Comparison Of Eros, Philia, And Agape

Through Alcibiades’ speech about love, it should be connected with Diotima’s speech which comes from Socrates. She claims that Eros is the love of beauty, but not the ideal love. “ Then don’t compel what is not beautiful to be ugly, nor what is not good to be bad. So too for Eros, since you yourself agree that hi is neither good nor beautiful, do

According to Aristophanes, love (eros) – the highest form of love that one human being can feel towards another – is the desire of dissected halves, one to another, for restoring the wholeness of the nature’s origin. I will explain what does Aristophanes mean by his metaphor and why do people fall in love.

Agathon hosted a gathering for a small group of philosophers to talk about how they perceive love and what their own unique ideas are of beauty, virtue, honor, or anything else that may fall under the category of love. Eros, or Love, is a god that the philosophers have decided to praise with a speech of their own perspective. You get to see each philosophers different style and way of thinking within their speeches. All philosophers have agreed to drink while each other is speaking, but there is no pressure from one another or one’s self to drink excessively. The first to kick off the speeches is Phaedrus, an idealist, who believes that being shamed upon who you love most is of the highest caliber of embarrassment, even compared to relatives

Separated by language, history and several hundred miles of the Mediterranean Sea, two of the world's greatest cultures simultaneously matured and advanced in the centuries before the birth of Christianity. In the Aegean north, Hellenic Greeks blossomed around their crown jewel of Athens, while the eastern Holy City of Jerusalem witnessed the continued development of Hebrew tradition. Though they shared adjacent portions of the globe and of chronology, these two civilizations grew up around wholly different ideologies. The monotheistic devotion of Judaism that evolved in the Hebrew lands stood in stark contrast to the Greek worship of polytheistic Olympians, a religion that often tended more towards the rational and philosophic than

In Anne Stevenson’s “Eros,” the god of love is shown to be broken and abused. Many negative words are used to emphasize Eros’ brokenness. He is described as a “bully boy,” a “brute” that “offends,” and is given “blows” delivered by “lust.” These words are not pleasant, as they illustrate an offensive, hurtful figure. As a “slave” to immortality, Eros is doomed to a “bruised” and “battered visage” for eternity. It is destined for him to endure such a future because of the nature of his job. These strong words of hate and hurt show the pain that love had to endure. The caller of love asks, “Can this be you, with boxer lips and patchy wings askew?” Eros answers with, what “you see is what long overuse has made

In Joseph Campbell’s novel, The Power of Myth, he elaborates on the idea that there are two parts necessary to love, and one part that is not necessary, but typically occurs at the same time (232). Eros and Amor are necessary, while Agape is subsequent. Eros, or the biological urge, is the sexual desire and lust (Campbell 233). The next part of the triangle is Agape, which is “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Campbell 233).

Unlike Eros love that is solely based on a strong emotion and only being shown the good quality of each person, Philos love is based on a “give and take” where two people benefit mutually in varies way from each other. Being giving and taking equally is important in this type of love, and the concern that each partner is benefiting is essential to each partner. It can be statement in truth that Philos love is a higher type of love then Eros, where love is not just based on a strong emotion experienced before the understanding and appreciation of both partners that is gained from the pervious and continuing friendship.

In Plato’s work Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausania, Eryximachus, Aristophane and Agathon, each of them presents a speech to either praise or definite Love. Phaedrus first points out that Love is the primordial god; Pausanias brings the theme of “virtue” into the discussion and categorizes Love into “good” one or “bad” one; Eryximachus introduces the thought of “moderation’ and thinks that Love governs such fields as medicine and music; Aristophanes draws attention to the origin and purposes

Now that we have looked at the symptoms, remedies, and agencies of Ἔρως, we ought to find a decent definition of what Ἔρως is based on The Symposium. I think a helpful method of trying to find the definition of Ἔρως is to look at the agencies, symptoms, and remedies. As shown earlier, we can say that the agent of Ἔρως is Aphrodite. Aphrodite is the goddess of love. This being the case, we can say that Ἔρως is either love, or a form of love. In order to see whether or not it is love or a form of love, we must look at the symptoms. The symptoms as stated earlier of Ἔρως are courage, desire, and being a pursuer. It seems that although these three symptoms are different, they all tend to be similar to the idea of desire. This is shown because all people do things in order to achieve an apparent good (which may or may not be good in reality.)

with some very different views of love as brought to us by Agathon, Phaedrus and

Platonic love only partially identifies with Pausanias’s theory. Pausanias’s speech and the speeches of the rest

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.

The term “Eros,” referring to passionate love in English, has long been the mainstream of themes in drama, literature, arts, and cinematic media. The fascinating power of love has been exhaustively publicized, and the pursuit of love is diffused in streets and lanes. Conversely, in ancient times, many poets, especially Virgil, Ovid and Apuleius, described eros as such an evil spirit that it will destroy the female soul thoroughly, except for the one in Apuleius’ story of Cupid and Psyche. Even if taking into account the historical background of a patriarchal community and therefore the esteemed male dominance, the particular case of Psyche’s surviving and even thriving her encounter with eros

Philia, eros, and agape are three different Greek terms for the word. These three terms explain the different types of love a human being can acquire. Philia is a love of friendship, which is grounded in commonality. However, eros is a kind of love that seeks something from the other person or thing. Lastly, agape is the love that wills the good of the other and is completely self-giving. The meanings of these Greek terminologies, philia, eros, and agape, allow us to better understand and discuss our relationship with God and human fulfillment.

Again, philia is another level of love and King describes it as “an intimate affection between personal friends, it is types of reciprocal love. On this level you love because you are loved. It is friendship” (King, 400). In another word, Philia doesn’t require the physical attraction and passion that is standard in eros rather depend on standard friendship. Philia love is deeper than eros, but usually non-sexual intimacy between close friends and family members or as a deep bond establishes by soldiers as they fight alongside each other in the battlefield. In fact, philia works on the idea that an individual loves because that individual is loved by someone else. Perhaps, the feeling of love that experiences between soldiers in battle