WEEK 2: Plato's Symposium

[Mateo Duque]

I put up a .pdf of Plato's Symposium in the Google Documents folder for next week’s reading. It is a very good translation by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff.

The parts I am requiring you to read are:

(Use the Stephanus number on the sides)

(1) The first part which is a frame-narrative for the speeches told later in the dialogue. Sections 172a-178b.
(2) Aristophanes's speech. Sections 188e-194e
(3) Socrates's speech and
(4) Alcibiades's drunken interruption of the party. Sections198a - to the end of the dialogue.



Here are some of my thoughts on the Symposium:

“That,” he said, “is my speech about Love, Eryximachus. It is rather different from yours. As I begged you earlier, don’t make a comedy of it” (193D).

Aristophanes warns Eryximachus not to take his speech as a comedy. However, Aristophanes was a comic writer. He wrote comedies, and one of them, The Clouds, satirized Socrates. There are humorous elements to Aristophanes’s speech. Most notably the visual images he gives us of two people stuck together and Zeus splitting them, in the way one might cut a hard boiled egg with a wire. On the other hand, I would argue that Aristophanes’s account of Love (Eros) is tragic. Think about it. We are by nature separated from that which makes us whole. There is no guarantee that we will find that “other half.” And even if we do, the double-creatures in Aristophanes’s myth died a single death. Now that we separated from the other part of ourselves, even if we find them and get to love them for a while, we don’t die with them. Thus,

we are left suffering alone by ourselves, knowing that we have lost that unified part. Aristophanes focuses on the “negative” side of ‘Love’ (Eros), passion or desire. He looks at Eros and sees the hungry longing that it feeds in us for the things that we don’t have. Stay tuned because Socrates will also pick up on this theme, but his account of attraction is not so tragic; Socrates will show us what Love, Eros, passion, desire can motivate us to do positive things, if we train it right.

My question in general, and to the class, is: Obviously we’re not going to take Aristophanes seriously, in the sense that there is no way that we think he is trying to give us, let’s say, a scientific description of Love and its origin. But, do you think that Aristophanes’s portrait of painful longing for some missing part of ourselves describes your own personal experiences with Love, passion, or desire?

Remember don’t just answer my question! Quote from the reading; use it to show me that you’ve read carefully and are trying to understand what is going. Also, try to come up with your own question. That is where philosophy begins to take place.

[ivandavenny]

"…reproduction goes on forever; it is what mortals have in place of immortality.  A lover must desire immortality along with the good, if what we agreed earlier was right, that Love wants to possess the good forever.  It follows from our argument that love must desire immortality." (207a)

The other partygoers treat love as a reaction, to another's body or soul, but Diotima is the only one who discusses love as an act of creation, rather than simply beauty or inspiration.  This makes sense given her position as a woman that the act of love should be intricately connected with childbirth.

It is interesting to me that Socrates uses a female character to submit his ideas on love, ideas that revolve around pregnancy.  Obviously physical pregnancy would be more relatable to a woman, but he uses her to argue that all humanly creation are beget out of pregnancy of the soul, and then maintains that this second type of pregnancy is more prestigious and beautiful.  Socrates in fact uses a woman's point of view to downplay the importance of women; he is saying that the love of an idea and the immortality of ideas are more important than lineages or physical childbirth.  Naturally the men sitting on the couches around him agree with this sentiment, that they do not need women to attain immortality, to propagate!

However, her concept of love as an aspiration toward immortality also strikes me as egocentric.  Her argument is that actions are not undertaken for the love of others, they are taken for the love of immortality, for the chance to live on, either in name or by lineage.  She is saying the true reason to love another is to propagate some aspect of oneself.  So then, isn't her definition of love simply narcissism?  A purely selfish emotion, the good of which comes incidental to the main goal of fame and immortality?  I enjoy the practicality in her definition, that love exists to produce something, rather than simply being something to enjoy or inspire, but I dislike that in her theory it becomes almost a base emotion, lacking the transcendency or romance of the others' theories.

