans of auty suh as mn, horss, loths, an so on or of quality, or any othr mmrs of a lass orrsponing to an asolut ntity? Ar thy onstant, or ar thy, on th ontrary, sarly vr in th sam rlation in any sns ithr to thmslvs or to on anothr? With thm, Sorats, it is just th opposit; thy ar nvr fr from variation. An ths onrt ojts you an touh an s an priv y your othr snss, ut thos onstant ntitis you annot possily apprhn xpt y thinking; thy ar invisil to our sight. That is prftly tru, sai Cs. So you think that w shoul assum two lasss of things, on visil an th othr invisil? Ys, w shoul. Th invisil ing invarial, an th visil nvr ing th sam? 78 79

14 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 14 Ys, w shoul assum that too. Wll, now, sai Sorats, ar w not part oy, part soul? Crtainly. Thn to whih lass o w say that th oy woul hav th losr rsmlan an rlation? Quit oviously to th visil. An th soul, is it visil or invisil? Invisil to mn, at any rat, Sorats, h sai. But surly w hav n spaking of things visil or invisil to our human natur. Do you think that w ha som othr natur in viw? No, human natur. What o w say aout th soul, thn? Is it visil or invisil? Not visil. Invisil, thn? Ys. So soul is mor lik th invisil, an oy mor lik th visil? That follows invitaly, Sorats. Di w not say som tim ago that whn th soul uss th instrumntality of th oy for any inquiry, whthr through sight or haring or any othr sns aus using th oy implis using th snss it is rawn away y th oy into th ralm of th varial, an loss its way an oms onfus an izzy, as though it wr ful, through ontat with things of a similar natur? Crtainly. But whn it invstigats y itslf, it passs into th ralm of th pur an vrlasting an immortal an hanglss, an ing of a kinr natur, whn it is on inpnnt an fr from intrfrn, onsorts with it always an strays no longr, ut rmains, in that ralm of th asolut, onstant an invarial, through ontat with ings of a similar natur. An this onition of th soul w all wisom. An xllnt sription, an prftly tru, Sorats. Vry wll, thn, in th light of all that w hav sai, oth now an for, to whih lass o you think that th soul ars th losr rsmlan an rlation? I think, Sorats, sai Cs, that vn th ullst prson woul agr, from this lin of rasoning, that th soul is in vry possil way mor lik th invarial than th varial. An th oy? To th othr. Look at it in this way too. Whn soul an oy ar oth in th sam pla, natur tahs th on to srv an sujt, th othr to rul an govrn. In this rlation whih o you think rsmls th ivin an whih th mortal part? Don't you think that it is th natur of th ivin to rul an irt, an that of th mortal to sujt an srv? I o. Thn whih os th soul rsml? Oviously, Sorats, soul rsmls th ivin, an oy th mortal. Now, Cs, h sai, s whthr this is our onlusion from all that w hav sai. Th soul is most lik that whih is ivin, immortal, intlligil, uniform, inissolul, an vr slf-onsistnt an invarial, whras oy is most lik that whih is human, mortal, multiform, unintlligil, issolul, an nvr slf-onsistnt. Can w au any onfliting argumnt, my ar Cs, to show that this is not so? No, w annot. 80

15 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 15 Vry wll, thn, in that as is it not natural for oy to isintgrat rapily, ut for soul to quit or vry narly inissolul? Crtainly. Of ours you know that whn a prson is, although it is natural for th visil an physial part of him, whih lis hr in th visil worl an whih w all his orps, to ay an fall to pis an issipat, non of this happns to it immiatly. It rmains as it was for quit a long tim, vn if ath taks pla whn th oy is wll nourish an in th warm sason. In, whn th oy is ri an malm, as in Egypt, it rmains almost intat for an inril tim, an vn if th rst of th oy ays, som parts of it th ons an sinws an anything ls lik thm ar prati ally vrlasting. That is so, is it not? Ys. But th soul, th invisil part, whih gos away to a pla that is, lik itslf, glorious, pur, an