講題：Reconsidering the Phaedo Myth
Some scholars may have thought of μυθος as a noble lie, its purpose underlying is to aim at a greater spectrum of audience. That is, by telling a story, Plato includes those who are supposed not to be able to understand argumentative narration as his listeners, using μυθος to show them what Plato wants to convey. However, μυθος, different from argumentative narration, is a secondary means toward philosophical thinking. The argumentation is the primary means, and contains what Plato really thinks.
Nevertheless, Professor Takagi, after examining the passages of Plato’s works, finds that ‘the distinction between Myth and Argumant – in representing what Plato really thinks as true – is hard to maintain.’ For example, Professor Takagi mentioned that in Theaetetus, Socates also told stories. The stories are not to be regarded as lies, but thinking.
神話對柏拉圖而言具有與論證相同的目的，即說明理由，達致哲學論述的結論。在一個例子裡，蘇格拉底討論「知覺」，他說知覺是由active actions與passive actions所構成。蘇格拉底證成這說法所使用的方法是藉由說故事，而非提供嚴謹論證。
Myths is a means toward justifying assertations for Plato, just like argumentations are. In still another passage, Socrates discusses ‘perception’, saying that perception is composed of ‘active actions’ and ‘passive actions’. The way Socrates justifies the this assertion is not by arguments, but stories.
Professor Takagi said that, myth to Plato is a story that appears to be non-argumentative. Perhaps Plato aimed to persuade a greater spectrum of audience, so he made a compromise. But myths are not to be looked upon as lies.
科學式的論證和神話在柏拉圖這裡是相似的，它們在達致真理這方面都是不足的，它們最多只能接近真理 (真理，在柏拉圖使用的意義下，指對靈魂而言重要的事物) 。然而，論證和神話共同服侍著一個目的：達致對話錄的結論。論證和神話並沒有孰優孰劣之分，兩者都是表達柏拉圖心中實相的恰當方式，而到某個程度反映出了當時他們對於地球與所身處環境的信念。
Porfesseor Takagi believes that scientific argument and myth are alike, they are both inadequate in reaching the truth (they only approach truth, and ‘truth’ for Plato, is ‘those which are important to the souls’), but they serve the same conclusion/objective (that is, they aim at truth). The use of argument and myth for Plato does not have distinction in the way one is inferior and the other is superior, but they are both appropriate, and reflect the contemporary—5th century BC—beliefs they had toward the earth and the environment.
Therefore, myth may be regarded as a good instrument to embody philosophical thinking. Very possibly, myth for Plato may contain the truth. There are many ways to reaching the conclusion. Whatever Plato uses, we must remember, myth as a method to reach the conclusion contains truth to Plato.
Although Plato makes a hierarchical scale to explain to what extent things are near the absolute truth, but μυθος and λογος may not be put on that scale and compare with each other to find out which one represents more truth.
To conclude, Professor Takagi believes that we do have another way to look to Plato’s works, not that Plato uses myths for containing those feeble-minded as audience, but that he uses myths to express scientific (natural science) things, and myths contain some truth that Plato thinks (truth in the sense of ‘things important to the soul’).