The Second Disagreement. Why does not Xxxxxxxx’ defence speech address the immortality of the soul? Firstly, Xxxxxxxx should be aware of the fact that the immortality of the soul is a key component of his defence. It would be odd if Xxxxxxxx did not realize that true philosophers’ willingness to die would be pointless unless the soul is immortal. Secondly, Xxxxxxxx would not simply assume that his interlocutors believe in the immortality of the soul, since Xxxxxxxx agrees with Xxxxx that the immortality of the soul requires ‘no little reassurance and proof’.153 150 Phd. 66b1-3 Οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη, ἔφη, ἐκ πάντων τούτων παρίστασθαι δόξαν τοιάνδε τινὰ τοῖς γνησίως φιλοσόφοις. 151 Phd. 69e7-70b4. 152 But note that if we give our consent to a proposition, this means neither that we are going to buy the whole argument nor that we share the same philosophical ideas. 153 Phd. 70b1-7. We can consider the unmentioned argument about the immortality of the soul from the perspective of Xxxxx’s portrayal of Xxxxxxxx’ interlocutors. Xxxxx portrays the interlocutors as noticing the missing part in Xxxxxxxx’ defence speech. Surely, the interlocutors do not say that Xxxxxxxx left the immortality of the soul out. Rather, Xxxxx says that people have strong doubts about the immortality of the soul and the soul’s powers during its discarnate existence. Although Xxxxx does not directly point out Xxxxxxxx' omission, the question about the immortality of the soul troubles Cebes; therefore Xxxxx asks Xxxxxxxx to examine the topic. 154 At any rate, as I have argued above, Xxxxxxxx produces arguments because the interlocutors come forward in noticing a weakness in the argument.155 In this way, Xxxxx stresses that the interlocutors also occupy a vital position in the conversation, which is the significance of reciprocal support and the necessity of such for philosophical argument. That said, one might suppose that Xxxxxxxx and his interlocutors would not be participating equally in a philosophical argument if Xxxxxxxx deliberately leaves a key premise out. It can be argued that Xxxxxxxx has all the answers to give, yet in the interests of teaching he does not give all the answers at once. Therefore, Xxxxxxxx and his interlocutors are not epistemic peers, who have equal cognitive capacity. This, however, does not imply that Xxxxxxxx is free from erring or that his interlocutors are not as cognitively capable as Xxxxxxxx. It only implies that Xxxxxxxx might have more knowledge and experience. Nonetheless, we need to...
