Apollodorus and his friend
Apollodorus, at the request of a friend, when meeting him, talks about a feast at Agathon, where Socrates, Alcibiades and others were present and there were talks about love. This was a long time ago; Apollodorus himself was not present there, but learned about those conversations from Aristodemus.
That day, Aristodemus met Socrates, who invited him to dinner with Agathon. Socrates fell behind and came to visit later. After dinner, those present reclined and took turns saying a word of praise to the god Eros.
Speech of Phaedrus: the most ancient origin of Eros
Phaedrus names Eros the most ancient god, he is the primary source of the greatest blessings. There is “no greater good for a young man than a worthy lover, and for a lover than a worthy beloved.” A lover is ready to do any feat for the sake of his beloved, even die for him. But it is the devotion of the beloved to the lover that especially delights the gods, for which the lovers are given greater honor. As an example, Phaedrus cites Achilles' revenge for the murder of his admirer Partokles.
After all, the lover is more divine than the beloved, because he is inspired by God.
It is the powerful god of love, Eros, who is able to “endow people with valor and give them bliss.”
Pausanias' Speech: Two Eros
There are two Eros: vulgar and heavenly. Vulgar Eros gives love to insignificant people, heavenly love is, first of all, love for young men, for a creature more intelligent and sublime than a woman. Such love is a concern for moral improvement:
Low is that vulgar admirer who loves the body more than the soul... As soon as the body blossoms, he will “fly away”... And whoever loves for high moral virtues remains faithful all his life...
It is commendable if a beloved youth accepts the advances of a suitor and learns wisdom from him. But the feelings of both must be absolutely sincere, there is no place for self-interest in them.
Speech of Eryximachus: Eros is diffused throughout nature
The dual nature of Eros manifests itself in everything that exists. Moderate Eros and unbridled Eros must be in harmony with each other:
After all, the healthy and sick principles of the body... are different and dissimilar, but the dissimilar strives for the dissimilar and loves it. Consequently, the healthy principle has one Eros, the sick one has another.
It is necessary and wonderful to please the moderate god and honor him; one must resort to the vulgar Eros carefully so that he does not give rise to intemperance. Fortune telling and sacrifices help establish friendly relations between people and the gods.
Aristophanes' Speech: Eros as Man's Striving for Original Wholeness
Aristophanes tells the myth of androgynes - ancient people consisting of two halves: two modern people. Androgynes were very strong, for the decision to attack gods Zeus cut them in half.
... when the bodies were cut in half, each half lustfully rushed towards the other, they hugged, intertwined and, passionately wanting to grow together, did not want to do anything separately.
Since then, the halves of androgynes have been looking for each other, wanting to merge together. Thanks to the union of a man and a woman, the human race continues. When a man meets a man, satisfaction from intercourse is still achieved. The quest for wholeness is the quest to heal human nature.
Aristophanes calls the men descended from the previous man and who are attracted to each other the most worthy: they are by nature the most courageous.
Thus, love is the thirst for integrity and the desire for it. Before... we were something united, but now, because of our injustice, we are settled by God separately...
Speech of Agathon: the perfections of Eros
Eros is the most perfect god. He is the bearer of the best qualities: beauty, courage, prudence, mastery of arts and crafts. Even the gods can consider Eros their teacher.
Socrates modestly notes that he is in a difficult position after such a wonderful speech from Agathon. He begins his speech with a dialogue with Agathon, asking him questions.
Socrates' speech: Eros's goal is to master the good
Eros is always love for someone or something, the object of this love is what you need. If Eros needs the beautiful, and goodness is beautiful, then he also needs the good.
Socrates described Eros as if based on the story of one Mantinean woman, Diotima. Eros is not beautiful, but not ugly, not kind, but not evil, which means he is in the middle between all extremes. But since he is not beautiful and not kind, he cannot be called a god. According to Diotima, Eros is neither a god nor a man, he is a genius.
