So Socrates is dead. What wisdom I gleaned about man’s immortal soul from this dialogue helps somewhat, in that Socrates’ belief in the life of the soul, the intellect of man as an everlasting existence can be reasoned out to a degree by the examples of opposites opposing their opposites. It’s much too complicated to go into here, and I understand the basic premise and yes, it can be logically reasoned. But is it right?
Plato is food for thought. His words must be digested slowly and stored as energy in the brain, ready when called upon to apply to the questions that don’t ever really leave us but are often set aside to bubble and ferment into a smooth clarity of wine.
There was much in this essay that challenged my own thinking. Especially at the end where Socrates describes an afterlife he could not possibly know. Phaedo is, however, something I know I shall pick up again when wondering sets in. And not just about the essence of a soul, but of the arguments presented that show a logical progression of thinking.