Comparing Socrates 'Lysis And The Symposium'

Comparing Socrates' speech on love in the Symposium and what he says about wisdom in Apology, through the perspective of wisdom and ignorance, there is definite contradiction. The reason being that in Symposium, Socrates first implies the idea that people already have knowledge that they do not know they have, and that by question and answer, we can bring out that knowledge. In the Symposium, Socrates' speech on love is a retelling of a story he was told by Diotima. He claimed that love and beauty is only a concept to the ignorant and uneducated people. It is said that through question and answer, people can develop and become aware that love and beauty is a real being instead of an object. Socrates claimed that “[Diotima] [was] the one who

When comparing Plato’s the Symposium and Euthyphro the method of the Socratic dialectic method is a unifying theme between the two works. We are introduced to both Agathon and Euthyphro and their interaction with Socrates. In both of the interactions he seems to break down their arguments when he begins asking questions to each of their claims. However the differing factor between the two stories was the reaction to Socrates inquiry. Agathon’s reaction to Socrates was one that accepted correction well, whereas Euthyphro’s reaction to Socrates was one in which he seemed to be accepting at first but grew annoyed and stormed off. These differences were signs of the differing social roles these two played in Athenian era society.

Finally, we can appreciate how love, just as any instantiation of our moral framework, comes as embodied in a human ideal – and here we witness the figure of a familiar figure. If as we have seen above Lear considers Socrates as a prime example of someone who strived to achieve humanity, and if to achieve humanity is to become enter in an ever stronger relationship with love as our moral source, it follows that Socrates can be seen – as Lear does – as an ideal of what I shall call an erotic life. This, implies that there is a connection between living the life of the ironist and that of living the life of the eroticist. However, in order to fully explain this link between irony, love, and individuation, we must now consider how Lear describes

Plato is often criticized for preaching the gospel of me first. The claim is that his understanding of love is essentially egoistic, and this is seen as troublesome for the obvious ethical reasons. But there may be an even more troubling issue with Plato's understanding of love. In this paper I will attempt to argue that for Plato, love is in a sense impossible; that it can only ever be a desire for something out of one's grasp. The stakes are high but perhaps there is a way to understand this problem in a way that seems a little less damning. To do this I will analyze arguments from the Lysis and the Symposium, first questioning even the possibility of love and then attempt to show that love is in fact possible, all though in weaker

Phaedrus’s regards love as the most virtuous trait, for both the man and the beloved. According to Phaedrus, these relationships can affect the social status of both involved parties. Given how virtuous Love (desire) is to Phaedrus, feeling love towards another will result in behavior that will be regarded as noble. Similarly, this feeling of love can be imparted onto the young beloved, “Love of his own nature infuses into the lover” (Plato, 179a). This view of Love is reinforces the social constructs of this time, as it demonstrates how male-male relations contributed to the perception of both men and boys.

While it may be logical for Socrates to reject Alcibiades’ advances on grounds of exchanging “bronze for gold” (219A), it is very unappealing and inhumane to see a potential relationship forsaken simply because it is not a ‘fair transaction’. Alcibiades appears to be showing a real emotional connection to Socrates, but he is simply not given a chance due to Socrates’ view on what love should be. This is especially unappealing because oftentimes, we do not even try to comprehend the logic or reasoning as to why we love someone or something; we simply acknowledge that there is an emotional connection that sometimes cannot be fully explained based on transactional value. Socrates’ definition also completely eliminates any mystery or curiosity about love in the eyes of the reader; such a logical and transactional analysis presents love as a formula that can be easily determined and explained. However, that is simply not the reality.