The purpose of geniuses is to be interpreters and mediators between people and gods, conveying to the gods the prayers and sacrifices of people, and to people the orders of the gods and rewards for sacrifices.
Eros is the son of Poros and the beggar Penia, so he personifies the middle between his parents: he is poor, but “like a father, he reaches out to the beautiful and perfect.” Eros is brave, bold and strong, longs for rationality and achieves it, he is busy with philosophy.
Eros is the love of beauty. If beauty is good, then everyone wants it to become their lot. All people are pregnant both physically and spiritually. Nature can be relieved of its burden only in beauty.
The intercourse of a man and a woman is such permission. And this is a divine matter, for conception and birth are manifestations of the immortal principle in a mortal being... which means that love is a desire for immortality.
Caring for offspring is a desire for the eternal; in eternity one can achieve the beautiful - the good.
Then a drunken Alcibiades appears. He is invited to say his word about Eros, but he refuses: he recognizes the speech of Socrates that was heard before as logically indisputable. Then Alcibiades is asked to praise Socrates.
Alcibiades' Speech: Panegyric to Socrates
Alcibiades compares Socrates' speeches to the satyr Marsyas playing the flute, but Socrates is a satyr without instruments.
When I listen to him, my heart beats much stronger than that of the raging Corybantes, and tears flow from my eyes from his speeches; the same thing I see happening to many others.
Alcibiades admires Socrates. The young man hoped to gain his wisdom and wanted to seduce the philosopher with his beauty, but beauty did not have the desired effect. Alcibiades was conquered by the spirit of Socrates. In joint hikes with a fan, the philosopher showed his best qualities: courage, stamina, endurance. He even saved the life of Alcibiades and refused the reward in his favor. Socrates has a unique personality compared to everyone else.
Final scene
Socrates warns Agathon against the speeches of Alcibiades: Alcibiades wants to sow discord between Agathon and the philosopher. Agathon then lies down closer to Socrates. Alcibiades asks Agathon to lie at least between him and Socrates. But the philosopher replied that if Agathon lies lower than Alcibiades, then he, Socrates, will not be able to praise his neighbor on the right, i.e. Agathon. Then noisy revelers appeared, someone went home. Aristodemus fell asleep, and when he woke up, he saw Socrates, Aristophanes and Agathon talking. Soon Alcibiades left after Socrates...
(No ratings yet)
Openessay.doc
- 40.50 KbAnalysis of Plato’s work “Dialogues. Feast"
Plato is one of the founders of European philosophy. His works that have come down to us carry his ideas, and the highest of his ideas is the idea of good. The dialogue “The Feast,” which I would like to analyze in my essay, is no exception. Here Plato shows that love is also a good.
This dialogue is a table conversation in which seven people praise the god of love, Eros. Each of the subsequent speakers continues and complements the speech of the previous one. The last to speak is Socrates, who, as we can see, is the bearer of the ideas of Plato himself. Let us consider the speeches of all participants in the conversation in more detail.
It should be noted that the dialogue is a story within a story and begins with Apollodorus, on whose behalf the story is told, meeting his friend, who asks him to tell him what happened at Agathon’s feast. Apollodorus explains that he himself can retell the conversation only from the words of Aristodemus, who was present at the feast. What follows is the story of Aristodemus himself.
Having gathered in honor of the tragic poet Agofon, the guests first dine, drink and eat. The conversation takes place when the guests are full, over wine. They decide to praise the god of love Eros, considering that he is not given enough attention and treated with insufficient respect.
Phaedrus speaks first, who is sort of the originator of this topic. At the beginning of his speech, Phaedrus speaks of the ancient origin of Eros, and, accordingly, the ancient origin of love. He says in his speech that no one can be as selfless, brave and daring as lovers. Phaedrus praises both lovers and loved ones who make sacrifices for their admirers. At the end of his speech, Phaedrus utters the following words: “So, I affirm that Eros is the most ancient, the most venerable and the most powerful of the gods, most capable of endowing people with valor and giving them bliss during life and after death.”