invisil th tru Has or unsn worl into th prsn of th goo an wis Go, whr, if Go so wills, my soul must shortly go will it, if its vry natur is suh as I hav sri, isprs an stroy at th momnt of its rlas from th oy, as is th popular viw? Far from it, my ar Simmias an Cs. Th truth is muh mor lik this. If at its rlas th soul is pur an arris with it no ontamination of th oy, aus it has nvr willingly assoiat with it in lif, ut has shunn it an kpt itslf sparat as its rgular prati in othr wors, if it has pursu philosophy in th right way an rally prati how to fa ath asily this is what pratiing ath mans, isn't it? Most ily. Vry wll, if this is its onition, thn it parts to that pla whih is, lik itslf, invisil, ivin, immortal, an wis, whr, on its arrival, happinss awaits it, an rlas from unrtainty an folly, from fars an unontroll sirs, an all othr human vils, an whr, as thy say of th initiats in th Mystris, it rally spns th rst of tim with Go. Shall w aopt this viw, Cs, or som othr? This on, y all mans, sai Cs. But, I suppos, if at th tim of its rlas th soul is taint an impur, aus it has always assoiat with th oy an ar for it an lov it, an has n so guil y th oy an its passions an plasurs that nothing sms ral to it ut thos physial things whih an touh an sn an atn an runk an us for sxual njoymnt, an if it is austom to hat an far an avoi what is invisil an hin from our ys, ut intlligil an omprhnsil y philosophy if th soul is in this stat, o you think that it will sap inpnnt an unontaminat? That woul quit impossil, h sai. On th ontrary, it will, I imagin, prmat y th orporal, whih fllowship an intrours with th oy will hav ingrain in its vry natur through onstant assoiation an long prati. Crtainly. An w must suppos, my ar fllow, that th orporal is havy, opprssiv, arthly, an visil. So th soul whih is taint y its prsn is wigh own an ragg ak into th visil worl, through far, as thy say, of Has or th invisil, an hovrs aout toms an gravyars. Th shaowy apparitions whih hav atually n sn thr ar th ghosts of thos souls whih hav not got lar away, ut still rtain, som portion of th visil, whih is why thy an sn. That sms likly nough, Sorats. Ys, it os, Cs. Of ours ths ar not th souls of th goo, ut of th wik, an thy ar ompll to wanr aout ths plas as a punishmnt for thir a onut in th past. Thy ontinu wanring until at last, through raving for th orporal, whih 81

16 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 16 unasingly pursus thm, thy ar imprison on mor in a oy. An as you might xpt, thy ar attah to th sam sort of haratr or natur whih thy hav vlop uring lif. What sort o you man, Sorats? Wll, thos who hav ultivat gluttony or slfishnss or runknnss, insta of taking pains to avoi thm, ar likly to assum th form of onkys an othr prvrs animals. Don't you think so? Ys, that is vry likly. An thos who hav liratly prfrr a lif of irrsponsil lawlssnss an violn om wolvs an hawks an kits, unlss w an suggst any othr mor likly animals. No, th ons whih you mntion ar xatly right. So it is asy to imagin into what sort of animals all th othr kins of soul will go, in aoran with thir onut uring lif. Ys, rtainly. I suppos that th happist popl, an thos who rah th st stination, ar th ons who hav ultivat th goonss of an orinary itizn what is all slf-ontrol an intgrity whih is aquir y hait an prati, without th hlp of philosophy an rason. How ar ths th happist? Baus thy will proaly pass into som othr kin of soial an isiplin ratur lik s, wasps, an ants, or vn ak into th human ra again, oming nt itizns. Vry likly. But no soul whih has not prati philosophy, an is not asolutly pur whn it lavs th oy, may attain to th ivin natur; that is only for th lovr of wisom. This is th rason, my ar Simmias an Cs, why tru philosophrs astain from all oily sirs an withstan thm an o not yil to thm. It is not aus thy ar afrai of finanial loss or povrty, lik th avrag man who thinks of mony first, nor