Recently in Symposium Category

Freud's comments in Civilization and Its Discontents on beauty and his connection of psychoanalytic theory with the history of aesthetics is interesting even if, as he suggests, not very fruitful. In Chapter two, he writes:

"We may go from here to consider the interesting case in which happiness in life is predominantly sought in the enjoyment of beauty, wherever beauty presents itself to our senses and our judgement - the beauty of human forms and gestures, of natural objects and landscapes and of artistic and even scientific creations. This aesthetic attitude to the goal of life offers little protection against the threat of suffering, but it can compensate for a great deal. The enjoyment of beauty has a peculiar, mildly intoxicating quality of feeling. Beauty has no obvious use; nor is there any clear cultural necessity for it. Yet civilization could not do without it. The science of aesthetics investigates the conditions under which things are felt as beautiful, but it has been unable to give any explanation of the nature and origin of beauty, and, as usually happens, lack of success is concealed beneath a flood of resounding empty words. Psychoanalysis, unfortunately, has scarcely anything to say about beauty either. All that seems certain is its derivation from the field of sexual feeling. The love of beauty seems a perfect example of an impulse inhibited in its aim. 'Beauty' and 'attraction' are originally attributes of the sexual object" (33-34). See also pg. 46-48.

Several points are worth noting here. 1. Freud departs from the consideration of the beautiful within a distinctly modern position, associating aesthetics with the field that studies the "feeling" of the beautiful. This is quite different from say the Greek conception of the beautiful. 2. This modern handling of the beautiful is also seen in Freud's separation of the beautiful from knowledge or truth, again by his emphasis on its lack of usefulness and status as a feeling. 3. Freud places the beautiful within a long list of defenses, sublimations, and repressions that redirect our true libidinal impulses. He counts beauty as a derivation of sexual gratification, as a milder form of substitute intoxication that helps make the pain of life and its refusal to grant maximum pleasure, acceptable.

Gathering these points together we find a distinctly modern conception of beauty quite at odds with a more Greek conception. For Plato the beautiful is the object, not the derivation, of eros (of love). Love itself has a variety of forms, sexual pursuit of beautiful bodies being of a lower form (cf. Symposium). The pursuit of beauty in artistic creation would be of a higher order, along with beautiful customs, laws, ideas, and finally the Form of Beauty itself. While the Greeks do not have a rigorous conception of the unconscious, it is interesting to note that the knowledge of Beauty in this higher sense is itself largely submerged under the spell of subconscious knowledge for Plato, a truth that must be recollected (anamnesis). Thus there is in Freud an interesting, if inverted, parallel to the Greek (especially Platonic) conception of Beauty here on the one hand, and a clear manifestation of its modern development through the rise of the science of aesthetics and positivism. Freud seems uncertain about what else psychoanalytic theory can say about beauty. However, if he were to borrow from this Greek tradition, rather than from its modern development, he might be tempted to suggest that beauty is not so much a distraction from the truth of psychoanalytic theory, but the light that shines in the very confrontation of the conscious with the unconscious, and the intoxicating emergence of a truth (not a substitute feeling) that we find there. Thoughts?

Hey Everyone,

You know I find it interesting that as Wise as Socrates is, in that he understands that compared to what is to be known we know nothing, he does profess to understand one thing.

"I, who say I understand nothing other than the activities of love, will surely not protest, nor will Agathon and Pausanias, nor will Aristophanes, who spends all his time with Dionysus and Aphrodite, nor will any of the others I see here. Of course, it's not fair for those of us who're reclining in the last positions, but if those who go earlier speak in a beautiful and satisfactory manner, we'll be content. Good luck to Phaedrus! Let him begin his tribute to Love." (177d, Symposium)

(I would say start this right after you finish the comment above, as this is AVA's tribute to LOVE, I mean they made a whole CD and movie about it, Just there if you want it, if not, no worries)

This says a lot, and I know we've discussed this in class too, but I think that he finally claims to understand something fully is an awesome statement about us as people. Now I understand that this is a different sense of Love, even beyond the unconditional compassionate Love that we may understand it to be. Love we come to understand is more the desire of the Beautiful in that we may become happy by possessing the beautiful.