Pausanias speaks next. Continuing Phaedrus’s speech, he does not agree with him that Phaedrus sang “Eros in general,” when it should have been said that there are two Eros. In his speech, Pausanias says that there is a vulgar Eros and a heavenly Eros. The first gives rise to the love with which insignificant people love. Such people, first of all, love the body, but not the soul. This leads to the fact that their love is short-lived, like the object of their sigh, because as soon as the body loses its beauty, grows old, and the love of such a person will leave. The second Eros, the heavenly one, gives rise to love for the soul. Pausanias also says that such love has only a masculine principle, it is love for young men, since then it was believed that love for a woman in itself is something vulgar. And this is exactly the kind of love that is true.
Eryximachus takes the floor next. Again, continuing the speech of Pausanias, he agrees that Eros is dual, but introduces a new idea, the idea that Eros lives not only in man, but in all of nature. He says that Eros is so powerful that he leads to the good of both people and gods.
Aristophanes' speech is different from the previous ones. He puts forward the idea that a person’s desire for love is a desire for integrity. Aristophanes tells a myth that in ancient times people were not of two sexes, but of three. There were androgynes who combined characteristics of both male and female. Such people became too strong and threatened their sides, and then Zeus decided to divide them into halves. And this has become the reason that people strive to find their half in another person, and this is called love. This feeling covers everyone who is lucky enough to meet their soul mate.
Agathon, who speaks next, is the only one who considered it necessary to praise not the feeling that Eros brings, but God himself. He talks about the qualities inherent in Eros: about his tenderness, beauty, virtue, courage. That Eros is a good poet and skilled in crafts. And all the qualities that this god himself possesses, he imparts to those who serve him, to all those who love and are loved. It should also be noted that everyone who serves him does so voluntarily, since this god has nothing to do with violence.
After Agathon's speech, it is Socrates' turn to express his opinion. Socrates prefaces his speech with questions addressed to Agathon. Using logical conclusions, he leads everyone to the conclusion that Eros can in no way be either beautiful or kind, since beauty and kindness are what he himself strives for. And striving for what you already have is pointless. We see that Socrates does not let the idea “settle down”; he constantly pushes it forward. As if to prove his speeches, he cites a conversation he once had with the woman who, according to him, made him so knowledgeable in love, Diotima. This woman shows Socrates that Eros is not any extreme, he is neither good nor evil, neither beautiful nor ugly. She tells the story of the conception of Eros, which determines his state. He was conceived by the poor and ugly Penia and the beautiful god Poros at a feast in honor of the birth of Aphrodite. Hence his love and desire for beauty.
For people, as Socrates says, this beauty is a blessing, which is why people strive for the theme, they strive to love. And they want to possess the good forever, so we can say that the desire for beauty is a desire for the eternal. Diotima explains this using the example of people’s desire to procreate. After all, procreation is a kind of hope for immortality, and therefore children are wonderful. Just like the body, the soul also strives to free itself from the burden; knowledge helps it in this. After all, both scientists and philosophers, leaving behind their teachings, expect not to be forgotten, and this is also a kind of immortality. The soul of every person responds to the finitude of existence, and therefore the beautiful is what we generate by remembering what is disappearing.
After Socrates finishes his speech, another guest appears at the feast - Alcibiades. He is a fan of Socrates. When Alcibiades is asked to offer praise to Eros, just as everyone present did, he refers to excessive intoxication, but, nevertheless, agreed to praise Socrates.
In Alcibiades's speech we can see everything that the other guests were talking about before. Talking about his love for Socrates, he exposes both him and himself as adherents of that same “heavenly” love. This is evidenced by Alcibiades’ desire to be close to Socrates only because he can teach him a lot, and by the fact that Socrates made it clear with all his behavior that he was interested not in the body, but in the soul of Alcibiades. Also, the fact that Socrates saved Alcibiades more than once in battles showed how devoted not only a lover, but also a loved one can be.
