Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Exploring the Soul’s Nature: A Conversation with Dr. Van Tu on Plato’s Phaedo
16 Plays3 months ago
Sam Bennett interviews Dr. Van Tu, a philosopher specializing in ancient philosophy, about her article, Is the Soul a Form?. The conversation examines whether the Final Argument of Plato’s Phaedo understands the soul as a transcendent form, an immanent form, or a form carrier. They also discuss the possible existence of a transcendent form of the soul within Plato’s metaphysical system, its role in the final argument for immortality, and the distinction between the immortality of the soul and personal immortality.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Dionysus Circle and Guest Philosopher
00:00:00
Speaker
Welcome to the Dionysus Circle podcast. I'm Dr. Sam Bennett, your host. On this podcast, we explore the wisdom of the Eastern Christian Fathers and the philosophical ideas that influence them. Today, I'm joined by Van Tu, a philosopher at California State University, San Bernardino. Van specializes in ancient philosophy and has published on Plato, Proclus, and Aristotle.
00:00:19
Speaker
In this episode we discuss her recent article, is the soul a form? The status of the soul and the final argument of the phato. We explore Plato's phato and its treatment of the soul, examining whether the soul is best understood as a transcendent form, an imminent form, or something else. We also consider the implications of Plato's arguments for the immortality of the soul and the nature of personal survival after death.
00:00:42
Speaker
A special thanks to Peter Anthony Taney for allowing us to feature his beautiful rendition of the hymn of the father's love begotten from his album, Sea Dreams. God bless and I hope you enjoy the podcast.
Van Tu's Philosophical Journey Begins
00:01:00
Speaker
So Van, thank you so much for joining us. It's my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me. Absolutely. So yeah, to begin, could you just kind of tell us a little bit about yourself? I'm sure, you know, listeners would love to know, you know, how you came became interested in philosophy, maybe ancient philosophy in particular, you know, were you interested in philosophical questions from a young age?
00:01:20
Speaker
Did it develop later? Yeah, just maybe a little bit about yourself. Yeah, so thank you so much for for your question. So I think I'll start with just talking about how I came to to be interested in philosophy and learning where I am today. ah So I actually had the good fortune of having had kind of formal introductions to philosophy in high school. I think that's rare. Oh, yeah. or Yes, people live in, you know, in the US, at least, right, like the K through 12 education system, usually um does not include a course in philosophy, but but I was enrolled in like an IB international baccalaureate um program. So they did have philosophy as an elected and you know, it's kind of a funny story.
00:02:02
Speaker
um You know, so like, okay, I won't be presumptuous, you know, but when you're like a teenager, you're always looking to be like unique and a bit different. I was in high school. So yeah, so I was like browsing through the electives, like, what do they have, you know? yeah And like, yeah, philosophy was like a new offering that particular year. So it's like, okay, what is philosophy? So I came to the guidance counselor office and I asked her, what is philosophy? Yeah, this question. Interesting. So you didn't, you didn't know and so you were going to ask that. Okay, awesome. Exactly. Yeah. You know, it's just like browsing. Yeah. What should I take right for like, I don't know, next semester. I don't even know if we went by semester, like it's mental ago.
00:02:44
Speaker
So I came to to get a guidance counselor and yeah it's funny because she confessed she had no idea her no Here is the textbook, right? like You can look through the book and see whether um it might be the sort of thing you're interested in. And then I did look through the book. Oh, there's like Play-Doh, Aristotle, Socrates, and other figures, actually some some Eastern um figures as well. And then it's like, yeah, this is like kind of cool. Let me try it out. And so I did, and um I loved it. Yeah, it's like, that's sort of... Yeah, yeah. So did the did the ancient side of it appeal to you? Like was it like when you looked up what philosophy was and then you saw that it had like it was dealing? but Okay, no. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it was just kind of ah like a general um interest in philosophy at that time. And I had, you know, a terrific teacher who was really encouraging. You know, it wasn't like we were learning how to do philosophy proper as one would, right. Instead, like an intro to philosophy course at a university was more like getting introduced to the ideas. Um,
00:03:46
Speaker
maybe the methods of how philosopher philosophize, but nothing too technical, right but just um encountering these ideas and concepts. right I mean, there was skepticism, yeah like some ancient material, right but the focus wasn't um on ancient philosophy. But at that time, I wasn't sure that I was going to go to university and major.
00:04:06
Speaker
and philosophy, you know, um yeah sure yeah, I was encouraged, right, the instructors, oh, you know, like you should continue doing this, like you seem like you have a kind of natural sort of inclination or dapper for this sort of thing. yeah yeah yeah I'll explore, continue to explore this topic because I um earn a lot of AP credit that I could you know apply in a university.
Cultural Influences on Van Tu's Philosophy
00:04:33
Speaker
right So when I got to university, I just kind of like took a bunch of courses. I was actually on the pre-med track. okay yeah like you know I didn't find it like and inspirational, at least for me. right and This is you know not not to say anything about people who actually pursue those track, but just for my own kind of temperament and disposition.
00:04:55
Speaker
like doing philosophy online with what sort of like um who I am as a person more yeah so I would do and philosophy along the side with ladies like STEM courses at the time um and I again had and like a fabulous um ancient philosophy teacher and undergrad actually didn't wasn't even um introduced to ancient philosophy until my very last year or maybe my junior year of undergrad I was yeah I was doing all the things like aesthetics and sort of um some
00:05:31
Speaker
kind of like more um like value theories sort of questions. Then yeah, just like this fabulous teacher sort of, you know, it's like, make me, I think like do an ancient, it's really cool. And also another, I think another reason why I sort of like got into ancient and found a home in in these times, like it was like the way that I was umm raised, like just my background upbringing. So i'm I'm from Vietnam. So I was born there.
00:05:58
Speaker
right I was kind of like raised by my Gregorian parents. And I lived in like a multi-generation household. But I guess the kind of point is that, you know, like I always had like an anti-quarian tendency. I think part of it is I was raised by people and, you know, like at least the way that I was um brought up in my household, you know, it was like emphasis on the history and the ancient culture.