[Ellie]

According to Socrates, when one gets that what it is he ‘loves’, he will be happy. This ‘love’ is described as the desiring of beauty. Since the ultimate beauty is wisdom, someone who ‘loves’ is someone who desires wisdom. Diotima explains that people desire wisdom, because having wisdom can enable people to form thoughts and ideas of virtue that can go on forever, thus bringing immortality to a mortal being. So essentially what they are saying is that if man achieves immortality, then he will be happy. This makes it seem that achieving happiness via immortality is the basis for the entire concept of ‘love’. So I’m really confused as to why Diotima would say that “There’s no need to ask further, ‘what’s the point of wanting happiness?’(205a)” . Why is there no need? Do we not need to understand what personal happiness is if it’s the underlying cause of people feeling pursuing ‘love’ or desires? Is it not essential to start from the root of an idea to fully understand what it is? So if (according to Diotima) happiness is the root of ‘love’, how can one possibly claim to understand love if they don’t even bother to question what the point of happiness is and what being ‘happy’ means?

As for the question, regarding Aristophanes description of love; I must have missed the point somewhere....didn't Zeus and the other gods punish humanity so that the human form has evolved into half of what it is has been before? So technically the new form of the human being IS the new human nature. So I'm not sure why we should feel like we are missing anything or long to be part of a 'whole' if we are the new 'whole' in our own individual form and going back to our original form would be staying as we are now. I also don't get what is meant by the concept of, longing for a missing part so we can be 'whole'. What does being whole mean? Back in original form of human nature? Aren't we in that form? Does it just mean being complete? What happens when people find their 'other half' and they achieve 'wholeness'? Nothing? They are just 'whole'? What does that mean?? people are just longing for something so that they can be in a state of random 'wholeness'? What is the point of 'wholeness' and why do people want it?

[felixjonanthony]

I believe Aristophanes does not speak of a longing love for someone to make them whole again, but a longing to love one's self. As flawed humans, we speak half-truths, conceive incomplete thoughts, and go throughout life constantly desiring or yearning for something more. He tells a story of schism and separation which was meant to punish and cripple mankind. “..that would allow human beings to exist and stop their misbehaving: they will give up being wicked when they lose their strength” (Zeus, 474). We have not only been stripped of our strength and power, according to Aristophanes, but this has affected our attempts for success. “In strength and power, therefore, they were terrible, and they had great ambitions” (Aristophanes, 473). Some of us still do have great ambitions, but with our separation, we still have longings for love – which always involves affliction and toil – holding us from being the powerful creatures we once were.

Aristophanes also mentions that if their other halves died, then they would seek out completion with any other creature, finding the comfort of love with whichever gender. This statement majorly supports my belief that we only long for the completion of ourselves. Earlier in his speech, he mentions that men and women’s gender were based on whether they were “sons” of the sun, “daughters” of the earth, or the androgynous offspring of the moon. Despite their gender, however, all creatures had two sexual organs. After being, split in half”, we were left with one, but our three key genders remained the same. We all retain masculinity, femininity, and senses of enigma. We have been left to long for our destined other have to become whole again – not because we need another’s love to feel complete, but because we are searching for another part of ourselves that has been taken away from us.

Therefore, regarding to Ellie's questions (in my opinion). 

"What does being whole mean?" Being whole means being happy - true, unadulterated happiness. Happiness which  can be dangerous, leading to confidence and power (leading to why Zeus split them in half). 

"What happens when people find their 'other half' and they achieve 'wholeness'?" In Aristophanes's idea of our original state, we were our true selves and he draws in the belief that, yes, we are whole human beings right now, but that is because we are what we think to be is whole. We go unaware of how complete we once were and our only reminder is the constant yearn for others. We see this as lust, affection, or passion, when they may be indicators to show us that we need that "partner" to remain complete, for look at how much happiness love brings. The happiness from compassion is unlike any other and it even changes people, making them more vulnerable, passionate, and happy. One might argue it changes them to their truer selves.