" "Because happy people are happy through possessing good things," she continued, "and there's no need to ask beyond that, 'What does the person who wants to be happy want?' This seems to be a final and complete answer." (205 a, Symposium) "

"Do you think that this yearning, this love, is common to all human beings, and that everyone wants good things to be their own forever? What would you say?" "As you say," I replied, "it's common to all." "Then why is it, Socrates," she asked, "that we don't speak of everyone as loving, if in fact everyone does always love these very things? Why do we speak instead of some people as loving and others as not?" "I wonder about that myself," I replied. "But you shouldn't wonder," she said....... (205a, Symposium) "Well, that is the way it is with love, also. In general, every desire by everyone for good things and for happiness is 'all-powerful and treacherous Love.' Yet those who turn him in his diverse forms (whether in connection with making money, with fondness for athletics, or with philosophy), are not spoken of as loving, nor are they called lovers. Rather, those who go after one particular form of love, and zealously pursue it, have the name of the whole, love, and they are spoken of as loving and are called lovers." (205d, Symposium)

Now I realize that was a lot to quote but I feel they make good points. The first quote is a wrap-up to Socrates's discussion on what Love is, arriving at that it is the desire for the Beautiful, and Diotima goes on to say that the Beautiful is what is good. But in the second quote we find Diotima going over the difference between, general desire for good things and happiness and pursuing one form of love completely and wholly. So for me personally I take from that being the difference between impulsive appreciation of something, and dedicated devotion to the pursuit of something or maintaining it.

So I've realized that for an opening post this has gone on quite long enough. So what I would ask is along the lines of: Being that Love is the Pursuit of Happiness in this context, can we really understand or Know Happiness, or only its Pursuit? In this, do we all know what it is to pursue Happiness, or can we achieve it, prefect Love and attain happiness?

"...Aren't you aware," she said, "that only there with it, when a person sees the beautiful in the only way it can be seen, will he ever be able to give birth, not to imitations of virtue, since he would not be reaching out toward an imitation, but to true virtue, because he would be taking hold of what is true? By giving birth to true virtue and nourishing it, he would be able to become a friend of the gods, and if any human being could become immortal, he would." (211e, Symposium)

Thoughts and Opinions Most Welcome.

Love, Peace and Wisdom,

Namaste,

Drew

It seems that throughout The Symposium, Plato seems to delight in making fun of Aristophanes, the famous comedic playwright who lampooned Socrates The Clouds (which is also mentioned in Plato's Apology as one of the factors that contributed to Socrates' death). The first occurrence of these Platonic shenanigans is when Aristophanes gets the hiccups:

After Pausanias paused, Aristodemus said that Aristophanes was to speak next, but by chance he had a bad case of the hiccups, from overeating or something else, and couldn't talk. However Aristophanes did say, "Eryximachus, it would be appropriate for you either to stop my hiccups or else to speak for me until I'm able to stop them."

Erximachus replies: "If you hold your breath a long time perhaps the hiccups will be willing to stop. But if not, gargle with water, and if they're very severe, grab something you think will tickle your nose and make yourself sneeze!" (185c-186a)

As discussed in class, throughout Eryximachus' speech we are distracted with the image of Aristophanes trying desperately to cure his hiccups by holding his breath, gargling water, and finally tickling his nose to sneeze (allegedly more than once). Aristophanes sees the humor in his situation, and after his hiccups have ceased he makes a joke at Eryximachus' expense. Eryximachus is not amused and replies:

"Aristophanes, my good man, watch what you're doing! Though you're supposed to be giving a speech, you're making jokes, and forcing me to be on my guard against your speech in case you say something funny, when you could march out to speak in peace." (189a)

When Aristophanes points out that it was only a joke, Eryximachus replies "Do you think you can make me a target and get away with it, Aristophanes...Put your mind to it and speak as though you were going to be called to account, though I may decide to let you off."(189b-c) It is never good for a comedian when a joke falls flat, and Aristophanes awkwardly moves on to his amusing speech about Love. Later in the dialogue, however, Socrates in his speech about Love alludes to Aristophanes' speech:

"A certain speech claims," she continued, "that lovers are those who seek their other halves, but my account states that love is of neither the half nor the whole, unless, my friend, it happens to be good, since people are willing even to have their hands and feet cut off if they think they're harmful to them. I don't think people hold on to something that is their own unless one calls that which is personal and one's own 'good' and what belongs to another 'bad.' People don't love anything other than what is good. Does it seem otherwise to you?" (205d-e)

It would seem Socrates has done to Aristophanes exactly what he attempted to do to Eryximachus. Aristophanes realizes this in 212c: "Everyone applauded after Socrates concluded his speech, except for Aristophanes, who tried to say something about how Socrates referred to his own speech in his remarks." But before he has a chance to respond, in walks the flamboyant Alcibiades who takes control of the party, leaving Aristophanes thoroughly ignored.

