On the Symposium 

Cheng –Ju Danny Lu

1. Summarize Phaedrus’s, Pausanias’, Eryximachus, Aristophanes’, and Agathon’s view on the nature of love in Plato’s Symposium. Be clear and complete as to the essentials of each view.

1)    Phaedrus’ views on the subject of love was many, when professed his    feelings on love during his speech he reflected many points.  The first point which he describe love in the Symposium was that, “Love is a mighty god, and wonderful among gods and men, but especially wonderful in his birth. [178b] For he is the eldest of the gods,” With this quote he acknowledges that love is not only an emotion, rather a supernatural being. A second point that Phaedrus believed was that love was also the inspiration of hero, for it can conquer evil and would make men inspire the dishonorable to be honorable.  

He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? The veriest coward would become an inspired hero, equal to the bravest, at such a time; Love would inspire him. [179b] That courage which, as Homer says, the god breathes into the souls of some heroes, Love of his own nature infuses into the lover. Love will make men dare to die for their beloved -- love alone; and women as well as men.  (Symposium)                  

And at the last line of his speech he professes that love is not only a god, but also a giver of virtue: 

These are my reasons for affirming that Love is the eldest and noblest and mightiest of the gods, and the chief author and giver of virtue in life, and of happiness after death. (Symposium) 

2)    The second speaker in the Symposium was Pausanias.  His view of love was clearly classified as two types, the Honorable and the Dishonorable.  The difference between the two types loves are the things in which men love, their desire.  If their love are not discriminating then it is dishonorable, for Pausanias stated: 

I must try to distinguish the characters of the two Loves.  Take, for example, that which we are now doing, drinking, singing and talking -- these actions are not in themselves either good or evil, but they turn out in this or that way according to the mode of performing them; and when well done they are good, and when wrongly done they are evil; and in like manner not every love, but only that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise. The Love who is the offspring of the common Aphrodite is essentially [181b] common, and has no discrimination, being such as the meaner sort of men feel, and is apt to be of women as well as of youths, and is of the body rather than of the soul (Symposium) 

This quote as I believe is that if a person does not care for the individual soul and would rather attain the body it would be dishonorable, so to the point in which if a person is just a whore then they would be ignoble.  

On the other perspective, the Honorable love is a love that has no secrets.  As he professed:

In our own country a far better principle prevails, but, as I was saying, the explanation of it is rather perplexing. For, observe that open loves are held to be more honourable than secret ones, and that the love of the noblest and highest, even if their persons are less beautiful than others, is especially honourable. Consider, too, how great is the encouragement which all the world gives to the lover  (Symposium) 

      Pausanias also stated that if a lover is with his love that one should attain wisdom and improvement from one another, which would be a virtuous action. 

      And on the same principle he who gives himself to a lover because he is a good man, and in the hope that he will be improved by his company, shows himself to be virtuous, [185b] (Symposium) 

3)    The third speaker, Erximachus, alleged that love consist of two types, like Pausaniasa’s view of love, but with a more spiritual tone towards the meaning of it.  He expressed that love was two opposites that needed to co-exist with one another, like the Ying Yang theory.   

There are in the human body these two kinds of love, which are confessedly different and unlike, and being unlike, they have loves and desires which are unlike; and the desire of the healthy is one, and the desire of the diseased is another; and as Pausanias was just now saying that to indulge good men is [186c] honourable, and bad men dishonourable: -- so too in the body the good and healthy elements are to be indulged, and the bad elements and the elements of disease are not to be indulged, but discouraged. (Symposium) 

One of the best examples that Eryximachus gives to support his idea of this Ying Yang theory of love is the environmental analogies and the harmony comparison: 

Now the most hostile are the most opposite, such as hot and cold, bitter and sweet, moist and dry, and the like. For harmony is a symphony, and symphony is an agreement; but an agreement of disagreements while they disagree there cannot be; you cannot harmonize that which disagrees. (Symposium) 

4)    Aristophanes’ view on love had a more mythical origin to his meaning of love.  As he said at first originally there was a union of two, but then they revolted against the gods.  So as a punishment Zeus struck a thunderbolt and split the being in two and then Apollo composed a form for each halves of the being, as we know now as men and women.   

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, [190a] set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. 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, [190d] but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; (Symposium) 

For this reason that is why Aristophanes supposed in the belief of soul mates for he said: 

And when one of them [192c] 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 will 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, (Symposium) 

5)    The last speaker with the exception of Socrates and Alcibiades was Agathon.  His principle of love is Love is a God so it must be Good.

Also Love is not only a god among the rest of the gods of Olympus, but Love is the chief figure of the gods. 

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. [197c] 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."

he is our lord -- who sends courtesy and sends away discourtesy, who gives kindness ever and never gives unkindness; the friend of the good (Symposium)

2. In the passage 201d-212c in the Symposium, Socrates presents Diotima’s instruction on the nature of love and the ascent of the soul to a truer love and understanding of knowledge.  Describe how this passage about love represents Plato’s key philosophical ideas.

Plato’s key philosophical ideas are three points: Goodness, Truth, and Beauty and the desire for immortality.  These key terms can be applied as a representation of Diotima’s instructions of Love.  Plato’s first philosophic point was Goodness.  During Socrates’ recital of Diotima’s teachings of love he used the analogy that beauty was good and that all men wanted to attain beauty, for it was good.