00:06:24
Speaker
Vietnam. And so I found sort of um a home in the ancient texts. When I was reading like, yeah, like Greek and Roman philosophy, seriously, an undergrad, like, I thought like, I understand these people. Interesting. Interesting. i'm I'm kind of wondering, like, did that almost prime you to have the idea that like, ancient culture can be a source of wisdom? I'm just thinking like, if and you're in a multi generational household, you know, more interaction with, you know, older generations, you might also that might also come with this idea of like, they are a source of like, kind of wisdom, whether it's practical or more theoretical and, and maybe that could prime you more for like being receptive,
00:07:13
Speaker
to ancient thinking. I don't know. Is that, do you feel like that was part of it too? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. I love the way that you put the question because indeed that was what happened, right? And because it really, to me, at least my great grandparents were like perfect models. They really were, you know, my first teachers and taught me how to be a human. Yeah. And I think that, you know, again, make me sort of,
00:07:40
Speaker
ah more open minded, more receptive to um the ancient way of life, way of thinking. Yeah, I think in a sense, you know, I think they are better, but or just they know how to be better humans than and I'll just speak for myself than I am today as a person living in the 21st century. Yeah, so when I read, you know, these child sites, which is my perfect sense, like, aligned with how I was raised and the kind of emphasis that, um you know, I was encouraged to sort of focus on. so Fascinating. Awesome. Well, thanks so much for sharing that, man. That's a super interesting background on how you got into philosophy.
Plato vs. Aristotle: A Balanced Appreciation
00:08:20
Speaker
I kind of want to ask this sort of tongue-in-cheek question a little bit, which is, you know, your dissertation focused on Aristotle. We're going to talk about Plato today, article on Plato, of course. And so I'm kind of curious, you know, do you kind of side with Aristotle or Plato? Do you do you prefer one or the other or you just kind of you maybe don't have like and necessarily ah inclination one or the other?
00:08:42
Speaker
Yeah, I need both in my life, you know, so if you're familiar with um Nietzsche, like his um the distinction, right, of the Dionysian and Apollonian tendency in the birth of tragedy, that's how I like to think of, at least for me, I can't speak for everybody, but what you know, when I approached the text of Plato and Aristotle, of course, that you know, like we only have um surviving kind of lecture notes from Aristotle. So who knew what his dialogue would have been like, right? Exactly. But just from- Maybe he had a Dionysian side. Exactly. Precisely. Precisely. Right. But I feel like I need both and in my life. um so So yeah, as you put it, you know, like Aristotle fulfilled that Apollonian kind of needs. And Plato, the Dionysian, at least for me. so so Interesting. Interesting. Yeah. So it's kind of like deciding between
00:09:34
Speaker
poetry um and math it's like we don't need to decide we need both of them kind of thing yeah for me at least right um so what you know i have to kind of move back and forth between it to keep sort of like my my interest going right and and yeah a nice a nice balance um so Cool. Yeah, that's absolutely that's fair. That's very, very cool. um All right, so maybe great.
Unpacking the Phaedo: Socrates' Last Day
00:09:59
Speaker
So maybe before we dive kind of into the details of your article, um maybe we can briefly introduce the FADO. So your article is about the FADO.
00:10:11
Speaker
So I guess the way I'd want to, add you know, maybe like for someone unfamiliar with Fado, you know, how would you, you know, what would you describe as basic plot, maybe some key themes, anything that particularly interests you about it? So yeah, just maybe let's we can do just a real quick, like introduction to Fado for anyone who's unfamiliar.
00:10:30
Speaker
Yeah, fabulous. I'll try to keep it brief because I always have so much to say about the Phaedo, which is my one of my absolute favorite platonic dialogue. So it's just, you know, start with a rough sketch of the basic plot and themes, right? So I mean, I think it's important to know that the Phaedo is not just a philosophical masterpiece, but also a literary masterpiece, right? And it depicts on the last day of Socrates' life. right So he's imprisoned awaiting his death just hours away. right He's a among a group of intimate friends. And I think it's also striking that Plato makes an effort to inform the readers that he's not there.
00:11:09
Speaker
Right? He's not among intimate friends um who are having this conversation with Socrates. So their conversation revolves around Socrates, you know, quite um but honestly admirable and rather startling. Fearless attitude um towards his own death, right? So naturally the themes of the dialogues then are on the subjects of death, the afterlife, right? The goal of philosophy, the nature of the soul and indeed the forms.
00:11:39
Speaker
And, you know, to to a fellow philosopher, I would say that the photo is absolutely worth reading and diving into, because it contains all the distinctive elements that we associate with plainism, particularly, right, so Plato's views on the soul.
00:11:56
Speaker
um and his peculiar brand of dualism, right, um and also the theory of forms. I think, you know, the fatal makes a wonderful choice as it attracts you to actually teach students the the core tenets of plainism.
00:12:12
Speaker
and I teach it whenever I can on in my own survey of ancient still courses and yeah as kind of like a bonus to wrapping things up the dialogues I think also present Socrates in all of his dimensions Right, so you see that he's, you know, he's a human, he's very humane, he's courageous, he's comical, but also profoundly otherworldly, right, or atalpos, as he would describe himself, and it's just a treat. um yeah Yeah, fascinating character. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, the literary quality really is
00:12:49
Speaker
yeah's Yeah, it's it's ah it's fat fantastic in terms of its literary quality. I'm just thinking about how, in David Ebre's recent book, Plato's Fado, he's very good at highlighting some of the interesting literary features of it. For example, how it engages with the kind of tradition of Greek tragedies, how it kind of engages with it, alters. anyway so Yeah, absolutely. i'm so I'm with you on that. that's great i Thank you for that excellent little and initial rough sketch of the dialogue. Now maybe we can kind of talk them a little bit more about
00:13:28
Speaker
um the final argument what's called the final argument and then Socrates intellectual biography, autobiography, sorry, because those are like really those are the two parts of the dialogue which your article is most squarely focusing on and so my thought is like maybe um since you just set the stage with uh giving the brief overview there maybe I can try to describe you know where these two parts fit in and you can kind of tell me if it sounds accurate to you okay so like If you're thinking about the philosophical core of the Thedo, it's really four arguments. um Roughly speaking, they're all aimed at proving that the soul is immortal. And one of the four arguments, the fourth, the kind of climactic argument, is the final argument. And that's what your paper is mainly focused on.
00:14:17
Speaker
And before this final argument, which like I said, it's it's an argument for the immortality of the soul, before that we get two objections, we get Simeus's famous harmonia objection, we get K-Baze's cloakmaker objection, and after those objections, I guess, is it it's after those objections we then get the intellectual autobiography from Socrates, and then we finally get the final argument. um So does that sound basically right, like so far how that that all works? Okay, cool.