So, to summarize, we can say that Socrates, like no one else, strives for truth. He showed this in his speech, listening to all points of view, and then expressing his own, completely different one. We see his desire for truth by the greed with which he listened to Diotima and absorbed new knowledge. And at this feast he also wanted to convey the truth to his friends.
The key question in this dialogue can be called the question “What is beautiful?” Socrates also gives an answer to this question. Beauty is what we do to remain in existence, even in the memory of people, or in our own children.
Description of work
Plato is one of the founders of European philosophy. His works that have come down to us carry his ideas, and the highest of his ideas is the idea of good. The dialogue “The Feast,” which I would like to analyze in my essay, is no exception. Here Plato shows that love is also a good.
This dialogue is a table conversation in which seven people praise the god of love, Eros. Each of the subsequent speakers continues and complements the speech of the previous one. The last to speak is Socrates, who, as we can see, is the bearer of the ideas of Plato himself. Let us consider the speeches of all participants in the conversation in more detail.
Moscow City Pedagogical University
Psychology faculty
Extramural
Essay
by subject:
"Philosophy"
The theme of love in the work
Plato's "Symposium"
Checked by the teacher:
Kondratyev Viktor Mikhailovich
Performed:
2nd year student
Correspondence department
Petrova Yulia Evgenievna
phone: 338-94-88
"Feast" - philosophical essay about love. The philosopher interprets everything broadly. And he talks about love differently than in the novel.
“The Feast” belongs to the genre of table conversations that Plato initiated and which had analogies not only on Greek, but also on Roman soil, not only in the literature of antiquity, but also in Christian literature during the formation of the Middle Ages.
The topics of table conversations changed over time, but the conversation itself represented the second stage of the feast, when, after a hearty meal, the guests turned to wine. Over a cup of wine, the general conversation was not only entertaining, but also highly intellectual, philosophical, ethical, and aesthetic in nature. Entertainment did not at all interfere with a serious conversation; it only helped to clothe it in a light, half-joking form, which was in harmony with the feast atmosphere.
Plato's "Feast" was called "speeches on love." The topic of the dialogue is the ascent of man to greater good, which is nothing more than the embodiment of the idea of heavenly love. As true sins, they speak not of love in itself, but of love that owes its existence to one of the gods. His name is Eros.
The entire dialogue is a story about a feast held on the occasion of the victory of the tragic poet Agathon in the Athenian theater. The story is told on behalf of Aristodemus, who came with Socrates and was present at the feast.
The composition of “The Feast” is very easy to analyze due to the fact that it is not difficult to trace its structure: between a short introduction and the same conclusion, the dialogue contains seven speeches, each of which treats one or another aspect of the same theme - the theme of love. First of all, attention is drawn to the unusual logical sequence both within each of the seven speeches and in the relationship of all speeches.
Introduction.
2. For a better understanding of the logic of the dialogue, I would like to provide a plan for the speeches, indicating topics and speakers:
a) the ancient origin of Eros (Phaedrus);
b) two Eros (Pausanias);
c) Eros is spread throughout nature (Eriximachus);
d) Eros as a person’s desire for original integrity (Aristophanes);
e) perfection of Eros (Agatho);
f) the goal of Eros is to master the good (Socrates);
g) disagreement with Socrates (Alcibiades).
The introduction begins with a story about a meeting of a certain Apollodorus from Phalerum with a certain Glaucon, as well as the latter’s request to talk about the feast in the house of Agathon and Apollodorus’s agreement to do this from the words of a certain Aristodemus from Kidafin, who was personally present at the feast.
What follows is Aristodemus's account of the circumstances preceding the feast: Aristodemus's meeting with Socrates, his invitation to the feast, Socrates's tardiness, Aristodemus's kind meeting at Agathon's house, and the proposal of one of the guests, Pausanias, not only to take part in the feast, but to pronounce a laudable praise to each of its main participants. speech to Eros, god of love.
