October Book of the Month - Plato's Symposium

ARC150 said:
I have not read this in over a decade, and I laugh at how much this discourse reads like a pulp-romance novel.

Heh, I agree really. Somewhat taken out of context, that quote sounds rather like something Alcibiades might say.

The first time a person lets himself listen to one of Socrates' arguments, it sounds really ridiculous. Trivial sounding words and phrases form his arguments' outer coating... but if you could see them opened up, if you can get through to what's under the surface, what you'll find inside is that his arguments are the only ones in the world which make sense

Apparently this account of listening to Socrates is taken up by Erasmus in his essay 'The Sileni of Alcibiades,' in which he applies the image of Silenus to several pre-Socratics and even to Christ himself.

'Scripture too has its own Sileni. Pause at the surface, and what you see is sometimes ridiculous; were you to pierce to the heart of the allegory, you would venerate the divine wisdom. Let us take the old testament. If you looked at nothing beyond the story; if you heard how Adam was made out of clay and his poor wife taken secretly out of his side while he slept, how the serpent tempted the woman... Yet under these wrappings, in heaven's name, how splendid is the wisdom that lies hidden! The parables in the Gospels, if you judge them by their outward shell, would be thought, surely, by everyone to be the work of an ignoramus. Crack the nutshell and of course you will find that hidden wisdom which is truly divine, something very like Christ himself'
(quoted in Hunter, Richard - Plato's Symposium, pg. 12)

It's kind of interesting to think exactly how far Socrates intentionally winds people up with his feigned(?) ignorance and comedic, veiled deprecation of others' arguments. He's rather Wildean at times, whereby his demeanour isn't sincere but employed consciously as a strategic device.
 
ARC150 said:
The aforementioned (read: love is a gift) engenders the idea that the love of another is something above and beyond the self - a thing that benefits, but does not define; the latter (read: necessary to the human condition) speaks to a fantastic hyperbole in which the self is only fully actualized when realized by another.

It seems to me that this you-complete-me idea of love exists now, and it is something far removed from the conclusions of Phaedrus.

Fascinating. Excellent thoughts. I take it by your referral to 'fantastic hyperbole,' that you don't have much truck with such arguments yourself. It is rather sickening to think that the self is only worthwhile when in the circuit of a relationship. By way of anecdote, I spent last summer working in a gas station here in England. The local radio station, playing pop music all shift, was immensely depressive. The whole moral conscience of popular music is: 'I am not complete without someone else. I am worthless without love. She's left me. Please kill me. I can't live any more.'

I think Sartre is astute in his analysis of love where he recognises that the lover wishes, paradoxically, to possess the freedom of the beloved, whereby the beloved's potentialities (future paths) are rooted in and made possible by the lover, yet the beloved is 'free' to choose amongst them. Accordingly, the heart of a relationship in which the loving gaze is turned inward is strife, whereby each person tries to possess the freedoms of the other by making them a subject for their own gaze.
 
ARC150 said:
Speaking to Nile577's statement that "one leaves if he is 'not getting enough' out of it:" This is an exertion of one's right to love; once love does not exist between two people, neither person should need to sacrifice their livelihood for the sake of the nominal union - this would not be a sacrifice for love, but for the institution of the union.

Agreed. Also, however, I have frequently heard people say upon relationship dissolution that 'love is not the problem,' or 'I still love him, but he is not ambitious.' This is a (possibly dishonest) distinction between 'love' and 'satisfaction,' whereby someone feels love but is not satisfied. Perhaps pre-1910 or 20 love/marriage implied for women the duty of UNconditional love, whereas over time, this has changed.

Egads, so much to discuss. :lol:
 
Nile577 said:
Fascinating. Excellent thoughts. I take it by your referral to 'fantastic hyperbole,' that you don't have much truck with such arguments yourself. It is rather sickening to think that the self is only worthwhile when in the circuit of a relationship. By way of anecdote, I spent last summer working in a gas station here in England. The local radio station, playing pop music all shift, was immensely depressive. The whole moral conscience of popular music is: 'I am not complete without someone else. I am worthless without love. She's left me. Please kill me. I can't live any more.'

Shall we turn our discussion towards Aristophanes and his idea of this union, which you so humorously describe in your dealings with pop songs? Hehe
 
Aristophanes speech has been called the literary highlight of all of Plato's works. The speech is started with Arisotphanes claiming man was of three natures:

"The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word "Androgynous" is only preserved as a term of reproach."