It is obvious to the casual reader that Plato must have use The Symposium to turn the tables on Aristophanes. Plato literally gives him a taste of his own medicine by using Eryximachus, a Doctor, as the person who gets upset at Aristophanes' lampooning, followed by Socrates using Aristophanes' own methods against him by addressing and thoroughly dismissing Aristophanes' speech through Diotima. At the end Plato gets one more jab at Aristophanes by both drinking him under the table and lecturing him that "the same man could know how to compose both a comedy and a tragedy and that a skillful tragedian could create comedies." (223d)

What have we learned from this? That Plato knows how to hold a grudge.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what the point of the Symposium is supposed to be. Maybe it's a strictly contemplative dialogue where there is no real conclusion to be had. But I feel as though there is something strangely significant about Alcibiades having the last word of the Symposium. The order of the speeches is such:

-Phaedrus (178a)
-Pausanias (180c)
-Eryximachus (186a)
-Aristophanes (189c)
-Agathon (195a)
-Socrates (201d)
-Alcibiades (214e)

Normally, at least so far in this class, I have been looking for primary points to be made by Socrates towards the end, and certainly his speech is critical to understanding what is going on in the dialogue, but looking at the structure of the book that Prof. Long suggested in class (which stresses 7 speeches) that places Aristophanes in the middle. This can create a sort of chiasm which emphasizes either Aristophanes or Alcibiades (since he closes the cycle). The emphesis would look like this:

-Phaedrus (178a)
----Pausanias (180c)
-------Eryximachus (186a)
----------Aristophanes (189c)
-------Agathon (195a)
-----Socrates (201d)
-Alcibiades (214e)

However, I don't think that the Symposium is primarily a comedy. So I don't think the pure Chiastic structure works. There seems to be a build up of speeches post-Aristophanes that leads to Alcibiades praising Socrates and confirming that Diotima spoke truly about love, and that Socrates also truly understands love, which points backwards to emphasize Socrates' speech. So perhaps the structure of emphasis looks like this:

-Phaedrus (178a)
-Pausanias (180c)
-Eryximachus (186a)
-Aristophanes (189c)
---Agathon (195a)
-----Socrates (201d)
---Alcibiades (214e)

I'm not really a structuralist, so I don't think that the entire point of the Symposium can be found in analyzing the structure. However, I think a lot can be said about any text when we look at how the sequence of events occurs and what the "ah-ha" moment is. There is just something really strange about Alcibiades coming in and praising Socrates at the end, instead of letting Socrates' words stand on their own.

Any thoughts?

In our last class meeting we discussed Eryximachus and attempted to agree on what his role is in the dialogue. We all agreed that his speech and attendance in the banquet is key; the position of his speech must be critical as it is placed in the middle of all the other speeches. We also tried to understand the importance of the curing of Aristophanes' hiccoughs during Eryximachus' speech.

It is evident that Eryximachus distinguishes himself from all others present at the banquet because of his frequent medical interjections and references of his techne as a doctor. In every opportunity he finds, Eryximachus does not fail to demonstrate and offer his medical opinion. At his introduction he delivers a quick lecture on drunkenness at 176c-d and then later on hiccoughs in reference to Aristophanes' own spasms of hiccoughs at 185d-e).

"....I probably will provoke less displeasure when I tell you the truth about the nature of intoxication. I believe it has become clear from medical practice that intoxication is a harmful thing for human beings. I myself would not voluntarily drink too deeply, nor would I advise anyone to do so, especially when they still have a hangover the previous day" (176d).

When Aristophanes has a fit of hiccoughs, he turns to Eryximachus for help. "Eryximachus, it would be appropriate for you either to stop my hiccups or else to speak for me until I'm able to stop." The doctor replies, "On the contrary, I'll do both [....] While I'm speaking, you hold your breath a long time perhaps the hiccups will be willing to stop. But if not, gargle with water, and if they're vere severe, grab something you think will tickle your nose and make yourself sneeze!..." (185 d-e).

Yet not only does Eryximachus speak like a doctor when he is asked for his medical advice, but also in his speech on Eros he still speaks like a man of medicine. At 186b, Eryximachus begins his speech by referencing his pride in his profession. " I will speak initially from the medical perspective because I treat that art as preeminent." In fact, it seems that Plato is making a point of bringing out the medical personality that Eryximachus possesses. However, it is not only Eryximachus but all those who are present that Plato seems to bring out individual characteristics of each person, such as Aristophanes and Agathon who have characteristics of their profession as poets.

