Abstract

The main problem confronting the student of the Phaedo is that the dialogue cannot be properly understood solely on the basis of the speeches and arguments it articulates. Often one argument contradicts another, or what is seen in the dialogue contradicts an argument. Interpreting the dialogue thus requires the student to take into account the dramatic circumstances as well as the words, and to be attuned to the posibility that Socrates' speeches may be ironic. ;The present study analyzes the Phaedo as a dialogue primarily about the separation in speech of matters conjoined in experience. It further attempts to articulate Plato's intention to separate the Socratic logoi from the person of Socrates. The different layers of the dialogue are thus examined as structural levels, each with a different dramatic intent. One's own interpretive activity forms a part of the dialogic whole. ;Philosophy as the "practice of dying and being dead" is shown to be primarily the activity of separating the logoi from the person of Socrates in the retelling of the speeches of Socrates' last day. Thus one encounters the different levels of recollection: our own, Plato's, and Phaedo's. The innermost level is the discussion of recollection itself within the dialogue. The relationship between these different levels of understanding points to the importance of continued discussion as the primary philosophic activity, rather than the acceptance or rejection of a particular body of knowledge. ;This interpretation shows the absence of so-called Platonic doctrines, but offers in its place a Socratic/Platonic teaching about the use of speech as the means to pursue knowledge. The Phaedo is understood as a dialogue designed to insure the continuation of dialogue after the death of Socrates. Its teaching guides one through the possible pitfalls of logoi but also shows why the logos is one's best possible guide. Rather than being an end in itself, the Phaedo is intended to be the beginning for the careful reader whose own quest must reach beyond the limits of the dialogue through his own dialogic activity