Commentary on the Speech of Platos Symposium - Essay Example

Commentary: The Symposium (plato) An Introduction The Symposium, written roundabout 385 B.C., is a manuscript ed by Plato,who was possibly the greatest follower of Socrates. The book mainly concerned the nature of love (love as a relational property v/s love’s own properties, concepts of lover and loved one, etc.). The plot of the book takes place at a drink party (Symposium literally means a drinking party and has been derived from the Greek word Sympotein meaning “drinking together”), and this particular drink party was organized in the honor of Agathon; soon after drinks and refreshments, the men decided to exchange speeches on the God of Love. The party was attended by the following people: Socrates, Agathon, Phaedrus, Pausanias, Alcibiades, Aristophanes, and Eryximachus. (Plato, Jowett and Pelliccia, Symposium: the Benjamin Jowett translation i-iii, 7) Plato being a big aficionado of Socrates also declares that Socrates has all the knowledge about love, its purpose, and its nature; simply because Socrates is an illustrious Philosopher. (Kobler, Müller and Plato) The succession of speeches begins with Phaedrus who states that the first god was in fact, Love; and that it is because of Love and Love only that men show courage and want to be proven best (just to attain the favor of their ‘Loved one’). Pausanias, after Phaedrus, gives us the difference between common love and heavenly love in an extremely rhetoric speech. Eryximachus, being a superbly confident medical expert tries to explain love as the upholder of tidy orderliness and temperance in his own medical jargon. After Eryximachus, comes the turn for the much awaited Aristophanes, who like always brought about a novel comic myth about the concept of love, which suggested that a human being was once a mixture of elements two people, which were later torn by Zeus to form 2 entities and we have been searching for our incomplete half ever since. Followed by our comic star was Agathon who points out the nature of love and states Love to be sensitive, beautiful, wise, etc. who was later objected by Socrates because this was not an explanation of love but rather her qualities. After this, finally Socrates gave his speech which was awaited by all the other participants, this was where Socrates mentioned Diotima, the woman who taught Socrates about love and its nature. When the turn of Alcibiades finally arrived, he was so drunk that he wasn’t able to speak clearly and then he fell down and the meeting was over. (Plato, Symposium) Chosen Plot This commentary struggled around two semi finalized themes: the 2 entity myth by Aristophanes; and the vulgar v/s noble love concept by Pausanias. Finally, Pausanias’ argument won the final favor considering it was more appropriate and was rather practicable. Significant Points within Pausanias Philosophy about Love Chiefly, Pausanias divided the concept of Love into 2 major sub-divisions, these were: ‘Vulgar’ or ‘common’ love In the simplest terms Common Love occurs when a man falls in love due to physically attraction rather than emotional or wisdom based. It may occur amongst a man and a woman, or even a man and another man. Pausanias states that the deity “Common Aphrodite” is the daughter of Zeus and Dione; and this goddess is the youngest amongst the two. It was eminent from the tone of Pausanias voice that he was against this kind of love, and favored heavenly love by a hefty margin; this is also eminent by the fact that the speaker referred to people condemning this kind of love to be less intelligent, and thus he piercingly disparages the type of people that supposedly “take advantage” of youngsters and women for the sexual satisfaction. Pausanias was so infuriated at this kind of love that he even proposed to craft a law against this. (Plato, Sheffield and Howatson, Plato: The Symposium) (Plato, Symposium 181e, 182a,b,c, 183d, 184e, 185b) ‘Heavenly’ Love The speaker proposes that Heavenly Love is completely homosexual as the “Heavenly Aphrodite” has descended from Uranus and has no mother. It, according to Pausanias, occurs when a younger falls in love with an older man for his thirst of knowledge and wisdom. The chief principal being the barter for sexual pleasures in exchange of knowledge gained through experience from his elder. The speaker also states that a long term and stable relationship is only possible in case of heavenly love because physical attraction and desires may wear off, but a relationship based on intellectual bonding will always survive the toughest waves. (Plato, Sheffield and Howatson, Plato: The Symposium) (Plato, Symposium 183d, 184e, 185b, 184b, 183b) Current panorama of Love and Pausanias Philosophy Positive Contributions of Pausanias Philosophy I personally feel that both the philosophies on love put up by Pausanias had some parts acceptable. The best part amongst his philosophy was the fact that the speaker has described two kinds of love: One being physical and sexual in nature and