Context and Contradictions in Plato's Phaedrus and Plato's Symposium

The Symposium revolves around a Greek party made up of various men throwing around their views on love, building up to height of the evening by a speech from Socrates. Socrates knows the true way to obtain love, and tells of a tale between him and his mentor, Diotima. Through Diotima, Socrates is able to

thesis what Aristophanes defines as love. He believes that love is innate: " love is born into

Socrates sees love as something that is in between being beautiful and ugly and believes that love is a search for beauty and wisdom. Much like Diotima, Socrates presses Agathon to have him admit that love is not beautiful as it desires beauty, and one does not desire what one already has therefore it is not beautiful. Socrates view contrasts with that of Aristophanes from the benefits of love to the nature of love, as Socrates sees no benefits in something that is not beautiful. Love is seen as primarily a relational property by Socrates that holds between things rather than a desire or a need for another person. Love is not itself beautiful or good or anything specific as much as it is a relation that holds between the beautiful, the good, and those who

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

What was a good life like for a man in Ancient Greece, according to Plato’s four dialogs on The Trail and Death of Socrates? One might answer this question by examining what life in general was like for a man in Ancient Greece to determine what a good life was like. The Trial and Death of Socrates written by Plato a student of Socrates is the account of his life, defense and death. This novel is written in four dialogues “Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo.”

This contrasts both Phaedrus’ and Aristophanes’ descriptions of love. She broadly states that “a lover does not seek the half or whole” unless it is “good” because people will even amputate, or separate, part of their own body if diseased (Sym. 205E). Aristophanes argues “love is the name for our pursuit of wholeness” but Diotima explains this cannot be true if the other half is bad, even if it seems to bring wholeness, such as bodies with a temporary veneer of beauty (Sym. 192E). So, love must be explained by separating it to an upwards trajectory, rising towards the concept of good. Otherwise love is only an impermanent “promise” (Sym. 193D). Therefore, Aristophanes’ lack of separation from the concrete cause love to come from incompleteness and a fallen condition (Dutton Lecture). Likewise, Phaedrus’ speech lacks a removal from the present and therefore fails to explain love’s effects, as seen in his Achilles and Patroclus example. To Phaedrus, Achilles still dying after Patroclus passes is love, for “no one will die for you but a lover” (Sym. 179B). But, Diotima claims this love is unhealthy as it fails to represent the abstract notion of beauty. Since beauty is something to be indirectly experienced, it is unmeasurable and instead “preserves”

But he also comments say that is supportive but make sure they never get too caught up in their lover’s charms. That being said, most of the speakers at this dinner would be looking at the bright side of the lover, relationship, but with Pausanias, he spoke the truth of what a roller coaster ride the relationship can truly be. To help prove his point after most of the speakers has gone, they receive a much unexpected drunk guest. The guest was Alcibiades, who had somewhat a relationship with Socrates. To explain it short Alcibiades came off as being a mad ex. When Alcibiades starts to speak to Socrates, he explains that there was no peace between them. Then he continued by saying “You can’t imagine what a nuisance my love for this man has become. Ever since the start of our affair. I’ve never been able to look at or talk to anyone attractive without him getting so jealous and resentful that he goes crazy and calls me names.” (Plato, p. 58) At first, this makes it sound as his the roles of the younger and older relationship have switched. Thus making Socrates be the immature and overacting boy that is too young for a relationship. But as Alcibiades continues to speak you see that it isn’t Socrates, that is immature but Alcibiades himself. He has a relationship with Socrates that he can’t live with him or without him.

Though the setting was different the way that Socrates went after was in essence the exact same. The main person in this work, Euthyphro started off by proclaiming that he was the person that knew everything there was to know about holy matters at this time. This is very similar with the story of Symposium because Agathon said that he was an expert in the field of love. Both of these “experts” have opened up themselves to questioning from the classic question laden Socrates. Also similar to the other story is how Socrates basically bows down and says he knows little about the subject. When Socrates asks his questions the layers of what the interlocutor actually knows becomes very questionable. In this story specifically Socrates sort of chides Euthyphro and says that he has to be an expert in holiness or else he would not prosecute his own father in favor of a man he did not know which was very uncommon and almost crazy at the Athenian era to do.

The name of the dialogue is derived from the Greek word “apologia” which translates into “defense.” Socrates mission has led to animosity from his fellow Athenians and is in trial for what he claims he is just following orders from God. To examine why Socrates is determined to continue this mission regardless of any consequences, we must first understand how Socrates began his philosophical mission. Socrates had a friend, Chairephone; he went to Delphi and asked the oracle if anyone was wiser than Socrates. In The Apology Socrates is recorded saying “he asked if any man was wiser than I, and the Pythian replied that no one was wiser” (The Apology, 21a). Trying to understand this “riddle”, Socrates was at loss and goes to question someone who was considered wise in Athens. After finding out that this man was no wiser than he was he thought to himself, “he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent.” (21d). Socrates did not just stop with this one man. He went on to question politicians, poets, generals among others and received a similar experience with each one. What Socrates derived from these dialogues was that he was aware of his own ignorance rather than being completely wrong. This awareness of one’s own ignorance is known as “Socratic Ignorance” and is the premise of Socrates’

There is a response to Phaedrus’ this point later in the symposium. By saying Love is “the youngest of the gods and is forever young” (33), Agathon claims that he cannot accept that Love is the most ancient god, though he agrees with a number of deal of what Phaedrus was saying. To prove his idea, Agathon argues that if Love had already been existed between Hesiod and Parmenids, they could have been living happily and in peace with each other. According to Agathon, not only Love is the youngest, but also Love keeps himself away from old age. “He is a constant companion of young men and (given the validity of the old saying that like always clings to like) he is therefore young himself.” (32) From here, readers can tell that these speeches are not independent. To some extent, they are

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

The older man will exchange his knowledge and virtue to the younger man for the fulfillment of the older man’s sexual desires. Like Plato, Pausanias believes that the highest maxim in the world to strive for is virtue: “For he too has demonstrated something about himself: that he is the sort of person who will do anything for the sake of virtue—and what could be more honorable that that? It follows, therefore, that giving in to your lover for virtue’s sake is honorable, what ever the outcome.” (185B) Yet, Plato, through Socrates and Diotima, differs from Pausanias in the way in which virtue is obtained. For Pausanias, the relationship between desire and virtue requires favors to be exchanged for both bodily and mindful stimulation. Since virtue is the desired outcome for the young man, he must submit to the authority of the older man by basically any means necessary, namely through sexual favors. Homosexuality appears to be a common beginning for the quest of virtue and philosophy, but by what means necessary to obtain these ends? Plato presents Pausanias’s theory to be only partially correct, as he ultimately extols a love that requires no sexual love. In Pausanias’s theory of love, sexual love is necessary to fulfill the both needs. Plato’s ideal form of love is fully expressed in the concept of Diotima’s ladder.

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.

He first speaks to Agathon in order to be on the same wavelength with him. Socrates asks Agathon a series of questions - which leads to Agathon being thoroughly confused and completely re-thinking his entire speech he just made. Agathon is no longer sure if Love is beautiful and good, which was his primary definition of it before.

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