00:14:56
Speaker
So, um yeah, I mean, is there anything else you would want to say about the final argument in the intellectual autobiography? Yeah, so I mean, I think you gave a terrific characterization of the basic structure of the um final argument, right, and the prelude to that argument, namely Socrates' auto-intellectual biography that you mentioned. um So if I were to supplement, I would maybe one, emphasize the significance of the final argument in the dialogue. we You you um touch on this point, right, but you know ah particularly in the series of the proofs that he offer for the immortality of the soul, the final argument is intended to be sort of, you know, like the decisive ah kind of like master um argument and kind of grand finale among the four
00:15:42
Speaker
arguments for the conclusion that the soul is immortal, right? And secondly, I would add that the specification that um Socrates' intellectual autobiography is that is actually necessary for him to introduce um his safe answers, right? So the theory of form. So we will get into all of the nitty gritty details, right? um And ultimately, then to introduce the more refined, safe answers, right, which is the the class of the the something else, which I identify as the soul. So exactly, exactly. Good, perfect. Okay, so, yeah, maybe then we stepping into that question of, so basically a dealing with a soul. So your paper,
00:16:33
Speaker
it's It's basically answering, an attempt to answer the question of, um you know the paper is called, is the soul a form? um And what you're doing in this paper is you're you're asking, you know what is the status of the soul in the final argument? you know When when the the when that that term, the soul is used in the final argument, what exactly is it referring to? um So yeah, can you kind of just flesh out this question that you're asking in your paper a little bit?
00:17:03
Speaker
Yes, absolutely. So um I think in the context of the fatal itself, and particularly the final argument, the way that you um presented sort of my inquiry, right, in this paper is correct. I'm trying to understand when um Socrates talks about Hipsuche, right, like the soul, what exactly is he talking about, the ontological status of the soul? Is it a form, right, the transcendent form, the one above the many, or is it the imminent form, or is it something else? But I think
00:17:37
Speaker
I approach the paper, at least when I was writing it, I mean, for, you know, as a student, like this paper was like many years in the making, right? I always have this question in the back of my head, like, is there a form of the soul, right? So that was another sort of related question that I was hoping to address as well in this paper, although not directly, right? Because the the paper is just on that final argument. But I think um that's also something that's Um, I hope to sort of one hand you're thinking about, okay. Yeah. When the term, uh, the soul comes up in the final argument, what is it referring to? Uh, is it referring to a transcendent form? Is it referring to an imminent form, which in that distinction we'll talk about in a moment. Um, or is it referring to something else? Um, and then on the other hand, like you said, there's also like this like broader question that you bring up, which is just in general,
00:18:36
Speaker
you know, is Plato committed to their being a form of the soul, you know, in general? Okay, awesome. So yeah, those those are kind of a couple questions that are, and I feel like now we maybe should just sketch a little bit, just give the people a rough sense of like, what exactly is the final final argument so they can be curious about, you know, yeah, what is the soul referencing.
The Soul's Immortality in Phaedo
00:18:59
Speaker
And so,
00:19:00
Speaker
um I mean, maybe I'll just give my like rough sense of it. You can give yours ah it seems to be something like You know again the goal of the argument is to prove that the soul is immortal and the argument seems to be something like well the soul has this special status as being a bringer or carrier of life and Specifically it brings life to the body and The idea is that like as a bringer or carrier of life the soul has life in it and indeed it has a sort of like special connection to life and in virtue of this special connection it could never admit the opposite of life which is death and so if the soul as a bringer has a special connection to life and can never admit death then
00:19:58
Speaker
I guess it's going to be immortal because it can never admit death. And so anyway, that that's like roughly how I understand like the argument. I don't know. How would you just if you had to like do broad strokes, is that like how you would characterize it or?
00:20:12
Speaker
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. so So before I may, you know, I'll probably just add, and I think there's another step in the argument, right, that I'll add in, but like, I also want to say this just for the listener, I mean, earlier, it's like, oh, this is supposed to be the grand finale, the master argument, and listeners like, whoa, that's it.
00:20:33
Speaker
This is a fabulous fine argument we've been waiting you know to to hear about. um but But I hope you know people will become more exciting about it in a bit. But but the step that I wanted to add right um it and it is very crucial to his argument.
00:20:50
Speaker
um And that is the establishment of the Triactic Schema, right, that he that he has. And this is, you know, um there there are the forms, right, um and the things which share in the form, right, and then there's something other than the form.
00:21:08
Speaker
but may take on the same name as um the forms which again I you know mentioned is the carrier forms and that's what I take the soul to be. um So that that steps allow him in fact then to say because the soul is the carrier form right it's sort of like has um life as its essential property as it were cannot be the sort of thing that is without life. So that's what we justify how the soul has a special connection um to life. So it isn't straightforwardly, you know, just a kind of
00:21:47
Speaker
analytic statement or something like that oh it's it's alive so it's always alive right so he's actually established that as the kind of thing that it is a carrier um of life it is essentially alive but we of course can talk much more about this particular move in the argument i think it's important that he establish there are these three classes and how sort of they relate to one another Right. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's that's really helpful. Yeah. It's like he sets up these. Yeah. And that's actually this this kind of dive into those three classes because that sort of corresponds to um the three options that we have on the table for how to answer the question that animates your paper. So like we just said, like your paper is about, you know, what does the soul refer to in the argument we just ran through? What is it referring to? Is it referring to the transcendent form of the soul?
00:22:43
Speaker
Is it referring to like an imminent form of the soul in us or is it referring the third option I guess would be a substance that bears life or more specifically maybe like this carrier that you're talking about. So let's first go over briefly just you know what um I don't know like what it what what would it what is a transcendent form of this what would it be yeah Let's just talk about that cat first category of the transcendent form. you know like What would the transcendent form of the soul be? What would it do um if if there was such a thing? yeah
00:23:21
Speaker
Yeah, so i I take it that um if listeners are familiar with Plato, right, they will probably be familiar with his theory of forms. So if, right, we assume that option um that the soul is something like a transcendent form, then it is just, right, one of the in many forms.
00:23:40
Speaker
um right, among sort of, you know, the ones that Plato admits. And so if it were to be a transcendent form, it, you know, of course, would be subject to neither change nor perishing, right, it's eternal, um immaterial, right, divine, just like the rise of the forms. And anything that is a soul, like your soul, my soul, um right, is, you know, something like a transcending form, in this sense.
00:24:11
Speaker
Right. Good. And um okay, good. And then that transcendent form of the soul ah would contrast with the second option, which would be an imminent form of the soul. So yeah, what's, what's this idea of an imminent form? That might be something maybe people, audience might potentially could be less familiar with is the idea of an imminent form.
