The Accounts of Eros in the "Symposium"
The word love carries with it many, many different interpretations. In modern day, our views on what is appropriate love is much different from the views from the time of Socrates and Plato. To them love was eros, a direct translation of the word love.
However, the word itself wasn't the only thing that was different about love. In
Plato's "Symposium", there is a celebration for Agathon. He had just won a dramatic contest in Athens, Greece two nights ago. It is customary to drink much wine at these gatherings, however, every one present is too weak from the night before. (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. xiii) So a proposition is made, by Phaedrus, to properly give praise to the god Eros, and speak on the topic of love. It was their opinion that no poet has yet been able to properly do so. (Nehamas &
Woodruff, pg. 7) There were a total of seven accounts given in praise of eros, by seven different people who are present at the party. Of these accounts, the one that made the most sense was the speech of Socrates when he quotes Diotima.
This account is practical, and shows love not as a heavenly creature, but as a mortal being, where we can interact with him. It also has answers that most of the other accounts could not even question. This is what stands the speechof
Socrates and Diotima apart from most of the others. But, there were two other speeches that were also impressive and brought about points that Socrates did not make. These accounts were given by Aristophanes and Agathon. Through these three speeches, we can get a good picture of what eros is. Starting with the most complete account: Socrates and Diotima; and moving through Aristophanes and then Agathon, this paper will show why these accounts are superior, and why
Socrates' makes the most sense.
After Agathon's speech, it was Socrates' turn to present his account of eros.
But before he does, he tells Agathon that his speech was marvelous and that at one time, Socrates also believed in what Agathon believed. That was until a women named Diotima taught him the real truth in eros. It is however, believed, that Socrates made up the character of Diotima, the reason, though, is unknown.
In spite of this, Socrates gives a remarkable speech that is truly complete. One of the first misconceptions among all the speakers was the age of the god Lo...
... middle of paper ...
...s right to them, may not seem correct to us, and this is a problem that arises with Agathon's speech.
In the times of Socrates and Plato, eros was a much different word then it's translation: love. He have seen how love takes the shape of a god, and how it has influenced the evolution of human kind. In the "Symposium", Socrates gives the most sensible account of eros when he quotes Diotima , even though to this day, it is unclear whether Diotima was a fabrication to fit Socrates' needs when discussing love. The speech of Aristophanes was also worth noting, as he had brought up the point of human nature, the only speaker to do so. As well,
Agathon had a very complete speech, he chose to describe the god Love in terms of his moral character and his virtues. These three accounts were the best of all that were offered. Socrates was the superior one to the other two, but nonetheless, the speeches of Aristophanes and Agathon were complete. Together, these three accounts form a very good picture of eros, one that shows every aspect of what eros truly is.
Bibliography
Nehamas, A. & Woodruff, P. "Symposium", Hackett Publishing Company,
Indianapolis, Indiana, 1989
...elings of love in people. This proves that a higher power can control the feelings of love in people.
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.
“Anabasis” is the Xenophon’s account of the expedition for Cyrus against Persian and the marching home of Greeks. The Greek title of Xenophon’s work, “Anabasis”, referred to a march up country, away from the coast. The title applies only to the first of its seven books. It all ends with the death of Cyrus at the Battle of Cuxana. The Greek mercenary soldiers were left stranded in the “barbarian” world. The rest of the books involves with tales of the Greeks’ discipline, leadership and courage during their journey home. Xenophon’s narrative offers an insight of the character and their political life of a Greek army. Although Xenophon seems to write about the account between the Greek and the barbarian, he presents himself as an important role in the Greek army throughout the rest of the books. He uses a third-person form when describing his own actions as a character. It might suggest that Xenophon is writing an apologia to defend himself and to show his vital role in the expedition.
The playwright claims that if we were to stumble again, as humans had done originally, we can expect a similar fate. As he explains, “There is fear, then, that if we are not orderly in our behavior to the gods, we shall be split again…”(193a). He revisits this moment in his myth to convey the idea that Eros also acts in conjunction with our faith towards the gods. Eros, a being who helps us to find happiness, also allows us to live cohesively with the Olympians, a process that seldom happens in the world. He is said to be “…our guide and general” (193b). In addition, Aristophanes states, “Let no one act contrary to Eros…for if we become friends and reconciled to the gods, we shall find out and meet with our own favorites, which at the moment few do”(193b). In these lines, the reader is able to realize that by following Eros, we are able to bring about our ancient nature while also appeasing the deities who rule over us. In Aristophanes’ final mention of the god, he claims, “…Eros… benefits us the most by leading us to what is our own…while we offer piety to the gods…and by his healing make us blessed and happy”(193d). We gather from this description, that it is Eros who helps us to be content mortals which altogether affirms that it is he who conducts us towards unification and
This passage marks the first of several types of love, and gives us an intuitive
Socrates’ philosophical beliefs and life isn’t accurately represented in the modern world. Since there aren’t any writings from Socrates himself, his life, beliefs, and philosophy has to be depicted through the writings of Plato, Aristophanes, Aristotle and Xenophon, with Plato being the most informational and dependable source. These writers that do mention Socrates in their writings aren’t always accurate and are sometimes very contradicting and inconsistent. In Plato’s writing, it is difficult to distinguish the ideas and beliefs of Socrates from Plato’s. Some historians believe that the beliefs of Plato were based upon Socrates. Some believe that the beliefs of Socrates were interpreted by Plato in his writings. Others believe Socrates didn’t have any ideas of his own. This unclear representation of Socrates is known as the Socratic Problem. Due to the S...