aus thy shrink from ishonor an a a rputation, lik thos who ar amitious for istintion an authority. No, thos woul unworthy motivs, Sorats, sai Cs. Thy woul in, h agr. An so, Cs, thos who ar aout thir souls an o not suorinat thm to th oy issoiat thmslvs firmly from ths othrs an rfus to aompany thm on thir haphazar journy, an, living that it is wrong to oppos philosophy with hr offr of liration an purifiation, thy turn an follow hr whrvr sh las. What o you man, Sorats? I will xplain, h sai. Evry skr aftr wisom knows that up to th tim whn philosophy taks it ovr his soul is a hlplss prisonr, hain han an foot in th oy, ompll to viw rality not irtly ut only through its prison ars, an wallowing in uttr ignoran. An philosophy an s that th imprisonmnt is ingniously fft y th prisonr's own ativ sir, whih maks him first assory to his own onfinmnt. Wll, philosophy taks ovr th soul in this onition an y gntl prsuasion tris to st it fr. Sh points out that osrvation y mans of th ys an ars an all th othr snss is ntirly ptiv, an sh urgs th soul to rfrain from using thm unlss it is nssary to o so, an nourags it to ollt an onntrat itslf y itslf, trusting nothing ut its own inpnnt jugmnt upon ojts onsir in thmslvs, an attriuting no truth to anything whih it viws inirtly as ing sujt to variation, aus suh ojts ar snsil an visil ut what th soul itslf ss is intlligil an invisil. Now th soul of th tru philosophr fls that it must not rjt this opportunity for rlas, an so it astains as far as possil from plasurs an sirs an grifs, aus it rflts that th rsult 82 83

17 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 17 of giving way to plasur or far or sir is not as might suppos th trivial misfortun of oming ill or wasting mony through slf-inulgn, ut th last an worst alamity of all, whih th suffrr os not rogniz. What is that, Sorats? ask Cs. Whn anyon's soul fls a kn plasur or pain it annot hlp supposing that whatvr auss th most violnt motion is th plainst an trust rality, whih it is not. It is hifly visil things that hav this fft, isn't it? Quit so. Is it not on this sort of oasion that soul passs most ompltly into th onag of oy? How o you mak that out? Baus vry plasur or pain has a sort of rivt with whih it fastns th soul to th oy an pins it own an maks it orporal, apting as tru whatvr th oy rtifis. Th rsult of agring with th oy an fining plasur in th sam things is, I imagin, that it annot hlp oming lik it in haratr an training, so that it an nvr gt ntirly away to th unsn worl, ut is always saturat with th oy whn it sts out, an so soon falls ak again into anothr oy, whr it taks root an grows. Consquntly, it is xlu from all fllowship with th pur an uniform an ivin. Ys, that is prftly tru, Sorats, sai Cs. It is for ths rasons, Cs, that tru philosophrs xhiit slf-ontrol an ourag not for th rason whih ar gnrally suppos. Or o you think that th popular viw is right? No, rtainly not. No, in. A philosophr's soul will tak th viw whih I hav sri. It will not first xpt to st fr y philosophy, an thn allow plasur an pain to ru it on mor to onag, thus taking upon itslf an nlss task, lik Pnlop whn sh uni hr own waving. No, this soul surs immunity from its sirs y following rason an aiing always in hr ompany, an y ontmplating th tru an ivin an unonjtural, an rawing inspiration from it, aus suh a soul livs that this is th right way to liv whil lif nurs, an that aftr ath it rahs a pla whih is kinr an similar to its own natur, an thr is ri forvr of human ills. Aftr suh a training, my ar Simmias an Cs, th soul an hav no grouns for faring that on its sparation from th oy it will lown away an sattr y th wins, an so isappar into thin air, an as to xist altogthr. Thr was siln for som tim aftr Sorats ha sai this. H himslf, to jug from his apparan, was still oupi with th argumnt whih h ha just n stating, an so wr most of us, ut Simmias an Cs wnt on talking in a low voi. Whn Sorats noti thm h sai, Why, o you fl that my aount is inaquat? Of ours it is still opn to a numr of outs an ojtions, if you want to xamin it in tail. If it is somthing ls that you two ar onsiring, nvr min, ut if you fl any iffiulty aout our isussion, on't hsitat to put forwar your own viws, an point out any way in whih you think that my aount oul improv. An y all mans mak us of my srvis too, if you think I an hlp at all to solv th iffiulty * * *