00:24:38
Speaker
Yeah, so, you know, before I just give a quick gloss on the transcend, excuse me, the imminent form, right, I think it's important to acknowledge at least in, you know, the the scholarly literature, there is this interpretive debate concerning whether Plato distinguishes, right, category of the imminent forms with separate kind of existence and ontological status from the forms in nature, but I think is um on the basis
Understanding Imminent vs. Transcendent Forms
00:25:05
Speaker
of the textual evidence in the fatal, seems like he is, at least my view, committed to there being this imminent form of the form in us, right? um So, you know, these imminent forms are, you might say, derivative of of the forms.
00:25:19
Speaker
the transcending forms, right? So he, again, you know, gesture at a commitment to the existence of these entities. And so far, she speaks of um things like the Taunus in Simeas, right? So that's the feature in which Simeas is said to be told relative to Socrates, um right? And he has this Taunus, right, Simeus has the Taunus and Simeus in virtue of participating in the form, the transcending um form of Taunus itself. Right, right. Okay, so yeah, so it's like, there's going to be numerous tall people, maybe Simeus is one of them. All of those tall people are going to be tall, ultimately, thanks to sharing in a transcendent form of Taunus.
00:26:11
Speaker
but maybe like the mechanism by which they participate in that transcendent form is an imminent form of tallness in them so or I'm not sure how you if you would want to call it a mechanism but anyway it's like you have the transcendent form of tallness and then there's some kind of tallness that is in simious the tall person um and that would be the imminent form and I guess like Yeah, anyways, that sound about right, I guess. Yeah, yeah, that's right. You know, and I, I like that you, you know, you used to wear mechanism because in a way it is kind of explanation um for soccer cheese to explain in virtue of what, right, is semi is taller than um soccer cheese, but smaller than Fado.
00:27:03
Speaker
right? um Because the the forms themselves, right, cannot be like both tall and then small, but simious can, right, so there's like a bit of smallness in simious relative to phato, but a bit of largeness in simious relative to Socrates, right? so So those would be, yes, the imminent form in us, right? That allows for these explanations. And it's interesting how like, you know, you have to bring up relative to the sargarita versus relative because his tallness is is a particularly like it's more it's going to be more complicated that imminent form that whole situation can be more complicated because it's more of a relational quality like i might be tall relative to one person but not to another um
00:27:50
Speaker
At any rate, you know, so that there's something to keep in mind that that's going to be particularly complex. Totally, totally. You know, and I think you're bringing up a larger um concern that Plato has. And he's like, this is something that um he is preoccupied with in this on on my reading, right, in his development of the theory of forms. Because as you mentioned, as particular sense of a particular thing like you or I,
00:28:16
Speaker
right? we are We possess some quality relative to somebody else, but maybe we lack that quality relative to some other person. um Right? So, yeah, this prompt Plato to to sort of ask the question, well, then how is it that I know sort of like the perfect, that perfect quality being tall or beautiful or good, right? um So, yeah, the relativity of of, you know, the the particular individual is definitely something that's worth emphasizing and paying attention to. And then we'll come back again. I'm sure in our discussion. Yeah, yeah. Good. So okay, so we have now, basically, we have down on the table, we kind of some sense of what it means for something to be transcendent form, what would it mean for the soul to be an imminent form. And now the third option to answer, you know, for of your the question that animates your paper is, you know,
00:29:12
Speaker
maybe instead the soul and the final argument refers to a carrier of a form. um So yeah, can maybe let's talk about that. yeah what is yeah What is a carrier of a form? And yeah, how would you describe that? Yeah, so um if we start with the text, it's decisive, right, that he um at least, you know,
00:29:39
Speaker
and the way that I read the argument and how Socrates attempts to answer the various objections raised by Cappies and Simeons, right? He does so by introducing a different category, the a la t, the something else that is not a form, right? You know, imminent form or a transcending form, but a third category, um indeed. So these,
00:30:06
Speaker
the something else right um as he puts it so these things um are not formed so it's not you know any form f so beautiful tallness right largeness but it has um the forms characteristic always and everywhere if it exists right um so you know I call this the bringer or carer forms, but I'm not alone in this many interpreters. So you mentioned David Ebery. I think he also called these things um bringer carriers of forms, right? But the the idea, I take it, is clear on the basis of the text. So these carrier of forms, right, so a ah carrier, a particular form,
00:30:50
Speaker
f, be it beautiful right or large, um it cannot be what it is without exhibiting, without having f-ness, like beauty or tallness as an essential attribute. Although it's not identical to um the beautiful or the large. So Socrates' example right um concern odd numbers. So each odd number is always odd. So you think of, you know, like 139, so on and so forth, though, none of those um is, i you know, identical, or should be identified with the form of the odd or oddness.
00:31:28
Speaker
right so So here what you have, so just using Socrates' own example, um so you have the form right of oddness, the transcending form of oddness in virtue of which all odd numbers are odd. And then you have the imminent oddness in each odd number, so say three. right And then you have the odd carrier, which is just the individual odd number three. So there are those kind of three categories, right, that he enumerate. And so again, what it is to be a form carrier, right, is to have um the the F, right, the quality of the form as its essential attribute, but it's not to be identical um with the form. And I can articulate, right, why the form carrier don't carry
00:32:22
Speaker
The form right as its essential um quality or essence is is not identical with the form. so so I can go there or we can hold off for certain. That could be good. i mean Maybe we could just yeah can i just review or I could try to restate kind of some of the things that you just mentioned. like um Or maybe give another example too. so yeah so like The number three, okay so you're never going to find a number three that's even.
00:32:51
Speaker
So what that means is that the number three, every whenever you come across it, so to speak, it's always going to be odd. So that's like essential to three. it it can't the odd Being odd is essential to three. It has it always. um And like you said, that kind of reminds you of the it's like the form of odd, like the odd as such, you know the I don't know what how you want to describe it, maybe the definition of being odd, it's never going to also be even. Anyway, the transcendent form of oddness, right, is perfectly odd. That's right. And, you know, as yeah, and as he puts it, right, it will never admit its opposites, like, like, will never be even. Right. Yeah, right. You know, so, um okay, so that we have that, but but still, there's that difference between
00:33:43
Speaker
obviously the number three itself and the oddest, the the transcendent form of odd, the definition of odd as it were. um And then, yeah, like another example to kind of think about is heat. So um ah heat is always hot. It can't be heat unless it's hot. ah So you can't have like heat that is cold. So there's like this kind of like really intimate essential sort of attachment between heat and being hot. And so that would be another example of a bringer or carrier. Now, what about like this idea of like the bringer or carrier ah brings its quality to something else other than itself? Like so, I mean, obviously with the example of the soul,
00:34:39
Speaker
um I mean, we haven't talked too much about this, but, you know, kind of a key idea for ancient Greeks or at least for Plato is that it's like the soul is bringing life to the body.