"What is the point of 'wholeness' and why do people want it?" The point of wholeness can be as riddled a question as "what is the meaning of life". There are thousands of questions and millions of counter-arguments. However, a very watered down answer that trickles through most other answers is, happiness. Wholeness makes us feel complete. Wholeness spares nights awake in tears and the feelings of betrayal and misfortune. Wholeness makes us feel important and special. Wholeness makes us feel more human.

Now my question is: Does anyone else find Aristophanes warning Eryximachus to not take his speech as a comedy was an attempt to avoid any mockery that a brilliant philosopher as himself categorizes himself as in incomplete, lost person who seeks out wholeness with random partners, or did I miss a different interpretation of his words?

[g.dlegister]

"Whoever opposes Love is hateful to the gods, but if we become friends of the god and cease to quarrel with him,then we shall find the young men that are meant for us and win their love, as very few men do nowadays."

 If the idea of love is suppose to be a punishments by the gods, to find our better halfs and fill the void we have in our hearts. Was Eryximachus trying to warn us of what every single living being goes through? Trail and error, heart break, the list of Ex's to just to find the right person to share a life with and not die alone. I believe Eryximachus is poking fun on his ideas and arguments. If you look at it this way, the idea of suffering to be happy with another person, having another to make you feel whole. If you hate the gods, love will never come to you. Very serious matters, but it sounds both tragic but comedic at the same time. 

Do you think that Eryximachus is also emphasizing  the idea that through punishment enacted by the gods on the mortals, most humans will end up falling in love with the wrong person, through desperation? Also the humans would be to distracted to "miss behave", because they spend a good amount of time looking for love in life.

[Soon M. Seo]

“He(Love) is in between mortal and immortal.”(202d)

Then Diotima redefines Love is a great spirit, in between god and mortal. I interestingly agree with the quote. Love generates beginnings and endings. That’s a form of energy which moves and makes this universe go on by mortal and immortal because it needs both. The universe remains by mortal and immortal. Love executes beginnings and endings, life and death.
Either erotic or platonic love, it relates to desire and needs. It’s good to call immortal a god of that kind of form. It is about spirit and hormones. It is solely mortal, immortal, and something in between. Does it matter? The consequence is it works anyway. It isn’t something fixed nor exact. It just is there. Love is constant or constantly changing forever. It is same and different all times just like other true things.

[Yolanda Challenger]

"I'm going to Agathon's for dinner. I managed to avoid yesterday's victory party - I really don't like crowds - but I promised to be here today. So, naturally, I took great pains with my appearance: I'm going to the house of a good-looking man; I had to look my best. But let me asked you this," he added, "I know you haven't been invited to the dinner; how would you like to come anyway?" Aristodemus answered, "I'll do whatever you say." (174 b).

I think that Aristodemus most likely would not have gone to the party because he was an uninvited guest and needed for he and Socrates to come up with a good excuse as to why he was there, but because he was infatuated with Socrates he thought that it would be a perfect opportunity to lay down with him and express his love. As humans, we all need the basic human needs for survival, and Aristodemus felt that he needed to be touched, needed to be loved by Socrates. I think that he accepted the invitation because he thought that Socrates would be his lover that night, in the name of love.

Do you think that's the reason that Aristodemus was willing to subject his sanity and go as an uninvited guest to party?

[kingholee]

"Good men go uninvited to Goodman's feast" 174C

 what does that really mean? Socrates said that to Aristodemus because he know Agathon wanted Aristodemus to join the party? later we see Agathon said to Aristodemus he looked for him the day before and tried to invite him but just couldn't find him. Did Agathon really want Aristodemus to join this party? Socrates really mean Good men can really go uninvited to anyone's party? Socrates stop walking, took rest, and told Aristodemus to keep going, did he do that on purpose? Because Socrates want Aristodemus to meet Agathon first? And want to use Aristodemus to let Agathon he(Sorcrates himself) is on the way coming? Or everything happened just coincidence? 

