IN PLATO’S IMAGEtake place within the realm of appearances. The reason why it must take
place there is central to the Phaedo.
There is strong evidence in the Phaedo, and in other dialogues, as
I shall show, that rather than being an escape from this embodied life,
philosophy is a way of coping from within it. That is, philosophy is a way
of directly addressing our human condition with courage and intelli-
gence. The Phaedo, in this way, offers a radically different conception of
philosophy than the traditional “Platonic” interpretation of it as purely
rational activity carried out beyond the human realm. Socrates makes
it clear that the human life is one of embodiment which necessarily
limits the capacities of the soul; and in particular, the body limits the
soul’s access to things-in-themselves. Note the frequency of Socrates’
qualifi cations in the passages discussed above regarding the philoso-
pher’s limitations: “so far as possible,” “if anyone can,” “so far as he was
able.” The Phaedo offers a conception of philosophy as a human activity
carried out within—and because of—our limitations, and images are a
part of philosophy.
Our fi rst indication that philosophy might be the remedy for hu-
m a n l i m it a t i o n o c c u r s a t a c r it i c a l j u n c t u r e i n t h e d r a m a. S o c r a t e s s p e a k s
of the immortality of the soul—literally on his deathbed—in response
to Simmias’ and Cebes’ challenge to the fearless manner in which he
faces his fate (63a– b). The young men have objections to Socrates’ argu-
ments, although they are hesitant to make them on account of Socrates’
“present misfortune” (84d); they fear the consequences if philosophy
cannot meet their objections. Simmias nevertheless musters his cour-
age to ask his question, explaining that despite the diffi culty of knowing
certain things, one must attempt the discovery nonetheless. Simmias’
brief prologue to his own objection introduces a metaphor: human life
is carried out in rough waters where there is danger all around. We need
beliefs and ideas to help us stay afl oat, but it is diffi cult, if not impos-
sible, to know which of those ideas are to be believed. We should cling to
that vessel which serves us best, that belief which best stands the test of
dialectic and, holding fast to it, make our way the best we can (85b– d).
To question, as Simmias is doing, is to take courage in this diffi cult
situation, and philosophy is the means by which we test the worthiness
of our own vessels and perhaps leave them behind when we have found
sturdier craft. In any case, our plight is risky and uncertain, and philoso-
phy provides the life raft.^6
Properly steeled with philosophy on their side, Simmias and Cebes
make their objections, which appear to present formidable challenges
to Socrates’ arguments. Signifi cantly, their objections each take the