Carrier Forms and Their Essential Characteristics
00:34:53
Speaker
So it's the soul. Yeah, it's essentially. a you know potentially it's essentially live, but it's also bringing um this life to a body. If we think about the number three though, that's not really like bringing oddness.
00:35:15
Speaker
I don't know, anyway, I'm just kind of curious, if you if you want to talk about the the carrying to something else, is that something we should be thinking about now or maybe not? Yeah, so so I think, you know, maybe just um following or along your line of thoughts with three being a carrier, right? So, I guess three as a triad, you know, like three units, right? That is within oddness to a collection of three items.
00:35:43
Speaker
Right. So I think that's the way in which we could think about three as a carrier of oddness. I mean, it's perhaps strange for us to just think about it in that way, but essentially what it is, it's like we're counting one, two, three items, right? So when I have three items, I have oddness there. And so, I mean, if I may, I also want to maybe flesh out why I think so, because this point isn't made explicit in the text um of the photo, right? So I mean, he does make this um abundantly clear statement Socrates, that is, that um a carrier of a form, you know, as we've been talking, cannot be what it is without exhibiting the Fness, right, the quality of the form, but it's not identical to the form. But then you're like, why is it not identical to the form? We sort of
00:36:31
Speaker
um love that qualification at least to my you know to my mind and my reading a bit unexplained sure um but so so i as i understand what is going on so you know we can just sticking with number three and the oddness right so you think about um three being a carrier of oddness, right? So, of course, as we've been saying, whenever you have three or a collection of three things, you always have oddness, right? But being odd does not as well, you know, exhaust what it is to be three, right? Okay, good, yeah. So, I mean, you know, thinking about three, it's also a prime number, it's necessarily a prime number, right? And a factor of nine
00:37:16
Speaker
right um In addition to to being odd, unlike the form, the carrier's asset is not as it were exhausted by any single attribute. right Because what it is to be, again, on my understanding, um a form is just to be that quality, the F, and nothing else. like Autness and nothing else, right? A form of beauty, just beauty and nothing else, right? It's often how he describes it, right? The F itself by itself. So, you know, you don't just like three isn't just the ought itself by itself. It also has several other unique attributes. Okay, good. Yeah, that's great. Okay, so yeah, I mean, you can kind of tell that, right,
00:38:00
Speaker
Like if we were to try to define odd, like what is it mean to be odd, we would be, you know, for Plato that we would be trying to characterize the transcendent form. And in doing that, of course, we wouldn't also want to define a prime number, right? Like we want it to be, we want to be only defining what it is to be odd. And so that kind of shows that the transcendent form of oddness, it's just odd. It's not also,
00:38:29
Speaker
prime. and and Anyway, but and and we can kind of tell that because we want our definition to exclusively yeah define the odd. Whereas, yeah, like you said, you know a number three, yes, it has to be odd ah to be three. That's necessary, but it's not sufficient to define. It doesn't exhaust all that ah three is. um I was starting to think of another example. I mean, I don't know I feel like you may have written your dissertation partly on this issue of like defining the human being as like, whether it's, you know, how to define, but, but like, if you think that the human being is essentially rational, yeah right? Like that would be an example where, okay, yeah, rationality would be a necessary feature of being a human if that's correct. But it wouldn't exhaust us because, that's right.
00:39:20
Speaker
I don't know, like if there's a God, he would also be rational. So there must be something about us besides just being rational. Yeah, that's right. No, no, absolutely. And if if I may, you know, since you um asked earlier, the the questions, choosing to Aristotle and Plato, it's okay to bring Aristotle, no, to flesh out the example you just offered, I think it is helpful, right? and I mean, Aristotle is also a student of Plato, a faithful one, I would say. right um So it in the case of the human being, indeed, right part of what it is to be a human is at least you know maybe like not always exercising rationality, but having the capacity right to exercise rationality. But even Aristotle admits in the ethics right that um our passions and non-rational desires are no less human.
00:40:11
Speaker
Right, so it is essential part of what it is to be a human, again, that we can exercise rationality, but we also have these more like passionate, um right, non rational, irrational elements in us. That's just how he divides up the soul in the beginning of the ethics at the end of one anyway. Right.
00:40:31
Speaker
to reiterate you know you bring that up because that's how we show the distinction between the transcendent form and the carrier um and so I mean another way I guess another way of thinking about it too is that this kind of indicates the simplicity of the transcendent form it's not complex it's just in a way you know the just is just just it's not also and and so whereas the
Challenging the Imminent Form Hypothesis
00:40:58
Speaker
carrier is going to be more complex there's going to be generally multiple dimensions to it. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, if you look at other examples Socrates offer in his explication of these carrier items, right? So um you have snow, right, as a carrier of kona. So again, if you think about the transcendent form of konas, it is just cold and nothing else, right? It's absolutely i'm simply cold, eternally cold, et cetera, just in a way that Plato describes his forms. But you think about snow. It isn't just coldness. It has to be configured in a hexagonal array, among other things. to be snow, it isn't just coal, right? up That won't exhaust um what it is, the tortillas, the essence of what it is to be snow. So I think that is, you know, a very stark contrast that we can draw between the transcending forms and repetitively right imminent forms right from um the something else that is talking about which and I and other people are calling the carrier bringer forms.
00:42:09
Speaker
Good. OK, so we I feel like we now kind of have a pretty good handle on this, you know, tripartite like distinction between transcendent form, eminent form and then a carrier. um Maybe now we can kind of get into why you think that the soul in the final argument is referencing a carrier, you know. So um you point out that, you know, it is an option to say that the soul is referencing a transcendent form.
00:42:38
Speaker
in the final argument, but you say that really it's hardly anyone endorses that um that theory. Do you really quickly, do you want to provide any of the reasons for why you know one would want to you know reject that particular interpretation of the final argument? Yeah, thank you for your question. So in my paper, I offer three reasons, which I was just quickly reiterate here. right So one, it's kind of ah Just when you think about the the argumentative strategy, right, that Plato opted to a adopt, you know, he goes through an incredible amount of trouble, right, or like four arguments to argue that the soul is immortal, right? And, you know, he's speaking, um you know, to two friends, right? These are people who accept the theory of forms.
