The Reciprocity Argument and the Structure of Plato's Phaedo (original) (raw)

THERE IS A CURIOUS AMBIGUITY in the attitude generally taken toward the Phaedo. While it remains one of Plato's most popular dialogues, its ostensible theme-the arguments for the immortality of the soul-is given relatively little serious attention. It is often held that they are not only invalid if taken at face value, but were recognized as such by Plato, ~ for he makes Socrates call attention to the inconclusiveness, or need for more thorough examination, of all of them? No doubt it is largely as a result of this belief that we are often urged to turn our attention from the logic of the arguments to the example of Socrates and his unshakable courage in the face of death. When serious attention is paid to the reasonings of the dialogue, it is generally with reference not to the doctrine of immortality but to the epistemological discussions that support it. The question naturally arises why Plato would bother knowingly to propound inconclusive or invalid arguments, and in answer it is usually suggested that he is aiming to produce "a series of 'aggressions' to the solution" of thc problem? demonstrating a certain probability or clarifying the issues involved. Yet it is left vague how this is accomplished in particular cases 4 or, more importantly, how Plato can have hoped to accomplish such goals by means of invalid arguments. If Plato recognized the first three arguments to be invalid, or at least inconclusive, it is worth asking whether their value is merely to serve as stepping stones to the final argument, or whether they contain intrinsic merit as well. And if one believes that Plato regarded even the final proof as fallacious or inconclusive, the discovery of intrinsic merit in such arguments becomes the only alternative to seeing them as pointless. In what follows, I shall try to show that the first argument, which is most widely regarded as fallacious or inadequate in Plato's own eyes, not only serves as an