Plato's metaphor of the divided line is essentially two worlds; the world of opinion (the

Plato’s idea that there was a perfect world of ideas affected this pieces subject and the

There is no direct connection between one’s desire and evil, but the desire rooted in the wrong direction is entwined with the motive of being

Plato’s Symposium attempts to define the eclectic theory of love, a theory that is often believed to be the universal principle that guides mankind’s actions. Plato introduces several narratives in the form of a dialogue that seek to characterize this multifaceted theory of Eros. The meaning of love naturally varies in each narrative. Yet, in this dialogue of love, Plato presents a metaphysical approach to understanding the ambiguous meaning of love. Ultimately, Plato values the perennial quest for knowledge above all else. In Symposium, Platonic love is exhibited in the relationship between virtue and desire, as expressed in Diotima’s ladder. Desire is the vehicle, or the means to an end. The six Athenians ultimately present different

In Plato’s Symposium, Agathon, Aristophanes and Diotima discuss the goodness and purpose of love. The men are gathered at a drinking party hosted by Agathon and begin their accounts on love. Aristophanes praises love and discusses the origin of desire while Agathon discusses the nature of love and that to which it is attracted. However, Socrates conception of love, as narrated by Diotima, questions the origins of love and what Love is himself. During her speech Diotima refines the various theories of love as discussed at the party and concludes that we grow in our conception of love to closer characterise the beauty and goodness of it.

Plato was a philosopher from Classical Greece and an innovator of dialogue and dialect forms which provide some of the earliest existing analysis ' of political questions from a philosophical perspective. Among some of Plato 's most prevalent works is his dialogue the Symposium, which records the conversation of a dinner party at which Socrates (amongst others) is a guest. Those who talk before Socrates share a tendency to celebrate the instinct of sex and regard love (eros) as a god whose goodness and beauty they compete. However, Socrates sets himself apart from this belief in the fundamental value of sexual love and instead recollects Diotima 's theory of love, suggesting that love is neither beautiful nor good because it is the desire to possess what is beautiful, and that one cannot desire that of which is already possessed. The ultimate/primary objective of love as being related to an absolute form of beauty that is held to be identical to what is good is debated throughout the dialogue, and Diotima expands on this description of love as being a pursuit of beauty (by which one can attain the goal of love) that culminates in an understanding of the form of beauty. The purpose of this paper is to consider the speeches presented (i.e. those of Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, and Agathon) in Plato 's Symposium as separate parts that assist in an accounting of the definition and purpose of platonic love.

Plato’s Symposium introduces a speech in which Diotima teaches Socrates of Love—what he is and art of him. The dialectic tells of how Love came to be, the very nature of Love, and that Love is something entirely separate from beauty, yet he participates with beauty. Her dialogue expresses the faults in Socrates’ previous stance, along with Agathon’s, “that Love is a great god and that he belongs to beautiful things” (201e).

Eryximachus spoke of love as harmony, or balance, both physically and mentally within oneselves and with another. If harmony is being in agreement, or peace, with something else, then there must be some sort of understanding of each other in order for that to take place. For example, perhaps musical harmonies were first discovered by accident. If I sat in front of a piano, never having learned to play, and started to press keys, I would eventually simultaneously press keys that together just, in a way, make sense. But, whether or not I am conscious of it, there is a science, or a theory behind the sounds I am causing. By understanding how the difference in pitch in intervals between notes works, musicians create harmony- sounds that arguably sound what love feels like. Picture yourselves that you are looking at someone you love, and now imagine the perfect harmony- do they not feel the same? Yes, harmony can happen by accident, but even when it happens by accident, the science or theory behind it still exists, we are just not aware of

In the Symposium on that night, Socrates’ speech is one of the most important of the night as he is clearly a central figure, admired by the other guests. Socrates begins by presenting his argument that if love is nothing, then it is of something, and if it is of something, then it is of something that is desired, and therefore of something that is not already possessed, which is then usually beautiful and good. Human beings begin by loving physical beauty in another person, then progress to love of intellect and from that level to see the connection among people and ultimately, the lover of beauty enjoys a kind of revelation or vision of universal beauty, which we find ourselves in the pursuit of during our own study of Plato’s work. The