00:43:30
Speaker
um So one would expect this conclusion to just follow straightforwardly if the soul is indeed a form. Yes, indeed, it would you know be everlasting, eternal, indestructible, et cetera, et cetera. Why go through um the trouble offering, not one, but four arguments for the immortality of the soul. So I think you know that that reason along alone is very strong to rule out this option. But there are two more.
00:43:53
Speaker
um And the second reason I offer is that, you know, if you take the fatal to be a kind of a polyglia, right, so Socrates defends of his way of life, of right, his kind of fearless attitude towards death, and also right proving kind of the paramount importance of the care for the soul in the final argument, um then why should we think that the soul is a transcendent form?
00:44:19
Speaker
right um if the soul is a transcendent form you know it's like unchanging it's eternal why would it matter if you care for it or not right that seems a bit strange and also it wouldn't be something that you know like perished right? um Or go away, withdraw anywhere. But the way that he speaks about the soul is just in that kind of, you know, like, very, um you might even say, like, physical description, it's like, withdrawing is moving. um It's departing, right? Forms do not do any of those things. So I think for all those reasons, combined, this option, right at the soul is something like a transcendent form is quite untenable. Right.
00:45:03
Speaker
Okay, perfect. Yeah, so that that um i'm I'm with you. Yeah, it's that those those reasons seem pretty decisive. They're good. And so, but now when it comes to, you know, the second possibility is that in the final argument, the soul is referencing an imminent form and showing why that interpretation is wrong is a little bit more complicated.
00:45:30
Speaker
um Basically, it seems like we have to kind of talk about two things. um So one thing you talk about is this idea of like,
00:45:42
Speaker
Socrates introduces a new sophisticated hypothesis about what makes a thing have the character that it has, what makes XF. And it kind of goes beyond his old safe answer. So that's one thing we have to kind of get into a little bit to understand what's wrong with the imminent form interpretation. And then the second thing has to do with the cloak maker objection. Okay, so um Yeah, so how do you want to handle this part? I mean, basically, do you want to maybe tell us a little bit about this idea of a new sophisticated hypothesis versus the old safe answer? And then just how is that relevant to this whole issue of the imminent form interpretation?
00:46:24
Speaker
Yes, fabulous. Thank you for for those questions. So I will perhaps approach the questions in the order her that you ask, right? right the question so So first, maybe just say a few words about what exactly is this all safe answer.
00:46:40
Speaker
um i I talk about in the paper, you know, and it's really just his theory of forms, right? So in the context of the final argument, just right before he offers um the argument as you laid out in your sort of recap of the argument in the beginning, right, he begins by um sketching a kind of intellectual autobiography, Socrates, that is, right? um So he started out, you know, being really drawn to the Sager's sort of um theory of causation, but then he found out, oh, it's kind of like a bayon switch. So he talks about, like, news or mine as causes, but turns out to be my bone and sinews that causing me to move, right? So he's like, that's that's no good. um So then Socrates, like, okay, well, I want to kind of approach,
The New Hypothesis in Phaedo
00:47:28
Speaker
right? um
00:47:29
Speaker
this kind of question like into causation by way of hypothesis I'm just gonna hypothesize there are things like the beautiful right and the large and the small and he calls writing his um safe answer so in the text right you know exam this is an example he he gives so suppose someone um tell me right Socrates why something right or other is beautiful why that painting there is beautiful and say oh you know because has like vivid color or shape right or some other thing so he said I'm gonna ignore these explanations right because I'm confused when they're around to me you know like I keep the following at myself I saw my straightforward kind of like simple answer. No, it's just the beautiful, right? Like I'm just saying in the beautiful that the painting there is beautiful. So that's just his theory of forms.
00:48:24
Speaker
and At this point in the um argument, right he wants to now offer yet another safe answer, which in his own words, like more sophisticated, is like clever. It's like a matter. It's an improvement on the old answer. So now he's like, I'm going to give another answer beyond that safe one, right which I spoke of before, so the form. But now um I, Socrates, see another safe answer.
00:48:55
Speaker
So when you ask me, you know, what is it that come to this body that make it hot? I'm not going to say it's the form, right, of hotness or something like that. I'm going to say it's the heat, right? ah Or sorry, it's the fire. I'm not going to say it's the hotness, but it is the fire that makes something hot. So this is now, right, the carrier of heat, the fire, bringing heat into um a body right or what is it that makes a body ill or you know what is it right um that makes something cold i'm not going to say oh it's the form of illness or the form of coldness right but rather um is a fever that makes a body ill or say you know a lump of snow someone throw a lump of snow
00:49:43
Speaker
at you and that makes you cold um or something like that. So that has new kind of like sophisticated, the the more clever answer that he believes is going to allow him to answer Cabbie's objection. Good. Perfect. Perfect. Folkmaker. Yeah. Yeah. Great. and so yeah This new sophisticated way of answering the question of, yeah know for example, yeah why is the body ill? um why Now, why is that relevant to your argument against, how does that relate to rejecting the imminent form interpretation of the final argument?
00:50:22
Speaker
Yeah, so um if if we think about again, you know, Socrates or approach to answering Cabbie's objection or even Plato as a writer, um and the way that he wants to respond to this, indeed, like very troling troublesome um objection from Cabbie's right that yeah, the soul may, you know, like outlets a body or a few bodies, but it won't be eternal. Right. So, you know, like he already has um the tools of the theory of forms at his disposal again he's speaking with um um but among friends right like people who aren't like like perhaps like some of us today right who challenge the theory from z people these people accepted in the very beginning of the dialogue there are forms and that there are things that participate in the form so it's very perplexing for him to now introduce this new
00:51:17
Speaker
clever, you know, like sophisticated answer in order to respond to Cabbie's objection, if he could have just, you know, rely on um the mechanism of the form and the imminent form. um In us, race yeah know we can go into Cabbie's objection to flesh out his answer. I don't know if you have any immediate follow up.
00:51:41
Speaker
No, yeah, that could be good. Yeah, maybe just describing. Yeah, because we didn't, you know, we haven't discussed exactly the cloak maker objection. It's basically like, I mean, you know, you should, you can flesh out better than me, but like, it's something like Cabeys is like, okay, you know, um Socrates, you know, maybe the soul is like a cloak.