At 186a-b, Eryximachus makes a rather arrogant remark: he claims that all he knows come from his knowledge of medicine. "I think that one sees from the perspective of my art, that is medicine, how great and marvelous the god is and how he permeates everything, both human and divine." Is Eryximachus a conceited physician? Also, going back to the question of the importance of the curing of Artistophanes' hiccoughs during Eryximachus' speech, does Plato want us to think that Eryximachus is to be ridiculed? A man of medicine has always been the typical image of authority for arguably, our lives are in his/her hands. Does Eryximachus know what's best? I

What I want to look at is what we spoke about in class today, specifically the male-male love/gratification social standard that is apparent in Pausanias' speech, but look at it in relation to our current society to see if it is really all that different.

The points that were addressed (182d-e through 184a) in class were as follows:

• 1) Love is an open affair, not secret or hidden.
• 2) In pure love, looks aren't as important as the mind/soul.
• 3) The Lover (elder) pursues the beloved (the younger).
• 4) The actions taken are made in attempt to impress and win over the beloved (or the Darling, as the translation goes).
• 5) Actions made during this courtship procedure aren't subject to scrutiny, nor are they shameful.
• 6) The father protects the son, the beloved.
• 7) It is shameful to give into the chase quickly.
• 8) This relationship is one that cultivates excellence in, at the very least, the younger.
• 9) The Lover is the one gratified, not the Beloved.
  

 Now, as we are talking about our own personal interpretations of the 'cultural norm' (which often isn't necessarily what we think it ~should be) I'm sure there will be some disagreement (which is great!), so I would encourage people to put some input in if they see it as different. I would especially appreciate the input from the other college for this same reason.

As I see it, the Lover/Beloved relationship is one that is amazingly similar to our standardized Masculine/Feminine relationship. I feel like the parallels are striking, and while the social standards are (thankfully) breaking down, allowing for a variety of other sexual relationships, I belief most people wouldn't consider these the 'norm' (I think this discrimination is very obvious in our society, it can even be seen in our own class), but in order to make a point I'll work with what is considered 'normal.'

The major ones that stand out are three, four, six, seven and nine. Five to an extent, but I'll focus on the first batch. Activity is an attribute often assigned to the masculine stereotype. I know many people who would still be offended if a girl would walk up to a guy and try to pick him up (3). On the same note, look at how we talk about acts of sex. They are almost always (Male) (action)ed (Female) (9). If it is done the other way people usually jump right to number Seven.

The word 'slut' is a word that gets tossed around like nothing, and most people try to only attribute it to the female in a couple. If a girl 'puts out' quickly, she is labeled a slut... but... then wouldn't the guy have put out quickly also? The sexist double-standard is all too obvious here, I'm curious if the Greeks saw it the same way, especially in the rare case of Alcibiades.

Four and six are, as I see it, basically entirely the same. Daughters are still handed off by their fathers during marriage ceremonies and the courtship process between two people is usually extravagant and has no small lack of symbolic 'sizing up.' The series of 'stress tests' people put one another through is the key role in a lot of movies, even.

So that leaves one, two and eight.
One I think doesn't quite fit anymore. Most 'love-stuff' happens behind closed doors. PDA is often highly frowned upon (at least in the States) and most people just 'don't want to see it.' Two and eight seem to be ideals more than reality - something everyone has a little pithy quote for, but doesn't often put into practice. There is a lot of talk going on about these two in other blog posts, so I'll leave the thought there to keep things from getting too spread out.

So, in regards to the ones I view as similar, do others get the same feeling? That the remnants from this Greek social structure has bled through into current society, or at the very least similarly represent one another? With the Beloved effectively acting in the passive, submissive role that we now assign to femininity and the Lover acting in the dominating, active role that is traditionally masculine?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. At one point in Socrates' speech, a controversial idea briefly surfaces that relates to the nature of human beings from Ancient Greece through the twenty first century. Are we, by nature, extremely shallow and superficial creatures?

In Socrates' speech, he speaks in the voice of Diotima who says one

[m]ust believe that the beauty of souls is more valuable than that of the body, so that if someone who has a decent soul is not very attractive, he will be content to love him, to take care of him, and with him to search out an give birth to the sort of conversations that make young men better. As a result, he will be compelled to study the beauty in practical endeavors... and to see that all beauty is related so that he will believe that the beauty connected with the body is of little importance. (210c)

This talks about the importance of loving one's intellect and soul and mind over merely appearance. But this is not true to the core of human attraction, is it? According to Socrates real love disregards what one looks like, and if the other happens to be unattractive, it is insignificant because their soul overpowers what they look like. This is how I believe love should occur and be created within two people. We must look to people's cores and inside and cannot base who they are off of the "body", or appearance. Loving truly this way "makes young men better" because it is what's GOOD (a continuation of Socrates' persistent explanation of the "good"). In truth and good, "beauty connected with the body" truly is insignificant and meaningless.