[sremac.sara]

First I'd like to address what you mentioned, Professor, in your reaction to Aristophane's speech. I, too, found it tragic and dark. The idea that one is always searching for their torn away half which at best means finding them and losing them once again does not correlate with my ideas of love. I would like to think that wholeness can be found in oneself and, even further, that until one finds wholeness with themselves they should not join a partnership or relationship. I think basing a relationship on the intention of quelling a physical desperately codependent need to be conjoined with another person just to feel whole is a tragic conception of the origin of love.

Secondly, I was most compelled by Socrates' conversation with Diotima, and her take on the conception and (literal) birth of love. With this quote she seeks to define Love, 

"…that, then, is the nature of the Spirit called Love. Considering what you thought about Love, it's no surprise that you were let into thinking of Love as you did. On the basis of what you say, I conclude that you thought Love was being loved, rather than being a lover."  

And later she adds that it is particularly being a lover of good forever.  To me, this shows love in a much more positive and attainable light and creates the idea of love being everywhere, just not necessarily being labeled as love. 

One question I had in the reading was in regards to Socrates' account of his conversation with Diotima. When she is describing the birth of the spirit of Love, she describes how Love is between this and that as the parents of Love were between this and that. What I'm asking is, is she implying that Love will forever be between any two opposites as his parents represent opposite background and traits? And if so, maybe that is how everyone can relate to and desire love, as everyone can find themselves in the middle of some spectrum, whether it be good and bad, ugly and beautiful, wise and stupid, etc.

[beccatheblue17]

While I do appreciate the poetic justice of Aristophanes' description of the human condition of love, it is clear to me that it is a very limited view of what love between humans can be. Although views of homosexuality were much different in Ancient Greece than our Christianity influenced views of it now, it is very important to me that Aristophanes included love between two men or two women as equally important as love between a man and a woman. However, this is where my personal experience when love deviates from the situation Aristophanes described. The soul-mate paradigm is comforting in its simplicity but it is anything from realistic. I think it is impossible to say that there is one person to whom we all belong in the scope of true-love. I also think love can come it forms just as pure an passionate without a sexual element to the relationship. From my personal experiences, I have found that the love I feel between two friends is equally if not more strong than a sexual love. Romantic relationships are laden with rules that I feel inhibit the love between two people, such as monogamy and official labels of 'together' or 'broken up'. Those rules don't apply to friendship. Likewise, a person is allowed to have more than one friend at a time without it being considered infidelity. My interpretation of Aristophanes' description of love is that it does not include these extraneous kind of relationships, which I find to be equally important in my life. 

[monise_71]

"I think, I said, you're he only worthy lover I have ever had, and yet, look how shy you are with me..."

 

In my opinion, love is such a mysterious thing, no one can really describe it or give a full definition of it. Not only each of us can have our own limited point of view of love, but also each of have different reason or motivation to love someone else. Alcibiades speech is very interesting to me  because it shows that we don't have to wait for someone we love or we think loves to make the first move. We could have misinterpreted or misunderstand the person intention toward us. Alcibiades pursued Socrates as his lover, however Socrates did not have any sexual attraction for him, which was sort of disappointing.

 My understanding of Alcibiades speech is that, Love is not always attributed to sex and the person we really love or who really loves does not have to be physically attractive. Alcibiades shows us that Socrates may not physically attractive but his real beauty is inside of him and that attract others. It is worth it to sacrifice ourselves for someone just because this person say so?  Does true love really exist? Love is too mysterious to me. Some people sacrifice their live for others in the name of love with no gratification, even love in return. Does that mean really love does not require gratification?  

