Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Phaedo by plato essay
Explain why Diotima’s Speech is superior to those of both Phaedrus and Aristophanes Aristophanes believes that two humans used to be combined as one, and we were separated by the Gods because they thought we had too much power together. He thinks the purpose of love is to seek out our other half and be with them. In his speech, however, he fails to think about whether or not our other half is good or bad. Diotima takes goodness into account. She says “…a lover does not seek the half or the whole, unless, my friend, it turns out to be good as well” (205E). Her speech is superior to Aristophanes’ because she states clearly that you are not supposed to love someone unless they are good. By good I mean having knowledge and wisdom.
Diotima’s speech is also superior to Phaedrus’ speech because his main point is that love will motivate people to not do shameful things in front of their lover. His argument does not address whether or not the love is actually good or bad between the beloved and the lover. By good I mean containing happiness. In his example, the individuals may not be happy at all. In fact, the
…show more content…
“Giving birth in beauty” starts with two forms (206B). We can either be pregnant in body or soul. When you want to become pregnant with beauty, in body, you seek out a mate who is good and wise. Then you can be pregnant in body and give birth to a child and become immortal by leaving your children behind when you pass away. Being pregnant in soul can happen when you have moderation and justice. Which means having proper order in your home. When a boy, specifically, becomes pregnant in soul he is drawn to beautiful bodies and drawn to beautiful souls. Being around beautiful souls makes him “teem with ideas and arguments about virtue” (209C). When we become pregnant in soul we seek an older, wise person who can teach us and come up with ideas with
Insuring the portrayal of his theme, Sophocles targets the tension of his tragic play, Oedipus Rex, through the growth of the main character, Oedipus, rather than the mystery. Utilizing literary devices such as dramatic irony, soliloquies, and foreshadowing, Sophocles reveals to the audience the conclusion to the mystery of Oedipus before the hero has solved it himself; forcing the audience’s attention towards character growth of the hero, over the actual development of the mystery.
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
Plato's Phaedrus is a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus. In this conversation the young Phaedrus is overjoyed to tell Socrates of the speech that he had just heard Lysias, "The best writer living" (Plato Phaedrus 22), tell. In this speech Lysias uses his rhetorical skills to argue that physical love without emotional attachment is preferable to physical love with emotional attachment, "That is the clever thing about it; he makes out that an admirer who is not in love is to be preferred to one who is" (Plato Phaedrus 22). Socrates listens to this speech, as relayed by Phaedrus and quickly becomes aware that this speech was a ploy by Lysias to get Phaedrus into bed with him. Socrates then fashions a speech, on the spot, that argues the same points that Lysias did. Socrates? speech is going well but is interrupted by "divine sign." Socrates then has to fashion a new speech that renounces the blasphemous nature of the first. Socrates? second speech contains the famous image of love as a charioteer with two horses. He also addresses the nature of the soul and the effects that love has on it (which will be ...
Most of the time, we assume that two different authors have a similar idea of the same thing, but sometimes, the two interpretations can widely vary. The philosopher, as described in both Aristophanes’ Clouds and Plato’s Apology, has certain traits that both authors agree with: they consider philosophers to be thoughtful and curious but not well liked among the people. However, they disagree as to the effect the philosopher has on society. Aristophanes believes that the philosopher is creating unrest in a society that was in good shape beforehand, while Socrates, being a philosopher, sees himself as a key component in the development of Athens. Aristophanes and Socrates have a similar understanding of what a philosopher is, but they disagree
Socrates has Agathon confirm that when one does not have the thing that he desires and loves, that is when he desires and loves it. They agree that one "loves what he lacks and has not" (96). In Agathon's view of love that he expressed earlier, love is always of beautiful things. Therefore, if one loves what he lacks, then "Love lacks and has not beauty" (96), Socrates says. Agathon says this must be the case and no longer has any idea of his previous statements. If Love loves beautiful things, then it is not itself beautiful. And if everything beautiful is good, then love also lacks goodness.