Zeus decided to split mankind into two--male and female--and to place their sexual organs in the proper places to allow for the union of the two genders. This myth lays the foundation for Aristophanes views on love. Love Aristophanes states is not so much the union of the two souls into one, but the yearning for ones other half--to be whole again. This quote explains this yearning:

"For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover's intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side, by side and to say to them, "What do you people want of one another?" they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: "Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another's company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two-I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?"-there is not a man of them who when he heard the proposal would deny or would not acknowledge that this meeting and melting into one another, this becoming one instead of two, was the very expression of his ancient need. And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love."


Hence, love, is the yearning and reconnection for ones other half--not so much through the sexual act, as in reconnecting with the other half of ones soul. Aristophanes also grades the forms of love, which I will not get into.



Aristophanes' speech:

Aristophanes professed to open another vein of discourse; he had a mind to praise Love in another way, unlike that either of Pausanias or Eryximachus. Mankind; he said, judging by their neglect of him, have never, as I think, at all understood the power of Love. For if they had understood him they would surely have built noble temples and altars, and offered solemn sacrifices in his honour; but this is not done, and most certainly ought to be done: since of all the gods he is the best friend of men, the helper and the healer of the ills which are the great impediment to the happiness of the race. I will try to describe his power to you, and you shall teach the rest of the world what I am teaching you. In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word "Androgynous" is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three;-and the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round: like their parents. Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, dared to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods. Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained.

At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: "Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg." He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw in, and he made one mouth at the centre, which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel); he also moulded the breast and took out most of the wrinkles, much as a shoemaker might smooth leather upon a last; he left a few, however, in the region of the belly and navel, as a memorial of the primeval state. After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them, being the sections of entire men or women, and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man.

Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saving. When they reach manhood they are loves of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,-if at all, they do so only in obedience to the law; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded; and such a nature is prone to love and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him. And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and would not be out of the other's sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover's intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side, by side and to say to them, "What do you people want of one another?" they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: "Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another's company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two-I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?"-there is not a man of them who when he heard the proposal would deny or would not acknowledge that this meeting and melting into one another, this becoming one instead of two, was the very expression of his ancient need. And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love. There was a time, I say, when we were one, but now because of the wickedness of mankind God has dispersed us, as the Arcadians were dispersed into villages by the Lacedaemonians. And if we are not obedient to the gods, there is a danger that we shall be split up again and go about in basso-relievo, like the profile figures having only half a nose which are sculptured on monuments, and that we shall be like tallies.

Wherefore let us exhort all men to piety, that we may avoid evil, and obtain the good, of which Love is to us the lord and minister; and let no one oppose him-he is the enemy of the gods who oppose him. For if we are friends of the God and at peace with him we shall find our own true loves, which rarely happens in this world at present. I am serious, and therefore I must beg Eryximachus not to make fun or to find any allusion in what I am saying to Pausanias and Agathon, who, as I suspect, are both of the manly nature, and belong to the class which I have been describing. But my words have a wider application-they include men and women everywhere; and I believe that if our loves were perfectly accomplished, and each one returning to his primeval nature had his original true love, then our race would be happy. And if this would be best of all, the best in the next degree and under present circumstances must be the nearest approach to such an union; and that will be the attainment of a congenial love. Wherefore, if we would praise him who has given to us the benefit, we must praise the god Love, who is our greatest benefactor, both leading us in this life back to our own nature, and giving us high hopes for the future, for he promises that if we are pious, he will restore us to our original state, and heal us and make us happy and blessed. This, Eryximachus, is my discourse of love, which, although different to yours, I must beg you to leave unassailed by the shafts of your ridicule, in order that each may have his turn; each, or rather either, for Agathon and Socrates are the only ones left.
 
Nile577 said:
I think Sartre is astute in his analysis of love where he recognises that the lover wishes, paradoxically, to possess the freedom of the beloved, whereby the beloved's potentialities (future paths) are rooted in and made possible by the lover, yet the beloved is 'free' to choose amongst them. Accordingly, the heart of a relationship in which the loving gaze is turned inward is strife, whereby each person tries to possess the freedoms of the other by making them a subject for their own gaze.

Highly interesting. I like his quote: “to love is to wish to be loved.” So,a lover justifies their existance in their lover, but this is impossible. Nile, and anyone else interested, here is an interesting well-written scholarly article on Sartre's view of sexuality http://jmichaelrussell.org/sartresexuality.htm


Also, after reading the Symposium for the first time in a number of years, I'm a bit shocked just how male-male love in all of its forms, was the ideal of Plato's dialogue. Even homosexuality (as in actual sex between males, not just the love of friendship, teaching, and the soul) itself, is almost above copulating with a woman.
 
speed said:
Also, after reading the Symposium for the first time in a number of years, I'm a bit shocked just how male-male love in all of its forms, was the ideal of Plato's dialogue. Even homosexuality (as in actual sex between males, not just the love of friendship, teaching, and the soul) itself, is almost above copulating with a woman.

