Teaching and the Decline of Liberty at Credulity and Curiosity in A ...

Man and Nature in Plato's Phaedo -171
about the possibility of change that occurs in response to opinion (do^a, gSe-
99a) (itself able to change) about what is best, as opposed to change initiated by
what is bodily in form. The noncomposite soul section, which opens with an ex
plication of the body-soul separation, has thus taken us over into the political
realm of human beings. Prior to making the distinction between soul and
body one part ruling, the other obeying there is no possibility of discussion
of freedom and choice of action. Likewise, of course, there is no possibility of
the discovery of determinism or, put into more ancient terms, the belief that ev
erything happens by necessity, in the form of chance.
If the import of the nature and recollection arguments has been accepted, the
issue of determinism is more or less moot. The whole thrust of the philosophic
analysis in the Phaedo has been toward an understanding of soul as a source of
change and metamorphosis. In these two previous major arguments soul has
been shown to have certain capacities or potentials. It has always been involved
with change of form at some level. To quickly recapitulate, in the nature argu
ment soul was analyzed as a power allowing the emergence of life, a potential
that always remains even when all is still embedded in an unconscious or "sleep
ing"
state. In the recollection argument soul was surmised to have innate powers
of perception of likeness and deficiency, and along with this a directedness al
ways toward some good and beauty. The recollection argument linked the soul of
the nature argument with the conscious and directed type of soul we know as our
own. At the conclusion of the recollection argument it remained to relate the
powers of the soul of the recollection argument to the transforming potency of
the human soul existing within a political and philosophical environment. At
least this further step is necessary if the nature of the human soul is to be fully
examined.
The noncomposite soul section began by setting forth a "body form"
"soulform"
dichotomy. Now that the body-soul separation has been maneu
vered into place this distinction being
a most essential one for political dis
course, and of course for philosophy altogether the noncomposite soul argu
ment turns to an analysis of political and philosophical activity. The second half
of the noncomposite soul section is immensely complex in its description of the
soul's guidance and transformation of body and of the soul's attempt to free itself
from the body.
At first the gods have a prominent role in the account (cf. 8od, 81 a, 82b-c)
reminiscent of the section where apology lovers of learning say that "the god
free"
himself would set us from the body (67a). This is despite the fact no proof
has yet been given that the gods exist. Instead the intervening arguments have
worked together to eliminate the power of the god(s). The noncomposite soul ar
gument itself has just linked the gods with what is bodily in form insofar as they
are divine and ruling in nature (79c-80a). However, as the argument progresses
philosophy
takes the place of the gods. At 84a philosophy, as opposed to the
god(s), is said to set us free from the body. The bringing in of this new god, phi-
-