Monise Sanon 

 

  

[joyash22]

Why is Socrates presented as immune to the effects of alcohol and fatigue and disinterested in sex? I saw this question posted on a website and it is something I was wondering about. Socrates seems above human nature in the way that the author portrays him. In Greek culture they worshipped the body, maybe Socrates is in some ways 

G-d like as Alciabedes believes .Alciabedes  compares him to the satyr who is G-d like on the inside, above the mundane and ordinary man. Socrates doesn't give in to Alciabedes advances he doesn't want to lower himself to others standards.

I find the worshipping of Socrates by the author to be very blatant and interesting. I feel  today we don't respect peoples knowledge as Plato did. Maybe we ought to give more respect to the great thinkers of today. We only respect those who achieve great wealth, with or without great knowledge.

[nadiahamidi7]

I took Greek & Roman myth last semester and read Aristophanes' speech on the "Origin of Love." I'll make it short--I absolutely loved it! The way Aristophanes paints human beings as superior and then sort of "lost" wandering for their other halves is beautiful. I love it so much in fact, that I find it very difficult to analyze just one quote. However for the sake of the assignment, my favorite quote is, 

"But he left a few wrinkles around the stomach and the navel, to be a reminder of what happened long ago" (191).

In this quote, Aristophanes is explaining how Apollo smoothed out the wrinkles of humans after being cut in half at the navel. The navel is left to remind us of our former state and how a transgression against the gods can very well lead us back to our original form. For one, while this story is false, I admire how the navel is chosen as the "sealing point" of love. Now, I'm not a science person by any stretch of imagination, but is is undeniable that the navel is extremely significant. Navels (umbilical cords) are what attach fetuses to their mothers. When the umbilical cord is cut, the baby is no longer physically attached to its mother. Since babies are created out of a male and female union, they are the product of love. Furthermore, navels are anatomically located in between the heart (emotional dwelling place of love) and the genitals (physical). Now, don't quote me, (the last time I took science was the Chemistry regent in the 11th grade), as I am not educated if the proportions are correct to be in between, but to a simple-minded human's eye (like myself), the navel is just about in the middle of the two. In general, scars of any sort are small physical reminders of something much more traumatic that occurred. I love the way Aristophanes simply executes his point in a way which the audience can understand their longing for companionship. I'm not sure if I ranted too much about anatomy--especially for someone who has no business discussing it!

Why do you think Aristophanes goes into great length to describe our original state? Rather, why do you think he defends humans for their faults and desires in terms of love?

And to tie it all together, Aristophanes' speech can be found in the movie, Hedwig and the Angry Inch. In the movie, the protagonist, Hedwig, undergoes a gender reassignment surgery to become a female in order to marry his boyfriend in communist Germany. Unfortunately, Hedwig's surgery is unsuccessful leaving him with a tiny piece of flesh between her legs--hence, the "angry inch." In struggling with his sexuality in a time when homosexuals were not outwardly common nor accepted, and in addition to her new unfavorable circumstance, Hedwig continually refers to Aristophanes' speech throughout the movie. As the head of a rock band, Hedwig performs the song. I'm pasting the link below in case any of you want to check out the clip from the movie of the song! While Hedwig is singing, there's an animation of the story, which is great! Let me know if you liked it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zU3U7E1Odc

[Mateo Duque]

Ivan,

Very nice catch. Good insight. You might want to develop this in paper. One suggestion. You have a quote at the beginning and you go back and mention and paraphrase Plato, but you might want to work with his actual words as you develop your argument. Remember in class I said that philosopher sometimes argue like lawyers and we must present and enter evidence to the court room. In this case, the evidence is the author's words. Great job! On the one hand Diotima's concept of Eros (love) is practical, being creative and productive. On the other hand, as I tried to argue in class, I think Diotima's account of the From of Beauty-in itself goes very abstract and conceptual, against concrete particulars. 

-MD. 