00:52:02
Speaker
a maker right now be the so maker yeah Yeah, so maybe the soul is like a cloak maker where, yeah, the the soul lives longer than um numerous bodies, just as a cloak maker lives longer than a numerous coats, but that doesn't mean it the the soul, you know, but maybe just like the cloak maker is an immortal. The soul is an immortal. Yes, it lives past many bodies, but it just doesn't go on forever. so socer in short, Socrates, you should be afraid of death because maybe this time your soul is not going to live past your body. Anyway, so it's something like that, right? is that That's the cloak maker.
00:52:44
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. And again, it's this troubling kind of image that provides the impetus, um right, for the final argument. And again, in order to respond to Cappy's objection to Socrates interpreted this objection as a broader kind of concern about um causation, explanations, really. And that's why he, at least on my reading, introduces this class of something else, right? The form carriers to show that the soul is essentially alive, right? It cannot be the sort of thing that um does not have life as part of its essential sort of like predicate or property as it were. And he cannot do that by
00:53:31
Speaker
appealing to write the idea or this option that the soul is something like an imminent sort of life form in us of soulness. I mean, they're at least, you know, so you you might think, okay,
00:53:48
Speaker
um So perhaps you think the imminent form, right, if we talk about, maybe let's go back to the illness example, right? um I think it will maybe help to flesh out why this new answer is better. okay So when you think about somebody being sick, certainly you of course can say, oh, you know, like the the imminent illness, so suppose I'm sick because I don't want to use you.
00:54:15
Speaker
As an example, maybe some kind of but luck after like podcast, you're you're going to be ill. So we be I'm a sick person, okay right right? And then, you know, somebody asks, oh, why is it that you're sick like now? um Okay, so there's a bit of like illness in me. Tomorrow I recover, right? So the illness in in me.
00:54:34
Speaker
um departs, right? So right right it left my my body. But it's really strange to think about, when you think about an imminent form in us, imminent, you know, illness, imminent, largeness, smallness, right, that can, as it were, um exists, right, has a kind of like sustained existence, independent of there being some transcendent form, like this imminent illness or largeness or tallness, just sort of like, moves in and out. Right, so it's, you know, kind of at least to my mind, ah far from obvious how we should understand an imminent form that would withdraws kind of like unscathed from a body, right? um Okay, it previously occupy. So again, like to imagine an imminent form in this way requires supposing that the imminent form could have some kind of independent existence. So you imagine the soul
00:55:33
Speaker
like that. So he talks about his soul. I mean, again, using very, um like, physical description of the soul withdrawing, like relocating, right, indeed, one of the earlier arguments um for immortality. So relocate, right, to Haiti is the afterlife. Right. um So yeah, strange to think about an imminent form in that sense. like Okay, okay. So so it's like the the way he's describing the soul, it's it makes makes it sound like a concrete sort of substance or object that does some things like withdrawing or, you know, and and you're basically saying, you know, that way of describing the soul clashes, seems intention
00:56:21
Speaker
with just saying that the soul is an imminent form. We just don't really have examples of imminent forms behaving in that way. Is that correct? Yeah, that's right. I mean, and I think I'd go a bit further to say it's kind of inintelligible, really incoherent. It's my mind, right? To think that we can have like free floating imminent form, like free floating illness.
00:56:45
Speaker
um that's not in Socrates in you in me right when the illness is no longer in any of us but he doesn't talk about the soul in that way right so imminent form exists while they are in right a body um right a sense of a particular that participates in the form now when that occurs now there is an imminent form in us but it's strange to say oh my there's just a bit of illness floating around yeah i mean it's almost like It's almost like i mean it almost sounds like you're so you think of like an imminent form as like essentially like a property and you can't really imagine a property floating around. Like a property is always inhering in in.
00:57:31
Speaker
ah substance. is that kind of i mean maybe is that yeah i mean i yeah I think i think that that would not be incorrect or an incorrect way to put it. I mean i think you you have to understand imminent form at least um like something along that line. Otherwise, you just kind of collapse the distinction. right You can have like free flowing, imminent form, then why aren't they transcending?
The Thick Notion of the Soul
00:57:55
Speaker
form, right? i mean that They are um in us for for a reason, the way that he qualifies these things to imminent form in us. So it's not like, oh, the soul in me, it's now no longer in me. but That seems strange. It's like the illness in me is still free floating illness, or no, it's not in me. Like, I'm Well, now I've recovered from my illness.
00:58:16
Speaker
right and you know um even so like I'll go a bit further, you know even if we suppose like you can imagine that there is a bit of illness. um that was in a given body but now survive, right, a separation from that body, right? um I think the the new explanation, the new safe answer will still be preferable as an explanation to the imminent form because it really allows him to explain why a body is sick, right, or is cold um without referring to
00:58:50
Speaker
illness, or coldness itself, right, which is just like the exponential number thing that he's trying to account for in the first place, right. So it's better for two reasons, um I would, I, you know, I would argue. Perfect. Awesome. Well, that's, that's really helpful. um I think, you know, in terms of explaining um why you opt for the the the carrier interpretation of the soul. I mean, I think you offer maybe some other points in favor of it that we haven't mentioned. I thought one point that we could, I mean, I'm kind of thinking about time now, but you don't want to be respectful of your time. But I mean, one thing maybe we could bring up is this whole point, you point out that the the notion of the soul
00:59:37
Speaker
in the phaedo is what you call is kind of a thick notion. And this idea of the soul, this more thick notion of the soul, it kind of clashes with describing the soul as an imminent form. So I don't know, do maybe we could touch on that really quick. Yeah, thats so absolutely. and And I would again go a bit further and not just imminent form, but form, simplicity. Okay, right. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And so thank you so much for this question. And going back to what we were saying earlier, it's all relative.
01:00:10
Speaker
So it's only thick relative to um the alternative, the whole alternative really. right So um is so maybe maybe I'll just sketch what I mean by thick and and thin as I describe it in the paper. So the thin notion is the pneumatic consumption of the soul.
