The Teachings Of Phaedrus And Alcibiades

Alcibiades pursues Socrates so that Socrates can nurture him to be the “best man” he can be (Plato, 218d). But Alcibiades can only offer Socrates his physical appearance in exchange for Socrates’ knowledge, to which Socrates pointed out that it was not a fair trade as Alcibiades wanted “gold in exchange for bronze” (Plato, 218e). Next, Alcibiades claims that he can see the Beauty in Socrates, describing him as “so godlike – so bright and beautiful, so utterly amazing” (Plato, 217a). But Socrates pointed out that if Alcibiades can see in Socrates “a beauty that is really beyond description”, it makes Alcibiades’ “remarkable good looks pale in comparison” (Plato, 218d). At that point of time when Alcibiades made the offer, he does not have self-awareness. What Alcibiades saw in Socrates is the ability to make himself better, not the divine Beauty itself. Here again it shows that Alcibiades did not learn from Socrates nor is he ascending towards the beautiful because his desire takes precedent over his love for

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

In his speech, Aristophanes tells the story about the origin of the nature of human beings. He tells that once, there were no humans, but only creatures that were round, had four hands, as well as, four legs and two faces. There were three kinds of such creatures: males, females, and androgynous – the form that was made up of male and female elements. They made an attempt on the Gods, and that pissed Zeus off, so that he ordered to split them in half. That is, how according to Aristophanes, humans appeared. Those who belonged to the male creatures wanted to reunite with males, those who belonged to female creatures wanted to reunite with women and those who belonged to androgynous wanted to reunite with the opposite sex.

Myrra Dvorak COM 409-1001 September 3rd, 2015 In Phaedrus, Plato expands on the social implication that those who wield rhetoric ought to be just and act justly when utilizing it. This recurring theme is clearly portrayed through his analysis of love, the soul, and rhetoric itself. Phaedrus is written as a dialogue, with Phaedrus and Socrates discussing their views on rhetoric. Plato structures his writing so that Socrates is the one bestowing knowledge upon Phaedrus, his young and playful pupil, by asking pointed questions to which Phaedrus replies. The relationship between Phaedrus and Socrates is both one of a student and teacher but also one of lovers, made clear by Socrates’ soft attitude and affection towards Phaedrus.

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”

The Symposium in simple words is a drinking party consisting of dinner then discussion. For tonight’s party, they will decide the topic will be on the god of love. The whole group mainly focuses on the love relationship between two men. Each speaking about what they think about love. Focusing more on Pausanias speech he talks differently about his view of the lover/boyfriend relationship. To help his argument Alcibiades in some ways prove his points. Pausanias contradicts Phaedrus’s view of the lover/boyfriend relationship by looking at the meaning of love, a connection between old and young, and the outcome.

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

Alcibiades’ speech changes the direction of the conversation from praising Agathon to praising Socrates. It might be the reason why Plato ends symposium in this way and also highlights “Platonic Philosophy of love ”.

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

     In Greek culture around the time of Plato, the perfect ideal person was considered. Plato’s idea that there was a perfect world of ideas affected this pieces subject and the subject’s action. Many works of his time period were sculptures that were meant to be viewed from all angles, attempting to be

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.

Also, Love must be between wisdom and ignorance. She says Socrates mistook Love to be the beloved instead of the lover and that is why he thought Love to be beautiful and good. The loved thing is perfect and beautiful.

“serve upon ruin” (Sophocles 224). Sophocles first displays the failure of love through the war and deaths of Polyneices and Eteocles. Polyneices, the brother of Antigone and Eteocles, has broken familial ties and gone against his own people, as he is a commander in the Argive army that attacked his home city of Thebes. With this background, Sophocles is able to reveal how anger can be a stronger emotion than even love as the two brothers met “face to face in a matchless rage” (195). Here it is emphasized that love can be overshadowed by rage and greed as both brothers neglected their shared blood and history and instead were motivated by a place of hate as they fought for power. Rage not only overtook filial love between Polyneices and Eteocles on the battlefield, but before this. Eteocles and Polyneices were unable to share the crown after their father Oedipus’ death. The fight for power ultimately led to Polyneices being exiled from Thebes. This fight for the crown functions as a smaller internal war between the two brothers. Both the internal and external wars allow for love to be exposed as fickle. Love is fickle as it can easily be transformed into hate and this is shown when to loving brothers are torn apart by a single quarrel. With love comes strong emotions and when these emotions are transformed to hate, such hate is unconquerable just as “love (is) unconquerable” (224).

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

In these two instances, it is clear that Socrates is the beloved, and the two men admire his self-discipline and "uprightness." If standing still is indicative of nobility then fleeing or running away is naturally indicative of the opposite –shame and vulgarity. Alcibiades had a habit of running away because of the shame that Socrates caused him to feel. When Alcibiades speaks of other encounters with Socrates he says: "I have become a runaway to avoid him" and "I stopped my ears and took off in flight, as if from the Sirens, in order that I not sit here in idleness and grow old beside him" (279). On the surface it is clear from this passage that Alcibiades is not the most noble of men, but further significance is contained in these words with respect to Agathon’s eulogy of Eros. In his eulogy he says: "First he is the youngest of the gods…for with headlong flight he avoids old age" (256). Alcibiades likens himself to Agathon’s Eros, who, according to Socrates is not the lover, but the beloved. Alcibiades, as stated previously, is most certainly the lover of Socrates, and this is why, at the end of his speech (which is not really a eulogy to Eros, but a praise of Socrates) he warns