*With the consent of all the other participants in the feast, Phaedrus begins the conversation about Eros, and quite logically, since he talks about the ancient origin of Eros. “Eros is the greatest god, whom people and gods admire for many reasons, and not last resort because of his origin: after all, it is an honor to be the most ancient god. And the proof of this is the absence of his parents... Earth and Eros were born after Chaos,” that is, existence and love are inseparable and are the most ancient categories.
Phaedrus's speech is still devoid of analytical power and exposes only the most general properties of Eros, which have been discussed since the time of the undivided dominance of mythology. Since the objective world was imagined in ancient times to be as concrete and as sensual as possible, it is not at all surprising that all movements in the world were thought of as a result of love attraction. Universal gravity, which seemed obvious even in those days, was interpreted as exclusively love gravity, and it is not at all surprising that Eros is interpreted in Phaedrus’s speech as a principle that is both the most ancient and the most powerful. He speaks of the greatest moral authority of Eros and incomparable vitality god of love: “He was for us the primary source of the greatest blessings... if it were possible to form a state out of lovers and their beloved... they would rule it the best way, avoiding everything shameful and competing with each other,” for “... He is most capable of endowing people with valor and giving them bliss during life and after death.” In this regard, Phaedrus begins to develop the idea of the highest value true love, reinforcing her reasoning with a story about the attitude of the deities towards her: “The gods highly value virtue in love, they admire, marvel, and benevolent more when the beloved is devoted to the lover than when the lover is devoted to the object of his love.” A peculiar conclusion of this speech is the statement that “the lover is more divine than the beloved, because he is inspired by God, and the beloved is grateful for his devotion to the lover.”
*Discussions about the nature of love continue in the second speech - the speech of Pausanias. The theory of Eros, outlined in the first speech, even from the point of view of that time seemed too general and alien to any analysis. Indeed, in Eros there is a higher principle, but there is also a lower one. Mythology suggested that the highest is something spatially higher, that is, heavenly; and traditional for ancient world the doctrine of the superiority of the masculine over the feminine suggested that the highest is necessarily masculine. Here Plato approached a very delicate topic, requiring caution in assessments. We are talking about same-sex love, therefore, the highest Eros is love between men. In Ancient Greece this was not a deviation, but rather the norm.
With specific images, personifying love higher and lower, in the speech of Pausanias there are two Eros and, by analogy with them, two Aphrodites. Since nothing in itself is either beautiful or ugly, the criterion for the beautiful Eros is his origin from the Heavenly Aphrodite, in contrast to the vulgar Eros, the son of the Vulgar Aphrodite. Aphrodite Vulgar is involved in both the masculine and feminine principles. Eros of Aphrodite is vulgar and capable of anything. This is exactly the kind of love with which insignificant people love, and they love, firstly, women no less than young men, and secondly, they love their loved ones more for the sake of their body than for the sake of their soul, and they love those who are stupider, caring only about achieving one’s own.” “The Eros of Heavenly Aphrodite goes back to the goddess, who, firstly, is involved only in the masculine principle, and not in the feminine - it’s not for nothing that this is love for young men, - and secondly, she is older and alien to criminal insolence." So, heavenly love is love for men who are more beautiful and smarter than women. For lovers, everything is allowed, but only in the sphere of soul and mind, unselfishly, for the sake of wisdom and perfection, and not for the sake of the body.
The following statement seems to be a general and not very specific conclusion of this speech: “We can say about any business that in itself it is neither beautiful nor ugly. Whatever we do, it is beautiful not in itself, but depending on how it is done, how it happens: if the thing is done beautifully and correctly, then it becomes beautiful, and if it is done incorrectly, then, on the contrary, ugly. It’s the same with love: not every Eros is beautiful and worthy of praise, but only the one who encourages beautiful love.”