the other being intellectual and wisdom-ly in nature; these two kinds of love still co-exist, the physical love will occur amongst a man/woman and his/her lover, whereas, heavenly love exists amongst a child and his parents, a student and teacher; the only thing that has changed is the fact that heavenly love has also started occurring amongst heterosexuals as opposed by Pausanias. Although, modern concept of love is also a mixture of both considering the fact that a man may fall in love with a woman for both her intelligence and her physique. Pausanias might also be considered correct on the fact that only the less intelligent people fall for physical attraction rather than intelligence and that there is a less chance of stability in a relation if it is based on physical attraction rather than intelligence. The current prospect of love also favors youngsters falling in love with more experienced older people within their fields because of the elder’s immense knowledge or charisma or even monetary greatness, such may be witnessed amongst physical relations amongst an employer and employee, teacher and student, etc. So Heavenly love does exists, this principal also has several negative notions which have been discussed within the next phase. Contributions of Pausanias which no longer hold any relevance The facts that fret me the most are that these speakers gave so little importance to the women of that era and that intelligence was notified by homosexuality. In the era of services we are striving extremely hard to return the equal rights of woman kind which they have lost because of eras such as those. Pausanias clearly claimed that men desiring women and women getting aroused by such men were ‘unintelligent’. But older men desiring younger men were deemed ‘intelligent’, and this view was supported by all the speakers present there. The modern philosophies do not support these claims and rather disapprove of older men falling in love with youngsters (men or women both). As a matter of fact, relationships based on intelligence are even taboo in several circumstances such as student-teacher relationship, and even more wrong if it is amongst homosexuals. We openly support heterosexuality and marriage amongst people in similar age groups, which was deemed as a felony by Pausanias, and was completely injudicious, the most ridiculous claim put forth by the speaker was the fact that he wanted to ban heterosexuality. The speaker did not even consider thinking from the point of view of reproduction. Modern philosophers have been arguing about the ‘rights and wrongs’ of homosexuality and so far the wrongs look like they are about to prevail. In the mid 19th century there was also a time when we had almost eliminated the concept of homosexuality from this world. Pausanias displayed a grand sense of self righteousness as he claimed that love amongst a male lover and a boy is the only true kind of love discarding heterosexuality. Pausanias also claimed that a lover may even punish and beat the loved one if the loved one indulges in sexual pleasures with the lover purely for monetary gains or favors. Conclusion and Discussions Pausanias might be the youngest amongst the other speakers, but was the most logical as it is eminent from the previous section of this commentary. Although Pausanias concept was misleading and opposing his own views considering the fact that the speaker claimed that an older man was wiser and was intellectually oriented, whereas the younger lover should provide sexual services to the older man in exchange of his knowledge and wisdom, the point being, this concept is also physically created because the speaker uses the younger boy in the relationship as a sexual entity. Although, the illogical myth of Aristophanes in a way discards the theory of Pausanias considering the fact that he had placed two entities together as one, and these two entities were not divided in terms of sexual orientation and intellectualness, but was rather a piece of both; this is like a definition of a ‘couple’ where a man and a woman become a single entity and face the world together as one. (Plato, Jowett and Pelliccia, Symposium: the Benjamin Jowett translation) Agathon too defies love as something to do with old people, and clearly states love as a concept specifically for the youngsters. He states that the god of love does not favor the old. Although this concept is being argued till date, but we may safely state in Pausanias terms that common love exists amongst youngsters, whereas, heavenly love exists amongst families, couples, irrelevant of their age group. (Plato, Jowett and Pelliccia, Symposium: the Benjamin Jowett translation) Works Cited Kobler, Franz, et al. Plato: The Symposium. F. Ungar Publishing Company, 1967. Plato. Symposium. Forgotten Books, N.D. Plato, Benjamin Jowett and Hayden Pelliccia. Symposium: the Benjamin Jowett translation. Modern Library, 1996. Plato, Frisbee Sheffield and Margaret Howatson. Plato: The Symposium. Cambridge University Press, 2008. Read More