(((I will leave this thread alone after this post and continue on to Aristophanes. :))))

As far as I recall, this is still a time period in which Males are seen as superior to Females - not just physically or socially, but on an evolutionary scale; the female was thought of as a lesser-evolved version of the male and, as such, not as human (for present lack of a better word). Assuming this to be the case (references are failing me at the moment), perhaps male-male love was, in fact, viewed by some as a superior form of love to that of male-female love.
 
ARC150 said:
(((I will leave this thread alone after this post and continue on to Aristophanes. :))))

As far as I recall, this is still a time period in which Males are seen as superior to Females - not just physically or socially, but on an evolutionary scale; the female was thought of as a lesser-evolved version of the male and, as such, not as human (for present lack of a better word). Assuming this to be the case (references are failing me at the moment), perhaps male-male love was, in fact, viewed by some as a superior form of love to that of male-female love.

Indeed it was. I dont know of any classical Greek examples of where male-female love was superior to male-male love. Derek is the person to ask on that one. Perhaps Sappho hehe?
 
Next, Agathon's speech.

After Aristophanes' speech, I believe it to be the most poetic and literary of the speeches. In fact, its almost anti-climatic: coming after the heights of Aristophanes, and before the great conclusion of Socrates and Alcibiades.

Agathon begins his speech by stating Love is always young, never old (despite Eros being born at the beginning of the creation of the earth according to Hesiod and Greek mythology); love is thus only found amongst the young (cupid was depicted as an impish youth remember). I think there's alot of truth in this statement as love perhaps only comes to those young and foolish enough to become enraptured with it; but by the time one is old, and experienced, the impossibility or shortness of love has lost its lustre.

Next, Agathon calls love tender and soft, as it could not be hard, or it would not enter and sway the hearts of so many:

"for he (love) walks not upon the earth, nor yet upon skulls of men, which are not so very soft, but in the hearts and souls of both god, and men, which are of all things the softest: in them he walks and dwells and makes his home. Not in every soul without exception, for Where there is hardness he departs, where there is softness there he dwells; and nestling always with his feet and in all manner of ways in the softest of soft places, how can he be other than the softest of all things?"

Love is also temperate, just and virtuous:

"Of his virtue I have now to speak: his greatest glory is that he can neither do nor suffer wrong to or from any god or any man; for he suffers not by force if he suffers; force comes not near him, neither when he acts does he act by force. For all men in all things serve him of their own free will, and where there is voluntary agreement, there, as the laws which are the lords of the city say, is justice. And not only is he just but exceedingly temperate, for Temperance is the acknowledged ruler of the pleasures and desires, and no pleasure ever masters Love; he is their master and they are his servants; and if he conquers them he must be temperate indeed."

Hence, just as love is soft and tender, love does not work by force or tyranny--much like diplomacy and government. It is freely chosen, and moderate. I can think of no greater opinion of love than this summing up.

And finally, love is wise:

"In the first place he is a poet (and here, like Eryximachus, I magnify my art), and he is also the source of poesy in others, which he could not be if he were not himself a poet. And at the touch of him every one becomes a poet, even though he had no music in him before; this also is a proof that Love is a good poet and accomplished in all the fine arts; for no one can give to another that which he has not himself, or teach that of which he has no knowledge. Who will deny that the creation of the animals is his doing? Are they not all the works his wisdom, born and begotten of him? And as to the artists, do we not know that he only of them whom love inspires has the light of fame?-he whom Love touches riot walks in darkness."

Love is thus poetic and creative; and it is this poetic creative nature than makes love so wise. I believe this definition of love, rather goes along with and supports earlier ravings of poetics, inspiration and creation by me, and most of the German-inspired post Kantian/Novalis/Fichte school of philosophy.





Agathon's Speech

The previous speakers, instead of praising the god Love, or unfolding his nature, appear to have congratulated mankind on the benefits which he confers upon them. But I would rather praise the god first, and then speak of his gifts; this is always the right way of praising everything. May I say without impiety or offence, that of all the blessed gods he is the most blessed because he is the fairest and best? And he is the fairest: for, in the first place, he is the youngest, and of his youth he is himself the witness, fleeing out of the way of age, who is swift enough, swifter truly than most of us like:-Love hates him and will not come near him; but youth and love live and move together-like to like, as the proverb says. Many things were said by Phaedrus about Love in which I agree with him; but I cannot agree that he is older than Iapetus and Kronos:-not so; I maintain him to be the youngest of the gods, and youthful ever. The ancient doings among the gods of which Hesiod and Parmenides spoke, if the tradition of them be true, were done of Necessity and not Love; had Love been in those days, there would have been no chaining or mutilation of the gods, or other violence, but peace and sweetness, as there is now in heaven, since the rule of Love began.

