The Platos Symposium - Essay Example

Essay One Introduction Plato’s Symposium was written about a gathering in 416 BC. It begins with two gentlemen walking on a road, and one of them wants to hear the speeches delivered at Agathon’s party. However, the story of the two men ends at the beginning of the story, it is never mentioned again. The party begins with the gentlemen sitting down to eat. Once the meal is over, the gentlemen agree not to drink heavily that night. As each speech ends, another one begins. When they were finished, they all agree on who had the best speech. Each speech builds on the previous speeches and slightly alters the previous speaker’s message. Ultimately, Socrates speaks and proposes an entirely new understanding of love. This essay considers the speech one of the men, Pausanias, delivers on love, and then examines Socrates speech, particularly as it relates to the relation of love and beauty, goodness, and immortality, and its nature as a daemon. Finally Socrates understanding of love is understood in relation to the version presented by Sophocles in Antigone. Pausanias In Plato’s Symposium the second speaker, Pausanias begins a deliberation on love following the speech given by Phaedrus. In great part, Pausanias speech functions to expand on Phaedrus’ categorization of love, and deepen its meaning. While Phaedrus establishes the transcendence and significance of love, Pausanias discussion notes that there are certain sorts of love that can be valued higher than others. Pausanias categorizes love by the main idea: love may be good or bad depending on the performance of the two lovers. Pausanias acknowledgsd the importance of performance by using these words,”turn out in this or that way according to the mode of performing them; and when well done they are all good and when wrongly done they are evil...” (Plato, Symposium Pg126). I agree with Pausanias because our performance style makes our work good or bad. For example, when the nuclear fission technology was founded, scientists thought that the world’s energy problems would be solved. When they used that technology in atom bombs and in Chernobyl, thousands of people died and permanent damages were made to the environment. Pausanias states that the noble love is the heavenly love, which is love of soul rather than body. The other kind of love -- the common love -- is the love of common people and it is random. I disagree with Pausanias about the common love. I think common love is as sanctimonious as ‘heavenly’ love and humans need that kind of love because of biological desires. To the Greeks, as Aristophanes later notes, these biological desires are valid because of Zeus’ separation of the two sexes as a punishment. Another point about common love is that it is essential for mankind to survive. If it didn’t exist in the beginning there wouldn’t be any humans living on Earth. Furthermore, I believe there is no difference between one person’s soul and body. If you love somebody, you will love both her body and her soul. In philosophy this is referenced by Marx’s dialectic materialism. It means there is no soul or other metaphysical entities such as ghosts. He says that soul is our minds interpretation of emotions. Pausanias shows the difference between secret and open loves in the following, “For, observe that open loves are held more honorable than secret ones, and that the love of the noblest and highest, even if their persons are less beautiful than others, is especially honorable” (Symposium 128). I don’t think that love can be nobler because it is open. In our society there are lots of celebrities who make their love open to the public. One can see the result of these occurrences: they are like bees moving from one flower to another to find the beautiful flower, find it, take its pollen, and the leave the flower. Pausanias thinks that having love of money, wealth or political power is dishonorable. I think there must be a sort of love for money, political power etc. If it doesn’t exceed some limits it is absolutely normal and also it is needed. But if it turns to a passion, the person will do whatever he can do also the bad things to reach his goal. “The one capable of communicating wisdom and virtue, the other seeking after knowledge, and making his object education and wisdom; when the two laws of love are fulfilled and meet in one- then, and then only, may the beloved yield with honor to the lover” (Symposium Pg128). These words are used by Pausanias because he wants to state the importance of self-improvement in regards to one’s relationship. I agree with him and I think that Lovers must grow and improve themselves through learning and philosophical inquiry because it advances self-knowledge. Self education acts like a mirror which you can see yourself and some other views of your love. So as a conclusion love is the most important action that we do in the world. Like in all our actions, performing is important in love too. A love can be good or bad depending on the performance. The two kinds of love, heavenly and common are the same loves with different names, with nothing changing in regards to meaning. It doesn’t matter whether love is open or not. The love of materialistic features is not bad until you exceed its limit value. Ultimately, lovers must question themselves and their relations to add stability to their relations. Socrates Socrates speech comes after Agathon’s. This is notable as Agathon’s speech is full of rhetorical flourishes that conflate the idea of love as an aspect of drama. Socrates even remarks that it will be challenging to follow Agathon, as his speech is so rhetorically powerful and moving. Socrates states that he is unable to give a eulogy in the traditional form because as he