When a man loves the beautiful, what does he desire?" I answered her "That the beautiful may be his." "Still," she said, "the answer suggests a further question: What is given by the possession of beauty?" "To what you have asked," I replied, "I have no answer ready." [204e] "Then," she said, "let me put the word 'good' in the place of the beautiful, and repeat the question once more: If he who loves loves the good, what is it then that he loves?" "The possession of the good," I said. "And what does he gain who possesses the good?" "Happiness.  (Symposium)

            As the dialoge between Socrates and Diomita was reiterated more of the essence of love came out, for Diomita also her views of what she felt was true love, the essence of love when she stated:

            He who from these ascending under the influence of true love, begins to perceive that beauty, is not far from the end. And the true order of going, [211c] or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows [211d] what the essence of beauty is.

(Symposium) 

This statement shows Diomita’s understanding of what true love was, for it was not only the physical and superficial level: outer beauty.  Rather, the true essence of love was an ascension towards the inner being of the individual and that when love is honorable.  She stated, “in the next stage he will consider that the beauty of the mind is more honourable than the beauty of the outward form. So that if a virtuous soul have but a little comeliness,” (Symposium). 

            As for Plato’s last key element, Beauty and the desire for immortality.  Diomita established that love was not immortal, but it was not mortal.  She understood that it was a medium and that the action of love can perpetuate ones’ life force, procreation.  The procreation of two lovers can extend their being from one generation to another.  

There is a certain age at which human nature is desirous of procreation -- procreation which must be in beauty and not in deformity; and this procreation is the union of man and woman, and is a divine thing; for conception and generation are an immortal principle in the mortal creature…"Because to the mortal creature, generation is a sort of eternity and immortality," she replied; [207a] "and if, as has been already admitted, love is of the everlasting possession of the good, all men will necessarily desire immortality together with good: Wherefore love is of immortality."  (Symposium) 

C. Describe how Alcibiades’s love for Socrates is an example of love already spoken about in the dialogue. In your answer, describe how Alcibiades regards Socrates.           

The love with Alcibiades and Socrates can be described as a love hate relationship.  Alcibiades lust after Socrates, in which he wants to sleep with him because of his infatuation for his power to capture his mind.  He praises Socrates as a man that can charm the soul of men, women , and child as he stated during his speech.

He indeed with instruments used to charm the souls of men by the powers of his breath…have a power which no others have; they alone possess the soul and reveal the wants of those who have need of gods and mysteries, because they are divine. But you produce the same effect with your words only, and do not require the flute; that is the difference between you and him. When we hear any other speaker, [215d] even a very good one, he produces absolutely no effect upon us, or not much, whereas the mere fragments of you and your words, even at second-hand, and however imperfectly repeated, amaze and possess the souls of every man, woman, and child who comes within hearing of them. (Symposium)

Although Alcibiades praises Socrates he also blast Socrates for what he has done to him as a person who is possessed and haunted by him as he also expressed during his speech:           

For he makes me confess that I ought not to live as I do, neglecting the wants of my own soul, and busying myself with the concerns of the Athenians; therefore I hold my ears and tear myself away from him. [216b] And he is the only person who ever made me ashamed, which you might think not to be in my nature, and there is no one else who does the same. For I know that I cannot answer him or say that I ought not to do as he bids, but when I leave his presence the love of popularity gets the better of me. And therefore I run away and fly from him, [216c] and when I see him I am ashamed of what I have confessed to him. Many a time have I wished that he were dead (Symposium) 

Pausanias’and Eryximachus’ theory of love can exemplify Alcibides’ love for Socrates, for his love for Socrates contains bits and pieces of the situation between the two.  When Alcbides proclaim that he had asked love from Socrates by asking him to sleep with him this so that he may attain virtue. 

"that of all the lovers whom I have ever had you are the only one who is worthy of me, and you appear to be too modest to speak. Now I feel that I should be a fool to refuse you this or any other favour, and therefore I come to lay at your feet all that I have [218d] and all that my friends have, in the hope that you will assist me in the way of virtue, which I desire above all things, and in which I believe that you can help me better than any one else.  (Symposium) 

            With this request is classified under Pausanians’ theory of love, for it conveys that, one his honorable intentions for he does not want to sleep with Socrates for his superficial beauty (if he had any), rather for his being.  As Pausanians expressed in his speech: 

Those who are inspired by this love turn to the male, and delight in him who is the more valiant and intelligent nature; any one may recognize the pure enthusiasts in the very character of their attachments. (Symposium) 

            Alcibiades request would prove that his need for virtue would be an improvement of his character.  Which Pausanias professed as one of his key ideology of love, “And on the same principle he who gives himself to a lover because he is a good man, and in the hope that he will be improved by his company, shows himself to be virtuous,” (Symposium).   

            Alcibiades’ love for Socrates can also pertain into Eryximachus’ view of a double love and takes it higher, for he not only lusted for him physically and mentally.  Alcibiades feels that if he attain Socrates’ physical being he can also gain his virtuous character.  I believe that was very evident when Alcibiades proposed to sleep with Socrates.  I also consider as true that his feeling of hate and love is to opposing forces, just like Erximachus’ belief of love as he affirmed:   

 Now the most hostile are the most opposite, such as hot and cold, bitter and sweet, moist and dry…harmony is composed of differing notes of higher or lower pitch which disagreed once, but are now reconciled by the art of music; for if the higher and lower notes still disagreed, there could be no harmony, -- clearly not. For harmony is a symphony, and symphony is an agreement; but an agreement of disagreements while they disagree there cannot be; you cannot harmonize that which disagrees. (Symposium)