Socrates looked at us keenly, as he often did, smiled, and said, "Simmias speaks justly. If any of you is more resourceful than I am, why not answer him? He seems to have handled the argument nobly. But before answering, I think we should also hear from Cebes what his objection is, so we may take time to deliberate what we will say. After hearing them both, we can either agree with them if they strike a right note, or if not, then defend our argument. Come, Cebes, what was troubling you?" "I will tell you," said Cebes. "It seems to me the argument is still in the same place and subject to the same criticism I made before. That the soul existed before entering this form, I do not retract my admission; it was proven very elegantly and, if I may say so, very sufficiently. But that it will still exist somewhere after we die does not seem proven to me. I do not concede Simmias's point that the soul is not stronger and longer-lasting than the body, for I think it surpasses it vastly in all these respects. 'Why then,' the argument might ask me, 'do you still disbelieve, since you see that when the man dies, the weaker part still exists? Do you not think the longer-lasting part must be preserved during this time?' Look and see if I have a point in my reply. I think I too need an image, like Simmias. It seems to me one could say exactly this concerning an old weaver who has died. A man might say this same argument: 'The weaver has not perished but exists somewhere safe. The proof is that the cloak he wore, which he wove himself, is still intact and has not perished.' If someone disbelieved him, he would ask whether a man is more durable than a cloak that is used and worn. When the answer is 'the man,' he would think it proven that the man is certainly safe, since the less durable thing has not perished. But I think this is not so, Simmias—pay attention too. Anyone would realize the speaker was being foolish. For that weaver had woven and worn out many such cloaks, and he died after those many cloaks, but before the last one. Yet a man is not therefore inferior to or weaker than a cloak.