People cannot help what they naturally look like, which is why it is unfair to ourselves and to each other to base judgements and what we think purely off what we see on the exterior. But think about our world. We are beyond superficial. In my psychology class, the professor spoke of ongoing studies that continue to prove how people tend to subconsciously match up and date others of about equal attractiveness. Have you ever seen a couple with one extremely good looking person and the other very unattractive? You may, but admit, it is rare. Now think about how many couples you know that seem to match and are very close in comparison in how attractive they are, whether it be very or not as good looking. It's all about the surface.

Think about the global hysteria to maintain perfection in appearance; people consumed with artificially modifying themselves through tanning beds, hair extensions, teeth whiteners, diet supplements, etc. Think about our media and shows like "The Biggest Loser", "America's Next Top Model", etc. Why do we do all of these things in our personal lives and in the media for the whole world to see? Why do we try so hard to go against nature and change how we look?

It is to attract the opposite sex.

Because in our world, whether you want to believe it or not, looks are extremely dominant. It is sad but for the most part, it is true. If we took the time to see people for what they are and their substance beyond appearance, I'm sure we would be witnessing a lot more love stories and a lot less heartbreak.

In Socrates' account of his conversation about love with Diotima in the Symposium, he recalls that Diotima asks, "What is the function of love?" (206b3).  Socrates responds that he would not be seeking wisdom from Diotima if he knew, to which she responds, "Then I'll tell you. ...It is giving birth in beauty both in body and in soul" (206b8-9).  Socrates asks Diotima to elaborate, in reply to which Diotima states that "when something that is pregnant comes close to something beautiful, it becomes gentle and relaxes in the delight of procreation and giving birth.  When it comes near something ugly, however, it recoils and turns away, frowning and distressed.  It shrinks back and does not bring forth, but instead painfully continues to carry the foetus [sic] it contains" (206d4-8).

I cannot help but thing of this as an allegory for Socratic midwifery.  As this alternate term for Socratic irony indicates, the signature of Socrates' approach is its result: an admission of ignorance, of confusion about subjects of which one is a purported expert, but more importantly a birth of discovery, of new knowledge, hopefully, but if not knowledge then at least intellectual curiosity.  My question is: Is Socratic midwifery synonymous with love (eros), or at least similar to it?  As Dr. Long suggested at the beginning of the semester, an erotic desire is not simply carnal, but can be highly intellectual as well.  It seems to me that the Socratic method is much in line with Diotima's description of love, insofar as the dialectic orients its interlocutors toward something beautiful, that is, the Good, the Just, the Virtuous, and away from those things that are ugly and obfuscated by the shadow of ignorance.  Indeed, the dialectic catalyzes relief of the pain caused by the "fetus" of ignorance and lack of self-knowledge.  

It is also interesting to consider that Socrates' pursuit is in fact known by another name for love, philia.  But this love is brotherly or friendly, and does not connote the desire which our subject, eros, does. 

I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this inquiry.  

There are seven kinds of love in Symposium, according to different people. 

I would like to focus my attention for this post on the speech that Aristophanes gives following his case of hiccups.  I found this speech very persuasive for several reasons: Aristophanes gives examples of why human-beings have such heightened sexual desires and why these desires may not be viewed as something completely negative in a sexual connotation.

To begin, Aristophanes stated that there used to be three types of human-beings: male, female, and a combination of both (meaning they had both sets of genitals).  From this, Aristophanes continued, these humans "had terrible strength and power, as well as grand ambitions, and they attacked the gods". (190c).  So, Zeus decided to cut the humans in half hoping to end their indecent and outrageous behavior.  The result that came from this can be viewed through our beliefs of what many believe "true love" should consist of: each half longed for their other half.  But, the issue I am attempting to get to does not derive from this.  I am focused mainly upon what Aristophanes says about men who were derived from the men when they were cut in half, "While they are boys, since they are a slice of the male, they are fond of men and enjoy lying with men...  Anyone who says they are shameless is mistaken, for they do this, not from shamelessness, but from courage, manliness, and masculinity, welcoming what is like themselves.  There is definite proof of this:  Only men of this sort are completely successful in the affairs of the city".  (192a-b).

I bring this text to a halt here, for I have many questions stemming from this.  Is Aristophanes attempting to play towards the young crowd at the dinner, hoping for gratification?  Or is there a more hidden theme that comes from this?  Do these men, the majority who do have status in the affairs of politics, condone this tradition because they want continued power in the nature of politics? 

If these men truly identify social success with sexual fancies with young men, why is Socrates found in this crowd?  Does Socrates (maybe) have some underlying desire to expand his status through his persuasiveness of speech, just as Aristophanes is doing?

Any ideas?