18 Introution to Wstrn Philosophy Th Phao 18 [This final stion piks up at th n of a story Sorats tlls aout what happns to th soul aftr ath. Th ialogu thn loss with th sn in whih Sorats rinks th hmlok an spaks his last wors.] But thos who ar jug to hav liv a lif of surpassing holinss ths ar thy who ar rlas an st fr from onfinmnt in ths rgions of th arth, an passing upwar to thir pur ao, mak thir wlling upon th arth's surfa. An of ths suh as hav purifi thmslvs suffiintly y philosophy liv thraftr altogthr without ois, an rah haitations vn mor autiful, whih it is not asy to portray nor is thr tim to o so now. But th rasons whih w hav alray sri provi groun nough, as you an s, Simmias, forlaving nothing unon to attain uring lif som masur of goonss an wisom, for th priz is glorious an th hop grat. Of ours, no rasonal man ought to insist that th fats ar xatly as I hav sri thm. But that ithr this or somthing vry lik it is a tru aount of our souls an thir futur haitations sin w hav lar vin that th soul is immortal this, I think, is oth a rasonal ontntion an a lif worth risking, for th risk is a nol on. W shoul us suh aounts to inspir ourslvs with onfin, an that is why I hav alray rawn out my tal so long. Thr is on way, thn, in whih a man an fr from all anxity aout th fat of his soul if in lif h has aanon oily plasurs an aornmnts, as forign to his purpos an likly to o mor harm than goo, an has vot himslf to th plasurs of aquiring knowlg, an so y king his soul not with a orrow auty ut with its own with slfontrol, an goonss, an ourag, an lirality an truth has fitt himslf to await his journy in th nxt worl. You, Simmias an Cs an th rst, will ah mak this journy somayin thfutur, ut for m th fat hour, as a tragi haratr might say, alls vn now. In othr wors, it is aout tim that I took my ath. I prfr to hav a ath for rinking th poison, rathr than giv th womn th troull of washing m whn I am a. Whn h ha finish spaking, Crito sai, Vry wll, Sorats. But hav you no irtions for th othrs or myslf aout your hilrn or anything ls? What an w o to plas you st? Nothing nw, Crito, sai Sorats, just what I am always tlling you. If you look aftr yourslvs, whatvr you o will plas m an min an you too, vn if you on't agr with m now. On th othr han, if you nglt yourslvs an fail to follow th lin of lif as I hav lai it own oth now an in th past, howvr frvntly you agr with m now, it will o no goo at all. W shall try our st to o as you say, sai Crito. But how shall w ury you? Any way you lik, rpli Sorats, that is, if you an ath m an I on t slip through your fingrs. H laugh gntly as h spok, an turning to us wnt on, I an't prsua Crito that I am this Sorats hr who is talking to you now an marshaling all th argumnts. H thinks that I am th on whom h will s prsntly lying a, an h asks how h is to ury m! As for my long an laorat xplanation that whn I hav runk th poison I shall rmain with you no longr, ut part to a stat of havnly happinss, this attmpt to onsol oth you an myslf sms to wast on him. You must giv an assuran to Crito for m th opposit of th on whih h gav to th ourt whih tri m. H unrtook that I shoul stay, ut you must assur him that whn I am a I shall not stay, ut part an gon. That will hlp Crito to ar it mor asily, an kp him from ing istrss on my aount whn h ss my oy ing urn or uri, as if somthing raful wr happning to m, or from saying at th funralthat it is Sorats whom h is laying out or arrying to th grav or