I have always thought that there was only one type of love, which was that feeling of overwhelming liking to someone else. I am aware that Lust does exist and that it is separate from Love, being that the desire for someone's body rather their mind. In Plato's Symposium, Plato speaks of many different types of love, loves that can be taken as lust as well. He writes about seven different points of view on love coming from the speakers that attend the symposium in honor of Agathon. Although all these men bring up excellent points on their definitions on love, it is a woman that makes the best definition be known. I will concentrate on the difference between the theory of Common and Heavenly love brought up by Pausanias and the important role that Diotima plays in the symposium.
In the Symposium, a most interesting view on love and soul mates are provided by one of the characters, Aristophanes. In the speech of Aristophanes, he says that there is basically a type of love that connects people. Aristophanes begins his description of love by telling the tale of how love began. He presents the tale of three sexes: male, female, and a combination of both. These three distinct sexes represented one’s soul. These souls split in half, creating a mirror image of each one of them. Aristophanes describes love as the search for the other half of your soul in this quote: “When a man’s natural form was split in two, each half went round looking for its other half. They put their arms around one another, and embraced each other, in their desire to grow together again. Aristophanes theme is the power of Eros and how not to abuse it.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Nearly everyone experiences the feeling of love. Whether it’s for another person or for food, almost everyone feels love during their lifetime. In the play Antigone, the writer, Sophocles, illustrates a very important fact regarding love: love is our most important and most dangerous motivation for doing anything, and without moderation, love can be deadly.
Birth is an amazing ability. It is a uniquely female power. The Theogony provides a portrait of the struggle between the sexes for control of the womb. Men attempt to gain access to birth by monitoring and grasping control over what leaves the womb, through sexual force, and by destroying the powerful mother-child bonds. Nonetheless, women retain autonomy. Sheer force of will, as Hera’s birth illustrates, deceit, and strong mother-child bonds preserve female power of procreation. Through birth women influence and control the course of human (or deities) destiny. Through their wombs women gain powerful agency.
Socrates’ speech does that. It contains the sides mentioned before, and uniquely views Love from a dynamic perspective. Phaedrus Phaedrus is the first one to give a speech to praise love. He begins his speech with the claim that Love is a primordial god, with no parents.... ...
In The Euthyphro, Socrates makes a distinction between two kinds of love; theophiles, which “is of a kind to be loved because it is loved”, and osion, which is “loved because it is of a kind to be loved.” (The Euthyphro) The former is representative of his first, unsatisfactory alternative, and the latter is his second; however, this too is problematic. It avoids the fatal flaw of the original alternative through proposing that accepting God's definition of morality is acceptable because God is omniscient, observes that certain actions are more desirable than others and subsequently commands us to follow these standards for our own benefit.
According to the Aristotelian characteristics of good tragedy, the tragic character should not fall due to either excessive virtue or excessive wickedness, but due to what Aristotle called hamartia. Hamartia may be interpreted as either a flaw in character or an error in judgement. Oedipus, the tragic character in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, certainly makes several such mistakes; however, the pervasive pattern of his judgemental errors seems to indicate a basic character flaw that precipitates them.
Some people believe that there is no such thing as “true love” they believe that love is nothing but an illusion designed by social expectations. These people believe that love ultimately turns into pain and despair. This idea in some ways is true. Love is not eternal it will come to an end one way or another, but the aspect that separates true love from illusion, is the way love ends. “True Love” is much too powerful to be destroyed by Human imperfection; it may only be destroyed by a force equal to the power of love. Diotima believed that “Love is wanting to posses the good forever” In other words love is the desire to be immortal and the only way that we are able to obtain immortality is through reproduction, and since the act of reproduction is a form of sexual love, then sexual love is in fact a vital part of “True love”. Sexual love is not eternal. This lust for pleasure will soon fade, but the part of love that is immortal, is a plutonic love. You can relate this theory to the birth of love that Diotima talks about. She says that love was born by a mortal mother and immortal father. The mother represents the sexual love, the lust for pleasure. The father represents the plutonic love that is immortal. Plutonic love is defined as a true friendship, the purest of all relationships. A true plutonic love will never die; it transcends time, space, and even death.