Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's structure of love in the symposium
Plato's structure of love in the symposium
Plato's structure of love in the symposium
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato's structure of love in the symposium
Throughout history people have been hearing and using the word love to provide themselves with their own personal satisfaction. But, do we really understand what the true meaning of love really is? True love is when an individual expresses high morals and is willing to put self-interests aside to see someone for who they are as a person and not what they can provide in gifts. I think many of us sometimes abuse love for our own advantage in life, whether that be sex, money or power. People who are considered “common lovers” have no desire to gain virtue in another human being, which is the ultimate goal of finding true. In Plato’s Symposium, Pausanias clearly expresses people bring forth poor ethics toward the democracy by valuing common …show more content…
It is said that love as a physical attraction and nothing more is common and heavenly love is good for the body and soul. Heavenly love is what we all should be working towards when making that decision to find a lover. This love is not something we see or do but something we feel inside us. Usually older people have a better understanding of this love and value it more than younger people. When you are younger, you are more prone to falling into the trap of common love. This is because younger people do not have the wisdom to know what is necessarily right and wrong when loving someone, therefore falling into the trap of immoral love. Pausanias describes these younger people as unintelligent because they don’t understand the reasoning for their actions. One that loves commonly may be satisfied for a short period of time or not even at all while engaging in sex, while people that are loving for more than just sexual pleasure experience satisfaction constantly, not just when making love to one another. It may be hard to look past the physical attraction you have for another human, but it is important to form a deeper bond with them and see them for who they are, not just what they can …show more content…
The idea is that you don’t truly love someone until you learn to love their minds rather than focusing on the body. Taking advantage of someone to “get at” his or her body is a shameful act only to satisfy one’s self in a sexual sense. By acting in such a way is truly diminishing all that is good when we think of love and what it stands for. But, a man that pursues high moral ethics and has good character, in return makes him constant for life due to his faithfulness to another person. Also, people that are after sexual desires don’t really care if those desires are satisfied. The satisfaction you receive from sex is un-constant and fails to give your life true meaning going forward. For one to pursue virtue in loving another, he or she should be a companion, making their relationship constant and fulfilling by making positive ethical decisions. A man that values the mind over the body is of good values and therefore can positively influence another person, making the relationship healthy and
It is well known that Plato, a devoted student of Socrates, chronicled many of Socrates' speeches and conversations. Every so often one can find instances where Socrates and other players in these conversations seem to contradict themselves, or at least muddle their arguments. One such occurrence of this is in Plato's Symposium and Plato's Phaedrus. Both texts speak of love in its physical sense, both texts describe love and its effects, and both discuss how it is best realized, yet they do this in very different fashions, and for different reasons.
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
During this essay the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical.
The meaning of love is as intricate and unique as the purpose that it serves. It seems that the nature of love is found in the mind, the body and the soul. In Plato’s Symposium each member of the drinking party gives their own interpretation of love. As each speaker engages in their discourse, the concept of love is evaluated from different angles. According to Phaedrus, homoerotic love is the highest form of love and that sacrificing oneself for love will result in a multitude of rewards from the gods, while Pausanias believes that there are two forms of love: Commonly and Heavenly. As a physician, Eryximachus claims that love appears in every part of the universe, including plants and animals and that protection results from love. Before starting his speech, Aristophanes tells the group that his discussion about love may seem completely absurd, as he explains that in the beginning one body had two people who were eventually split in half by Zeus. This is meant to explain why people are constantly looking for their “other half”. Moreover Agathon, the poet the symposium is celebrating, critiques the previous speakers by stating that they failed to praise the god of love. He claims that love rejects feebleness and embraces youthfulness while also implying that love creates justice, courage and wisdom.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
What is love? The age-old question arises once more. In truth, a universal definition has not been agreed upon, but generally one can define love as “an indication of adoration” or an “an ineffable feeling of intense attraction shared in interpersonal and sexual relationships.” Love can be directed towards kin, a lover, oneself, nature, or humanity- but regardless that love in an emotional sense is eternal. Some fall into love, and some claim they fall out. Love should be endless, lasting, and pure, but half of the time that love ends up being a sham. There is solid record of this false love- love that is meant to look pure- in the famous writings The Lottery and To His Coy Mistress.
In classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
As students file into the auditorium of the Academy the first thing that we all notice is the two professors that were standing at the front of the room. After all the students were seated that is when the first professor stepped forward to address the class. Plato: Good Morning Students! Students: Good Morning Professor! Plato: Many of you may know who I am and then there are those of you that do not. For those of you that do not know who I am, my name is Plato. I founded this Academy in 387 and it is the first of its kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy). I have studied under many great philosophers. After Plato got done speaking he stepped back and the professor standing to the left of him stepped forward and addressed the class. Aristotle: Good Morning Student! Students: Good Morning Professor! Aristotle: Like Plato there are many of you that know me and there are those of you that do not. So I will introduce myself to those of you that do not know me. My name is Aristotle. I was a
Socrates states that understanding love is a process. The process is called the "ladder of love." One begins as a young boy who is attracted to one beautiful body in particular and together they take part in beautiful rituals. The next stage is to understand that all bodies are similar and that it is foolish to only love one specific body. This will make the boy love all beautiful bodies. After a while he will understand that real beauty comes from the mind, not from the body. He will then come to appreciate and love those who are beautiful in mind, whether they are beautiful in body or not.
Some people get the word love mixed up with lust. People do this because they tend to forget that when in love, sex is never a necessity but an accessory to the feeling. Lust and love have so many differences it is considered ridiculous. Some people say that they love someone just to get the physical action that is so commonly wanted but never really needed. Lust is something that is completely physical, while love is the complete opposite. Love is a feeling so euphoric that everything, but at the same time nothing m...
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
What is love? There are many people in the world that would like to know what it means to actually love. According to the definition in Merriam-Webster it says that love is a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person; a person you love in a romantic way. Erich Fromm’s Theory of Love says that “Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person, it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one “object” of love” Fromm 46). Fromm’s theory is different compared to Freud because Freud saw love and sex as a animal instinct as part of human nature. Fromm sees love as something that humanizes men and women, love is a special characteristic that we as humans use to fill the feelings of being lonely, and it’s a positive outcome of individuals wanting to join with others. As his theory continues Fromm describe characteristics that are different in the qualities of love within the different types of love which are motherly love, Brotherly love, Erotic love, immature love, mature love, self-love, and the love of God.
During Plato and Socrates years it was harder to make a clear definition of love due to the fact that most people didn't have a chance to find their perfect match. Due to the politics involved in arranged marriages people didn't have a good chance to meet the person of their dreams and whom they really loved. This gave some sour views of love and the concept of true love. The lower class in the early days was the luckiest class of that time period because they had a chance to seek out the person they wanted to be with because it wasn't important if a merchants' son married a farmers' daughter, but if a prince fell in love with a farmers' daughter the chance of them being able to be together was impossible.