*The third speech is the speech of Eryximachus. He says that Eros exists not only in man, but in all of nature, in all of existence: “He lives not only in human soul and not only in her desire for beautiful people, but also in many of her other impulses, and indeed in many other things in the world - in the bodies of animals, in plants, in everything that exists, for he was great, amazing, all-encompassing, involved in everything affairs of people and gods." Eryximachus’s thought about love spread throughout the world of plants and animals is typical of Greek philosophy.
In my opinion, his idea is interesting and astronomy has to do with love.
* Aristophanes, who speaks fourth, again returns in his speech to man, but not to his soul, but to the body, and, moreover, the prehistoric body. Aristophanes composes a myth about primitive existence in the form of both men and women. People were of three genders. Since these people were very strong and plotted against Zeus, the latter cuts everyone into two halves, scatters them throughout the world and forces them to eternally seek each other to restore their former fullness and power. Therefore, Eros is the desire of dissected human halves towards one another for the sake of restoring integrity: “Love is the thirst for integrity and the desire for it.”
Aristophanes' speech is one of the most interesting examples of Plato's mythology. In the myth created by Plato, both his own fantasies and some generally accepted mythological and philosophical views are intertwined. The generally accepted romantic interpretation of this myth as a myth about the desire of two souls for mutual union has nothing in common with Plato's myths about monsters divided in half and eternally thirsty physical connection.
*Then the owner of the house, Agathon, takes the floor. Unlike previous speakers, he lists individual specific essential properties of Eros: beauty, eternal youth, tenderness, flexibility of the body, perfection, his non-recognition of any violence, justice, prudence and courage, wisdom in all arts and crafts and in the ordering of all the affairs of the gods.
* And now it’s Socrates’ turn. His speech in the Feast is, of course, central. Socrates leads it in his usual manner, in his own way. He does not pronounce a monologue, but asks questions and listens to them. He chooses Agathon as a partner. Socrates' speech has its own peculiarity, since he immediately says that he will tell the truth about Eros.
It turns out that everyone else was telling a lie. At the beginning of the conversation, Agathon, agreeing with one of Socrates’ comments, says: “I am unable to argue with you, Socrates.” To which Socrates replies: “No, my dear Agathon, you are not able to argue with the truth, and arguing with Socrates is not a tricky thing.”
What follows is the simplest concept: the goal of Eros is the mastery of good, but not just any particular good, but every good and eternal possession of it. And since eternity cannot be mastered immediately, it is only possible to master it gradually, i.e. conceiving and generating something else in its place, which means that Eros is love for eternal generation in beauty for the sake of immortality, for generation as bodily. A mortal being longs to overcome his mortal nature.
The theme of immortality is further developed. It is for this reason that love exists; you can give as much evidence of this as you like. For example, let's take ambition. “You will be surprised at its meaninglessness if you do not remember what I said, and you will miss how obsessed people are with the desire to make their name loud, “so that
eternal time to gain immortal glory,” for the sake of which they are ready to expose themselves to even greater dangers than for the sake of their children, spend money, endure any hardships, and finally die.”
Another way to achieve immortality is to leave physical offspring, that is, to reproduce yourself. Many people say: “I live for the sake of my children,” these people strive to establish themselves in their genes and thoughts, for which love exists.
Now about the path of love. There is something like a science of love. You need to start in
youth with aspirations for beauty. Only the person who has seen it can live in contemplation of the beautiful in itself. My opinion is that we must strive for the best from the very beginning, gradually climbing “the steps higher and higher.”
“I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6).
So the meaning of love is revealed.
Plato, feast
The entire dialogue is a story about a feast held on the occasion of the victory of the tragic poet Agathon in the Athenian theater. The story is told from the perspective of Socrates' student, Apollodorus of Phalerum. Thus, we have before us a “story within a story,” a reflection of the reflection of the experiences of Socrates’ two friends.