[Mateo Duque]

Everyone who has posted in this thread got full credit. I want to give a bit more guidance now to individual students. I'm going to put all comments in one post. I'm sorry that we didn't get much discussion time in class. Hopefully we might get some time to talk about this week.

Ellie, "happiness" in the ancient world is taken as a given. It's good to question our starting points. However, as I tried to teach you about arguments you are going to have to accept some premises. Well, have an opportunity to talk about "happiness" with our section on Ethics later. Also, Aristophanes's idea is that we do have a new human nature, but we still long to joined to other half, to the way we were joined together before, our older nature.

Felix, great insights. You might want to develop some for a paper. You did a great job and covered a lot. I'm glad that Plato spoke to you. I just don't want you to feel burnt out later. You don't have to write so much if you don't want to. If you're in the groove that's great. I just don't want you to feel pressured. Try to take on idea or question and really try to delve into it. I have a similar tendency. I want to talk about it all, but in philosophy it helps to try to focus on one thing.

Glenmore, watch out with the names! You were talking about Aristophanes but refering to him by the speaker of the earlier speech, Eryximachus. Try to remember Eryximachus is the pompous doctor and Aristophanes is wise guy comedian. I'm glad that you were able to relate the reading to your life. I like to see that. However, try to dig a little bit deeper into the text. You used the quote, but try to explain what you think it means in your words.

Soon, I'm glad you brought this up because I don't think I was able to totally cover it. It's an important concept of the in-between. For Socrates/Diotima, Eros (love) is a entity that is in-between two extremes, the gods and mortals.

Yolanda, after our discussion in class what do you make of Aristodemus's and Socrates's interaction, of Socrates inviting the uninvited 

 Aristodemus to dinner. 

King, you bring up good questions, but your post is almost a whole string of them. I suggest trying to answer some of them. Like I said, I find questions and problems very important in philosophy, but we should also aim to respond to so of them. Now that we talked about it in class, do you think you could answer some of your own questions?

Sara, I'm glad you talked about this because I don't think I said enough in class. Yes, Eros (love) is always waxing and waning. We are always  being attracted to beautiful people and things, and then we don't feel the same level of attraction. In fact, sometimes we lose our love and we are repelled by the very same thing that used to cause this longing in us.

Rebecca, nice insight. We have to remember that Eros has to do in large part with sexual attraction. So an erotic relationship is different than a philos relationship. Although there might be similarities. Like I said in class, Aristotle defines friendship as two bodies one soul. (borrowing from Plato).

Monise, not a bad post, but I urge you to try to define even the mysterious things. I agree. Love can be this very hard thing to think, talk , and write about. However, Plato shows us the way. He has written 7 different speeches. 7 different accounts of love from very different perspectives. It's interesting that you went for Alcibiades's account of unrequited love. Say a bit more next time.

Joy, I told you to bring this up in the next class. I hope that you do. It's an important question.

Nadia, great post! very detailed. I'm glad you mentioned Hedwig and the Angry Inch. That movie explicitly alludes to Plato. I think you are right about the navel. The navel was a powerful symbol in the Ancient world.

 

[gregorydny]

Me personally no. But the description he gives of our orgins as being one circular unit that craved to be a whole piece again after being cut in half sounds familiar. The sickness, sadness, lack of appetite or suicide for the loss of a spouse is common. More common to my knowledge than any other person in someones life. Its not uncommon for a spouse to die shortly after one is deceased. Spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife its all the same. They complete each other much like a yin and yang make a perfect circle.

[yuliyazhivotenko]

According to Socrates, he says, we love because we don't have.One example he quotes is "tall doesnt desire to be tall". I agree with this statement 100% because when we don't have something or someone, we want that thing or person that much more. For example, most girls if they have straight hair, they want curly hair and vice versa. When one has something, they always want more or something different. Than Socrates also questions, but if we have this need to desire something that we don't have, would we want something forever? He concludes yes we want to hold onto something forever and desire immortality. For example, one does not wish or hope to stop being rich.