understands a eulogy it merely attributes the greatest qualities one can conceive to the subject, and ignore the concern with truth. In this regard, Socrates is making an indirect criticism of Agathon’s speech and the nature of tragedy, as he is implying these forms of discourse ignore philosophical truth for a form of understanding that is conflated by superficial rhetoric. Socrates goes on to question Agathon, in the first instance of the Socratic dialogue in the Symposium. He begins by asking Agathon if love is love of something. In this regard, Agathon agrees with Socrates leading to the conclusion that love desires what it is love of. From this Socrates argues that since one desires what has does not have, then love necessarily means that one does not have what one desires. Socrates extends this line of questioning to establish that according to Agathon, love is lacking in beauty, and other aspects that he previously attributed to it. As Socrates continues his deliberation on love he references a discussion he had with a woman named Diotima. Socrates states that he is referencing Diotima because he once held Agathon’s views but after his conversation with Diotima he changed his perspective. Socrates states that Diotima convinces him that love is neither good, bad, or beautiful. Diotima goes onto argue that not everything must be the converse of what it isn’t; for example, having true opinions that are not supported does not mean that one has wisdom or ignorance. The discussion goes on to show that love is not a god as the other speakers have argued, since love has neither beauty or goodness and gods are known to possess both of these qualities. Socrates then consider the relation of immortality and love and questions if love can be considered mortal since it is not a god. Diotima again points out that not everything that not everything must be one entity or its direct opposite. Rather than being a god, Dotima states Socrates that love is actually a spirit or a ‘daemon’. She states that, "everything daemonic is between divine and mortal" (202d-e), and she characterizes daemons as "interpreting and transporting human things to the gods and divine things to men; entreaties and sacrifices from below, and ordinances and requitals from above..." (202e). Dotima goes on to explain the mythological understanding of love, as emanating from the union of the Gods Resource and Poverty. However, as stated, Love is not a god but a spiritual entity that wavers between mortality and immortality in its ability to enter and influence humans. Similarly, because of Love’s familial heritage it wavers between wisdom and ignorance. When considering the relation of love and happiness, Diotima goes on to explain that the answer is found in the conception of love as desiring beauty and good. Diotima argues that love desires these entities because they function to bring happiness. While all that love or not happy, Diotima states this is because not all people who love are ‘lovers,’ just as not all people who compose are referred to as composers. While reproduction is the way love is pursued, love itself is a want and desire of happiness. In this regard, love is not merely the romantic type of attraction individuals usually associate with it, but the broader concept of one’s pursuit of happiness. Symposium and Antigone In Antigone, Creon the King of Thebes declares that because of his actions in rebellion and war Polyneices is not to be buried, and his body instead left on the battlefield to rot and be eaten by vultures. Antigone is the sister of one of these men and goes against Creon and buries her brother. In justifying her actions she discusses the nature of love. Antigone believes that her love for her brother and her desire to ensure that his soul goes to the afterworld supersedes her devotion to the state and Creon’s decree. It is her desire and love to ensure that her brother receives the proper burial to ensure his immortality that motivates her actions. In a sense this can be equated to Socrates concept of love that posits love as a desire for happiness, as through Antigone’s actions she realizes the nature of her wants. Upon discovering that Antigone was responsible for the burial of her brother, Creon lambasts her and claims she did this because her father was Oedipus. Antigone states that she understood she would be put to death for her actions; in this instance mortality and love are equated as its Antigone’s love for her brother that leads her to sacrifice her own life to ensure his immortality. This is a slightly different conception of love than Socrates as Antigone’s desire for happiness is intimately attached to her desire for her own death. In another sense, this concept of love is entirely in line with Socrates speech as it understands love as a spirit ultimately wavering between its mortal and immortal form. Conclusion As can be seen the nature of love is explored in a variety of ways throughout Plato’s Symposium. While the speakers immediately seem to vary considerably from each speech, in part their differences arise from a fundamental difference in the signifying meaning of ‘love’. While Pausanias concept is more in line with the romantic conception of love that is widely in use today, Socrates extends the concept to include forms of humanly desire that ultimately strive towards happiness. In all of these conceptions love is not understood as an emotion, but the appearance of a spirit or god. In Antigone, one sees this concept of love and the mortal/immortal equated with death and one’s ultimate purpose or meaning, as Antigone sacrifices her own life in love of her brother. References Plato, The Dialogues of Plato (Bantam Books, 1986). Sophocles, The Three Theban Plays (Penguin Books, 1982). Read More