The crucial point about this passage was well brought out by R. Hackforth: the immortality here envisaged ‘does not spring directly from the apprehension of , but from the begetting of true virtue (sc. in another’s soul).’ And Hackforth drew the conclusion that ‘consequently the philosopher can no more than the ordinary man become immortal (note ) save by vicarious self-perpetuation.’ The importance of this contention is that it offers us a Plato without a belief in personal immortality such as is prominent in other dialogues in which a similar version of the theory of Forms appears and that, because of this difference, the ‘ascent’ passage and the explanation of the creativity eros cannot be used directly in conjunction with dialogues in which a conflicting view of immortality appears, as part of a Platonic theory of eros.