Love is young and also tender; he ought to have a poet like Homer to describe his tenderness, as Homer says of Ate, that she is a goddess and tender:

Her feet are tender, for she sets her steps,
Not on the ground but on the heads of men: herein is an excellent proof of her tenderness that,-she walks not upon the hard but upon the soft. Let us adduce a similar proof of the tenderness of Love; for he walks not upon the earth, nor yet upon skulls of men, which are not so very soft, but in the hearts and souls of both god, and men, which are of all things the softest: in them he walks and dwells and makes his home. Not in every soul without exception, for Where there is hardness he departs, where there is softness there he dwells; and nestling always with his feet and in all manner of ways in the softest of soft places, how can he be other than the softest of all things? Of a truth he is the tenderest as well as the youngest, and also he is of flexile form; for if he were hard and without flexure he could not enfold all things, or wind his way into and out of every soul of man undiscovered. And a proof of his flexibility and symmetry of form is his grace, which is universally admitted to be in an especial manner the attribute of Love; ungrace and love are always at war with one another. The fairness of his complexion is revealed by his habitation among the flowers; for he dwells not amid bloomless or fading beauties, whether of body or soul or aught else, but in the place of flowers and scents, there he sits and abides. Concerning the beauty of the god I have said enough; and yet there remains much more which I might say. Of his virtue I have now to speak: his greatest glory is that he can neither do nor suffer wrong to or from any god or any man; for he suffers not by force if he suffers; force comes not near him, neither when he acts does he act by force. For all men in all things serve him of their own free will, and where there is voluntary agreement, there, as the laws which are the lords of the city say, is justice. And not only is he just but exceedingly temperate, for Temperance is the acknowledged ruler of the pleasures and desires, and no pleasure ever masters Love; he is their master and they are his servants; and if he conquers them he must be temperate indeed. As to courage, even the God of War is no match for him; he is the captive and Love is the lord, for love, the love of Aphrodite, masters him, as the tale runs; and the master is stronger than the servant. And if he conquers the bravest of all others, he must be himself the bravest.

Of his courage and justice and temperance I have spoken, but I have yet to speak of his wisdom-and according to the measure of my ability I must try to do my best. In the first place he is a poet (and here, like Eryximachus, I magnify my art), and he is also the source of poesy in others, which he could not be if he were not himself a poet. And at the touch of him every one becomes a poet, even though he had no music in him before; this also is a proof that Love is a good poet and accomplished in all the fine arts; for no one can give to another that which he has not himself, or teach that of which he has no knowledge. Who will deny that the creation of the animals is his doing? Are they not all the works his wisdom, born and begotten of him? And as to the artists, do we not know that he only of them whom love inspires has the light of fame?-he whom Love touches riot walks in darkness. The arts of medicine and archery and divination were discovered by Apollo, under the guidance of love and desire; so that he too is a disciple of Love. Also the melody of the Muses, the metallurgy of Hephaestus, the weaving of Athene, the empire of Zeus over gods and men, are all due to Love, who was the inventor of them. And so Love set in order the empire of the gods-the love of beauty, as is evident, for with deformity Love has no concern. In the days of old, as I began by saying, dreadful deeds were done among the gods, for they were ruled by Necessity; but now since the birth of Love, and from the Love of the beautiful, has sprung every good in heaven and earth. Therefore, Phaedrus, I say of Love that he is the fairest and best in himself, and the cause of what is fairest and best in all other things. And there comes into my mind a line of poetry in which he is said to be the god who

Gives peace on earth and calms the stormy deep,
Who stills the winds and bids the sufferer sleep. This is he who empties men of disaffection and fills them with affection, who makes them to meet together at banquets such as these: in sacrifices, feasts, dances, he is our lord-who sends courtesy and sends away discourtesy, who gives kindness ever and never gives unkindness; the friend of the good, the wonder of the wise, the amazement of the gods; desired by those who have no part in him, and precious to those who have the better part in him; parent of delicacy, luxury, desire, fondness, softness, grace; regardful of the good, regardless of the evil: in every word, work, wish, fear-saviour, pilot, comrade, helper; glory of gods and men, leader best and brightest: in whose footsteps let every man follow, sweetly singing in his honour and joining in that sweet strain with which love charms the souls of gods and men. Such is the speech, Phaedrus, half-playful, yet having a certain measure of seriousness, which, according to my ability, I dedicate to the god.

When Agathon had done speaking, Aristodemus said that there was a general cheer; the young man was thought to have spoken in a manner worthy of himself, and of the god. And Socrates, looking at Eryximachus, said: Tell me, son of Acumenus, was there not reason in my fears? and was I not a true prophet when I said that Agathon would make a wonderful oration, and that I should be in a strait?