Some may say love is just an emotion while others may say it is a living and breathing creature. Songs and poems have been written about love for hundreds and thousands of years. Love has been around since the beginning of time, whether someone believes in the Big Bang or Adam and Eve. Without love, there wouldn’t be a world like it is known today. But with love, comes pain with it. Both William Shakespeare and Max Martin know and knew this. Both ingenious poets wrote love songs of pain and suffering as well as blossoming, newfound love. The eccentric ideal is both writers were born centuries apart. How could both know that love and pain work hand in hand when they were born 407 years apart? Love must never change then. Love survives and stays its original self through the hundreds and thousands of years it has been thriving. Though centuries apart, William Shakespeare and Max Martin share the same view on love whether i...
What is particularly striking about the opening exchanges of the Euthydemus between Socrates and Crito is that they seem to establish the setting and characters of the dialogue concretely—Socrates and his attractive young friend Clinias meet the well-known brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorus at the Lyceum and ask them to display what Crito calls their “particular wisdom,” and what they call simply “virtue.” However, within these first few pages of dialogue, we already begin to sense something about the brothers that makes them difficult to pin down. When Crito asks, “Where do they come from, and what is their particular wisdom?”, Socrates is vague on their origins—they are from both Greece and Italy, and at the time of the dialogue, they are exiles with no proper city (271c). Thus, they seem to be from everywhere at once. Their “particular wisdom” turns out to be quite unparticular as well—Socrates claims they can win any fight, making them, one would assume, wise at everything. Whereas both Socrates and Crito dwell on the physical and character descriptions of Clinias and even Ctesippus, the brothers, who are ostensibly the primary focus of the dialogue, are given no personal description at all (271b, 273a). Indeed, when Ctesippus takes up a tirade against them in the Lyceum, he is completely unable to identify them, addressing them as, “men of Thurii or Chios, or from wherever and however you like to be styled” (288b). In his frustration at their elusiveness, he articulates this very unnatural ability of the brothers to be from everywhere and argue any position, and quite accurately compares them to Proteus, the shape-shifter (288c).
As any romantic will assert, love is by far the most powerful force known to human hearts and minds. This sentiment is espoused throughout history, almost to the point of cliché. Everyone has heard the optimistic statement, “love conquers all,” and The Beatles are certain, however idyllic it may be, that “all you need is love.” Humanity is convinced that love is unique within human emotion, unequalled in its power to both lift the spirit up in throws of ecstasy, and cast it down in utter despair.
There are people such as Dally and Darry that have a tough exterior and appear to be confident and manly. Yet, sometimes it is overlooked that they are still human, and they have their soft spots. Everybody in society has the right to love somebody. It may not always be obvious, but it is what keeps people together, gives them hope and a reason to live. There are many times in which what is seen on the outside, the shell, doesn’t coincide with what is on the inside. Some people end up relying on their outer image but need to search for strength, something to live for. And for many people, that is love. Love is the basis of life. Dally is a confident, strong figure, who appears hard, and shows hatred towards the world. No one would expect him to love or show any optimism for the world. But any ...
Aristophanes delivers a striking account concerning the nature of Eros. In his speech, which primarily takes the form of a myth, he weaves together comical elements with undertones of sadness that serve to create a profound account of what Eros is. The speech describes humans as combined creatures who, after being separated, are filled with longing. These beings spend the remainder of their lives, in a sometimes futile attempt, combating this feeling of longing by searching for the individual that can make them one again. Aristophanes describes Eros as a remedy for this overwhelming emotion. He uses his story to make Eros an entity that acts in tandem with individuals wishing to be whole. As a result, Eros ultimately serves as
For the ancient Greek doctor and philosopher, Eryximachus, Love’s potential for health and destruction were rooted in its divine origins. Good love “stems from the Muse Celestia” and “Common Love,” from “Polymnia” (Symposium 22). He saw these two loves as at the center of human/divine communication: “all the ways in which gods and men communicate with one another—are solely concerned with the perpetuation or the cure of love” (Symposium 23). Love provided the link, then, between the mortal and immortal beings. It was a common project that both humans and gods could work on. Eryximachus further articulated, “It is (Love) who makes it possible for us to interact on good terms with one another and with our divine masters” (Symposium 23-4). It is the element of life that transcends the human realm, giving the people a taste of the divine in their own lives.
Socrates, to name a few. Each man at the dinner party has a different point of
Oedipus and Tiresias, characters of Sophocles' play "Oedipus Tyrannus," are propelled to their individual destinies by their peculiar relationships with truth. Paranoid and quick to anger Oedipus, is markedly different from the confident and self-assured Tiresias. In the dialogue between the two men, Oedipus rapidly progresses from praise of Tiresias as a champion and protector of Thebes in line 304, to blatantly accusing the blind prophet of betraying the city in line 331, to angrily insulting him in line 334. Rather than be intimidated by the protagonist's title and temperament, Tiresias draws strength from what he knows is true and is able to stand his ground.
Plato’s Symposium is a dialogue of speeches given by different orators on the topic of love. These discourses allow several views of philosophy to be expressed. These philosophical views relate and compliment the speaker’s view of love. Pausanias introduces two kinds of love: heavenly and common. In contrast to Eryximachus’ speech where “the love manifested in health (heavenly) is fundamentally different from the love manifested in disease (common/vulgar)” (Plato: 186B). Pausanias holds that “love is, like everything else, complex: considered simply in itself, it is neither honorable nor a disgrace – its character depends entirely on the behavior it gives rise to” (Plato: 183D). Pausanias views love as good and bad by what it brings. He sees that love with women and with little boys is of the vulgar kind, but love between older men, however, can have a powerful force in the community and therefore be honorable and heavenly. Therefore, in Pausanias’ eyes, love can be a valuable force within the community if implemented correctly. “Love’s value to the city as a whole and to the citizens is immeasurable, for he compels the lover and his loved one alike to make virtue their cen...