Plato: Phaedrus

_I have heard some call this work a confused jumble of unrelated concepts. These people just didn't get it. There is one unified theme to the Phaedrus: without a deep connection to the soul and to the higher Reality only accessible to the soul, then all human endeavors are in error._The first part of the dialogue deals with three speeches on the topic of love. This is used only as an example and is not the primary theme (though it is an extremely thorough and compelling examination of the subject.) The first speech (by Lysias) is clearly in error- it is badly composed, badly reasoned, and supports what is clearly the wrong conclusion. The second speech (by Socrates), while an impeccable model of correct rhetoric, and reaching the correct conclusion is also essentially flawed- for it makes no appeal to the deepest fundamental causes of things. Simply put, it lacks soul. The third argument (attributed to Stesichorus) however, delves deeply into the soul. In fact, the core of the argument is centered around the proof of the existence and nature of the soul. That is the consistency here- unless you are Philosopher enough to have looked deeply within your own soul, to have made contact (recollection) with ultimate Reality (Justice, Wisdom, Beauty, Temperance, etc.) then your arguments are just empty words- even if you are accidentally on the correct side._The second part of the dialogue concentrates on showing how true rhetoric is more than "empty rhetoric" (i.e. just clever arguments and tricks used to sway the masses.) True rhetoric is shown to literally be the art of influencing the soul through words. It also reads as the perfect description, and damnation, of modern politics and the legal system. No wonder Socrates was condemned to later take poison- he actually BELIEVED in Justice, Truth, and the Good. As a Philosopher he could not compromise on such things for he knew the profound damage and that it would do to his soul and to its "wings."

Many of Plato’s Dialogues start with a question, and rarely approach what may be called an answer to the question, but one of the virtues of the dialectic approach is to clear the ground so that one knows where the answer is not to be found. Equally, virtually all the Dialogues also consider certain issues that are of particular interest to Plato, such as the immortality of the soul, and the ideal forms. The Phaedrus is no exception to this, but the Dialogue begins with the subject of rhetoric, and Plato’s big complaint about rhetoric, was that it was practiced by speechmakers – particularly those concerned with legislation, with the primary aim to persuade, and not to discover the truth, which is the clear aim of dialectic. But most people with some familiarity with Plato, would remember the analogy of the ascent of the soul – although it is not certain whether it is the chariot with the two horses that take the soul to the rim of heaven, or the wings that the soul has.I had been quite happy with Robin Waterfield’s translation (OUP), and the general layout: introduction; translation; and notes, as being clear and readable, but he does make a comment that Hackforth’s earlier translation is particularly good. There are differences between the two translations, but they are relatively minor, but the layout is quite different: there is a general introduction, and then each section of the Dialogue has a brief introduction, and a running commentary – rather than notes at the end (like Waterfield), and I found this approach more useful, because where a question arises about what is said, one does not have to then turn to notes at the back of the book, and it also gives the translator more scope for comment.My particular interest was in the Palinode – the chariot-wings analogy, but the Palinode –which is itself a homage to memory, begins with an argument proving the immortality of the soul. This argument does not make sense in itself, and it has the reputation among scholars of being incomprehensible, so it tends to get skipped over. The obvious question then, is if it is so obscure, why did Plato leave it in? Hackforth is considerably more diligent than Waterfield in attempting to grasp the nettle regarding this short passage, which may be partly due to the fact that the two translations are aimed principally at different audiences (readers) with differing familiarities with Plato. There are also, for some of the Dialogues, studies available, and in this case, Ferrari’s ‘Listening to the Cicadas’ – which is very good, but even he does not grasp the nettle regarding this particular passage! (It should be noted that Plotinus does, and comprehension dawns.) This is also the general situation with translations, and clearly some people are happy with a clear translation, and a little background/wider contexts; others want a bit more; and in this case Hackforth supplies it. (Ferrari supplies something different.) One problem with the Hackforth edition (1952), is that it was last reprinted in 1997, and may be difficult to get hold of, unless of course Cambridge re-issue it. This edition is excellent and worth the trouble of trying to track down a copy.