In discussing Platonic Love, the Symposium appears to best encapsulate what it means. Unlike the more modern meanings, that of having a sexual dimension which, in a strict sense, remains unfullfilled in a physical sense, Platonic Love is more of an intellectual nature. A way of knowing that brings with it an understanding of what eternity or immortality are in essence. It is perhaps best to first examine Alcibiades’ eulogy of Socrates since Alcibiades arrived after Socrates eulogy and discourse of Love.
It’s also worth noting that in the Symposium there is no doubt that there’s a physical dimension to Love but its primary nature is that a spiritual nature, like knowledge itself. The essential or necessary essence of such things as Beauty or Virtue. But for Socrates, all things examined leads to the uncovering of Knowledge.
Alcibiades, prefaces his eulogy by asking to be excused for any perceived mistakes or falsehood that he may state due to his drunken condition; and at first it appears that he’s about to take or exact some sort of public retribution for some slight he believes Socrates has inflicted upon him. The core of his complaint amounts to a claim that he’s been unable to fathom the hold or awe he feels towards Socrates or why he’s unable to convince Socrates to consider him a student worthy of his attention and teachings. And as such he begins with,
“… I propose to begin my eulogy of Socrates with a simile. I think he’ll think I am making fun of him …. I am using this particular simile not because it’s funny but because it’s true. What he reminds me of more than anything is of of those sileni … when you open then down the middle there are little figures of the gods inside. And, he reminds me of Marsyas the satyr. [who, apparently, was a musician or a poet*] (Symposium pg 566, 215, b )
“Why, there wasn’t a note of Olympus melodies that he hadn’t learned from Marsyas. The only difference, Socrates, between you and Marsyas is that you can get the same effect without any instrument at all …. with nothing but a few simple words, not even poetry. (Symposium pg 566-567 215, c)
“Yes, I have heard Pericles and all the other great orators, and very eloquent they were, but they never affected me like that; …. they never turned my whole soul upside down and left me feeling as if I were the lowest of the low. But this latter-day Marsyas, here, has left me in such a state of mind that I felt that I couldn’t go on living the way I did. I simply couldn’t help it.” (Symposium pg 567 215, e)
As a result or perhaps because of, Alcibiades seems to struggle with mixed emotions regarding Socrates; someone who he both admires and, at times, loathes. He even admits his shame when he states:
“He makes me admit that while I’m spending my time on politics I am neglecting all the things which are crying for attentionin myself. So, I just refuse to listen to him – as if he were one of those sirens …
And there is one thing I’ve never felt with anybody else: that is a sense of shame. Socrates is the only man in the world that can make me feel ashamed. I know I oughtto do the things he tells me to, and yet, the moment I’m out of his sight I don’t care what I do to keep in with the mob. … there are times when I’d honestly be glad to hear that he was dead; and yet, I know that if he did die I’d be more upset than ever. …. ” (Symposium pg 567 216, a)
He then goes to describe Socrates as seen in activities outside of philosophical endeavours, such as during military service where, even then, Socrates stood head over heels above those around him. (Symposium pg 571 220 b-e). And, says Alcibiades, there is a lot more to be said about Socrates,
” …. all peculiar and all very much to his credit … but personally, I think the most amazing thing about him is the fact that he’s absolutely unique; there is no one like him. … If you open up his arguments and really get into the skin of them, you will find that they’re the only arguments in the world that have any sense … nobody else’s are so godlike, so rich in images of virtue … so pertinent to those enquiries that help the seeker on his way to the goal of true nobility.” (Symposium pg 572 221 c-e)
This clearly shows that at no time did any type of physical or sexually oriented relationship figure in Alcibiades eulogy. When he says that he approached Socrates like a lover would, offering and perhaps sublimating himself to be placed under the tutorship of Socrates, it appears to been used as an analogy rather than an actual act or conduct that most refer to love or lover. Alcibiades apparently knew Socrates quite well and had a fair insight into who and what Socrates was about- not just as a philosopher but as a person as well.
This aspect of Socrates is brought out as well as he addresses Agathon’s discourse on Love. Socrates cites Diotima as the source of his lessons and learning of the philosophy of Love. In it we are treated to Socrates not as a teacher but rather as a student, as the story is retold. He begins by relating his experience with somone who he apparently felt knew more than he did in some aspects; may have been attributible to his age, both the learning and the retelling periods.
Socrates: “I asked, are you trying to make me believe that if a thing isn’t beautiful it’s therefore bound to be ugly?” (Symposium pg 554 202 e)
To which she responded,
Diotima: “…. do you really think that if a thing isn’t beautiful it’s therefore bound to be ugly?
Socrates: Why, naturally.
Diotima: And that what isn’t learned must be ignorant? Have you never heard of something which comes between the two?
Socrates: And what’s that?
