Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay I will be investigating the first and second sailings in Plato’s Phaedo In order to discover how they function in the text and in relation to one another. I will refer to articles by Julia Annas and James G. Lennox to problematize this issue. These “sailings” are part of Socrates’ attempt at addressing an objection which his interlocutor, Cebes, brings forward against his argument for the immortality of the soul. Socrates does not respond to Cebes’ objection with an argument but with an autobiographical account of his longing as a young man to know “why each thing comes to be, passes away and exists” and his disappointment at the mechanistic 1 methodology that surrounded this inquiry. Socrates appears to make two attempts at addressing his ontological curiosities. He refers to the latter attempt as the second sailing, wherein he proceeds by testing out a hypothesis that “forms” exist and from this Annas and Lennox, infer a first sailing. Julia Annas and James G. Lennox suggest it is not clear why Socrates moves on to this “formal” method to answer his initial question because it is not clear how hypothesizing about forms coheres with the teleological emphasis in the first sailing. I will argue that these two sailings are not presenting two altogether separate models of explaining the natural world, one teleological and the other formal. I will suggest that the second sailing is a second attempt at answering a fundamentally teleological question. Discipline: Philosophy Faculty Mentor: Dr. Susan Mills
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".