01:00:31
Speaker
a spirit, right, Numa, or a breath of air. This is very Homeric, um right? So, you know, at the time of death, they're so disperses, right? It's gone, right? And moreover, this is what's important. um You find this in Homer um Odyssey, for instance, right? Like the soul of the dead, the dead have no understanding, right? So that's the thesis that Socrates, as I understand, and very much want to reject, right? So um The soul isn't just responsible for life and this is where we could incorporate and another um reason why the soul can't just be a form because it's not just life and nothing else, right? That would be the thin notion. Whereas the what I call thick notion and it's only relative to the the notion because you might think is thin relative to some other platonic notion of the soul that you find in the republic or features or elsewhere, right? um So it's thick in this context because for Socrates, in the photo, soul isn't just responsible for life, but also for knowledge, right it allows the in soul creatures to um exercise a host of
01:01:46
Speaker
cognitive um capacity that is knowing recollecting the forms when we have an argument from recollection for the form so that's what the soul enables the insole creature to do so it isn't just you know a breath of air that sort of quickens the body it is thick in the sense that right it is able to exercise some cognitive abilities as well. Good. Yeah, that's that's great. Yeah, I mean, it's it's just interesting to think about, yeah, what is the soul doing? What is its function? um And like you said, you know, this is not as familiar to our culture, but in the Homeric or Greek culture, ancient Greek culture, you know, the the basic idea was that the soul is the thing that's going to be animating
01:02:36
Speaker
this body making it alive, it's the breath of life. um And so you know it your notion of the soul gets thicker if you then add that it's actually also the seat of knowledge, cognition, that sort of thing. um and And like you said, you could even add more stuff if if you if you wanted to. That's that's great. So yeah, that that would seem to clash with a more form.
01:03:03
Speaker
Yeah, exactly. Like, especially going back to what we said earlier, you know, the way that you characterize the former, it's just simple. Right. So if you think about the soul as a form, what what would it be in, again, the kind of tradition, Plato?
01:03:18
Speaker
is working from this Homeric culture. I mean, he doesn't, of course, adopt all of the Homeric traditions and views far from it, right? But certainly the view that the soul at least is something that animates the body, that is there. But it's not just that, right? It does more, I mean, like I quote in attacks, you know, the soul actually also possesses um capabilities and intelligence. So it isn't just um kind of like the life force, right? That enemy, the body.
01:03:47
Speaker
and Perfect. Um, okay. Well, you know, I think at this point we've, we've given the listeners a pretty, um, nice, like initial understanding of, you know, why, um, you argue that, um, the soul and the final argument doesn't refer to a transcendent form doesn't refer to animin form, but instead to a carrier.
Immortality: Cognitive Capacities vs. Personal Identity
01:04:06
Speaker
Um, I, there's so many other interesting, interesting things about your article, um, that I'd love to get into, um, you know, for the sake of time,
01:04:15
Speaker
i Was just maybe just one other point that is super interesting about your article. Maybe you could just briefly hint at which is You argue that the final argument? ah Okay, it's an argument for the immortality of the soul But it's not an argument for personal immortality And so I thought you know before we wrap up Could you just kind of just like quickly just alert people to this distinction? You know, how could an argument be?
01:04:44
Speaker
for the immortality of the soul, but not for personal immortality. well Can you kind of just briefly tell us a little bit about that distinction? Yeah, absolutely. And here, again, I want to echo or um borrow something that you observed earlier, right, about perhaps the our conception of the soul, um and by extension, identity, in contrast with Plato's conception of the soul and perhaps identity, right. So so at least to to my mind, when I hear
01:05:17
Speaker
um personal immortality, right, I think of the kind of like promise, right, of, you know, like that, that my consciousness is preserved, right, my memory, my personality, right, things that make me me, right, it's like me being and make you say I'm the person I'm talking to, right, that thing will persist over time, right. So diachronic identity or something like that, right. And that, at least, um in the way that contemporary, like,
01:05:46
Speaker
You and I can understand this notion, for sure, is is very complicated and you know subject to a host of academic um debate. right But i I take it it's not controversial to say that this notion of identity and immortality, personality, presupposes something like psychological continuity again. So right, Sam, the person I'm talking to, um your memory, your personality, your consciousness is somehow preserved forever.
01:06:16
Speaker
that existence, right? It's like prolonged ad infinitum. That I do not think we have the license to infer on the basis of the final argument, or really any of the argument for the immortality of the soul that um we get from the fader. Because when you look at um Plato's argument, right? So again, going back to what exactly is the conception of the soul that he's arguing for that, you know, exists eternally, that is immortal, and destructible in the pharaoh. So it's a thick enough notion um to allow the soul, right, to exercise
01:07:02
Speaker
certain cognitive capacity. And I think that really just limited to recollecting the forms in the fado. When you get to Republic, you do have a more robust account of the soul, right, where it's responsible for certain desires. um Like, no, really, like all desires, right? ah but You know, non-rational ones, bodily ones, and, you know,
01:07:25
Speaker
spirited one, so on and so forth. But that is not the conception of the soul that we get in the fatal, right? All that the soul, I mean, if if we look at the text carefully, right, all that it can do in the fatal is recollect the form and, you know, and if you read it in light of Socrates objective,
01:07:49
Speaker
in the beginning of the fatal right to defend the life of philosophy right this is why you shouldn't be afraid to die maybe you should welcome death right because once you die you can just recollect or I mean you can just contemplate the forms that you've recollected right hole collected right um via your soul so I mean what it is to have a soul really again you know it's just to be um able to exercise cognitive capacity and possessing intelligence. And I would argue in the context of the fatal that is um the intelligence there is knowledge of the forms and nothing more. right Right. So yeah, so it's like for there really to be in your eyes, you know, for us to have
01:08:37
Speaker
um an argument for personal immortality, there would be we would need to prove that certain psychological characteristics are preserved um forever after death. Whereas you're saying actually looks like the only kind of functions that are preserved. It's not all our memories. It's not our personality. It's just uh, recollecting the forms. And so if, if that sounds like a bad deal of just pure recollecting the forms that you, you you might not want to die either. Um, so anyway, but yeah, no, my, my, uh, I had a professor, Edward Halper, he used to joke with us that, you know, uh, Platon and Kevin, it's, it would actually terrify most people. It's just, all it is is, is, uh, thinking about the forms. It's not, it's not, uh, it's not with Beethoven, it's not asking, uh,
01:09:26
Speaker
yeah yeah it is it is well you know i maybe have a bit more optimistic picture just going back to it to earlier arguments um in the fade out even in all the dialogues like the apology right i mean Socrates um does hint at the possibility. Yeah, indeed, having conversation with like great heroes, like virtuous people, right? Like Achilles, maybe Beethoven, well maybe others, right? But your conversation will be about virtue and deforms and, you know, maybe not other like sexier topics. And like when you look at the Phaedrus, you know, like there's also exciting scenes like drinking ambrosia with the gods and like that.
01:10:10
Speaker
Good, good. Well, um thank you so much for joining us, Van. This has been a really ah fascinating conversation. And yeah, obviously I recommend highly to all our listeners that they check out your article. It's definitely worth diving into.
01:10:48
Speaker
He is our God, America.