Diotima: Don’t you know that holding an opinion which is in fact correct, without being able to give a reason for it, is neither true knowledge – how can it be knowledge without reason – nor ignorance – for how can we call it ignorance when it appears to be true? So, a correct opinion comes midway between knowledge and ignorance.” (Symposium pg 554 202 a)
In this fashion she leads Socrates through a series of questions and answers, a demonstrative dialectic enquiry, in which she is able to not only convince but also confound Socrates at certain steps along the way. She leads him away from his position that if a thing isn’t beautiful it’s not, therefore, necessarily bound to be ugly. In addition, we see him retreat from the position that, generally speaking, everyone agree that Love is good and beautiful and is associated with the gods; and to be happy and beautiful is to have or posses love; For, she asks,
“Wouldn’t you say that all the gods were happy and beautiful. Or would you suggest that any of them were neither? (Symposium pg 554 202 c)
Which Socrates afirms that only the former could be true; for it to be otherwise would mean that either all the gods are ugly and unhappy, or some of them are. Since they are gods they should be happy; and as such would possess that which is beautiful and good. Lacking nothing is what makes them gods.
Diotima then goes on to relate the origin and nature of Love. A relationship which would indicate that Love, while to be found among the gods, and originating within the realm – it is an offspring of a god, a particular god; and so, it not fully godlike. Love itself lacks something essential – being fully god in general; and it’s that which it lacks that places it in a mid-way state between the immortal (god-like) and mortal (human-like). For, if it were truly of godly origin then the gods themselves would not ever lack of love. But Love appears to be needy. Describes as,
“… always partaking of his mothers poverty. But brings his father’s resourcefullness to his designs upon the beautiful and the good, for he is gallant, impetuous and energetic, … a master of device and artifice – at once desirous and full of wisdom, a lifelong seeker after truth, an adept in sorcery, enchantment and seduction.
He’s neither mortal nor immortal, … Love is never altogether in or out of need and stands midway between ignorance and wisdom. … none of the goods are seekers after truth. They do not long for wisdom .. because they are wise – why should the wise be seeking wisdom that is already theirs? Nor, for that matter, do the ignorant seek the truth or crave to be made wise. …. having neither beauty, nor goodness nor intelligence, they are satisfied with what they are and do not long for the virtues that they have never missed.” (Symposium pg 556 203-4 d-e)
So, what good can Love be to humanity if the seekers of truth are neither the wise nor the ignorant, Socrates asks?
“They are the those that come between the two, and one of them is love. For wisdom is concerned with the loveliest of things; and love is the love of what is lovely. Love is the lover of wisdom; and as such, is placed between wisdom and ignorance. (Symposium pg 556 204 b)
And so if, what is the thing that the lover of the beautiful longs for is to make the beautiful his own. What is to be gained by the lover by doing so?
Socrates: “To gain happiness”
Diotima: “This longing then, … this love, is it common to all mankind? .. do we all long to make the good our own? If we say that everybody always loves the same thing, does that mean that everybody is in love? Or do we mean that some of us are in love, while some of us are not? (Symposium pg 557 205 e-d)
Socrates appears to be uncertain at this point but Diotima continues:
Diotima: “…. You see, love is just one aspect of it; we make the same mistake …. with a lot of other names. …. For instance, there is more than one kind of poetry in the true sense … that is, calling something into existence that was not there before, so every kind of artistic creations is poetry and every artist is a poet. … but we do not call them all poets, do we? We give various names to the various arts, and call only one particular art …. by one name that should be given to all. And that’s theonly art we call poerty, while those whopractice it is known as poets.”
And that is how it is with love. … that renowned an all-beguiling power, includes every kind of longing for happiness and for good. Yet, those of us who are subject to this longing …. are never said to be in love, .. never known as lovers, while the man who devotes himself to what is only one of love’s many activities is given the name which should apply to the rest as well.” (Symposium pg 557 205 b-d)
So, it would seem that those who pursue love or beauty with eagerness and exertion can be best described as having a longing. Poets and poetry best describe that which is sort when speaking of love. This creative activity, art, is capable of bring together or forth that which is beautiful and good to both body and soul. However, that longing is not for the beautiful itself but rather a pursuit of those things in which beauty resides. The conception and generation of things which are themselves beautiful. And, in as much as Beauty, Goodness, Knowledge, the Soul, and so forth are beautiful and eternal, he who seeks love will also be seeking that which derive from the eternals.
Agathon, may not have known of Diotima’s doctrine of Love as Socrates later relates it but it is clear that he too knew or had a general understanding, a general sense, of what Love encompassed when he stated – even though Socrates was stingy with his praise:
“… as to Valour, as the poet sings, ‘But to him not even Ares can withdstand. For, … it was not Ares that captured Love, but Love that captured Ares. – love, that is, of Aphrodite. Now, the captor is stronger than the captive; and therefore Love, by overcoming one who is mightier than all the rest, has shown himself the mightiest of all.” (Syposium pg 549 196, d-e)
“So much, gentlemen, for the righteousness of Love, his temperance and his valour. …. Love himself is so divine a poet that he can kindle in the souls of others the poetic fire, for no matter what dull clay we seemed to be before, we are every one of us a poet when we are in love. We need ask no further proof than this that Love is a poet deeply versed in every branch of what I may define as …. creative art; for, just as no one can give away what he has not got, so no one can teach what he does not know.” (Syposium pg 549 196, d-e) And so, when love is applied to the arts, which have as their basis the propogation of knowledge, that which is good, beautiful or virtuous, eternal or immortal – it becomes clear that they are all discovered or learnt since there is a universal beauty or goodness to which the soul aspires; and as it increases its knowledge of particular thing it’s able to unlock or unravel those which consist or compose the more general and eternal forms.
31/01/2022 17:01:49 -0500