So, intro. It cannot be said that it is full of philosophical content; it only represents a kind of literary exposition. It also presents the main characters dialogue, as well as the theme of the entire subsequent narrative is defined in general terms. The introduction begins with a story about a meeting of a certain Apollodorus from Phalerum with a certain Glaucon, as well as the latter’s request to talk about the feast in the house of Agathon and Apollodorus’s agreement to do this from the words of a certain Aristodemus from Kidafin, who was personally present at the feast.
What follows is Aristodemus's account of the circumstances preceding the feast: Aristodemus's meeting with Socrates, his invitation to the feast, Socrates's tardiness, Aristodemus's kind meeting at Agathon's house, and the proposal of one of the guests, Pausanias, not only to take part in the feast, but to pronounce a laudable praise to each of its main participants. speech to Eros, god of love.
With the consent of all the other participants in the feast, Phaedrus begins the conversation about Eros, and quite logically, since he talks about the ancient origin of Eros. "Eros is the greatest god, whom people and gods admire for many reasons, not least because of his origin: after all, it is honorable to be the most ancient god. And proof of this is the absence of his parents... Earth and Eros were born after Chaos ", that is, existence and love are inseparable and are the most ancient categories.
Phaedrus's speech is still devoid of analytical power and exposes only the most general properties of Eros, which have been discussed since the time of the undivided dominance of mythology. Since the objective world was imagined in ancient times to be as concrete and as sensual as possible, it is not at all surprising that all movements in the world were thought of as a result of love attraction. Universal gravity, which seemed obvious even in those days, was interpreted as exclusively love gravity, and it is not at all surprising that Eros is interpreted in Phaedrus’s speech as a principle that is both the most ancient and the most powerful. He speaks of the greatest moral authority of Eros and the incomparable vitality of the god of love: “He was for us the primary source of the greatest blessings... if it were possible to form a state out of lovers and their beloved... they would rule it in the best possible way , avoiding everything shameful and competing with each other,” for “...He is most capable of endowing people with valor and giving them bliss during life and after death.” In this regard, Phaedrus begins to develop the idea of the highest value of true love, reinforcing his reasoning with a story about the attitude of the deities towards it: “The gods highly value virtue in love, they admire and marvel more and do good when the beloved is devoted to the lover than when a lover is devoted to the object of his love." A peculiar conclusion of this speech is the statement that “the lover is more divine than the beloved, because he is inspired by God, and the beloved is grateful for his devotion to the lover.”
Discussions about the nature of love continue in the second speech - the speech of Pausanias. The theory of Eros, outlined in the first speech, even from the point of view of that time seemed too general and alien to any analysis. Indeed, in Eros there is a higher principle, but there is also a lower one. Mythology suggested that the highest is something spatially higher, that is, heavenly; and the traditional doctrine of the ancient world about the superiority of the masculine over the feminine suggested that the highest is necessarily masculine. Consequently, the highest Eros is love between men. And since by the time of Plato they had already learned to distinguish the mental from the physical and value the first above the second, then male love turned out to be the most spiritual love in Pausanias’ speech.
In the speech of Pausanias, specific images personifying higher and lower love are two Eros and, by analogy with them, two Aphrodites. Since nothing in itself is either beautiful or ugly, the criterion for the beautiful Eros is his origin from the Heavenly Aphrodite, in contrast to the vulgar Eros, the son of the Vulgar Aphrodite. Aphrodite Poshlaya is involved in both the masculine and feminine principles. Eros of Aphrodite is vulgar and capable of anything. This is exactly the kind of love with which insignificant people love, and they love, firstly, women no less than young men, and secondly, they love their loved ones more for the sake of their body than for the sake of their soul, and they love those who are stupider, caring only about achieving one’s own.” “The Eros of Heavenly Aphrodite goes back to the goddess, who, firstly, is involved only in the masculine principle, and not in the feminine - it’s not for nothing that this is love for young men, - and secondly, she is older and alien to criminal insolence." So, heavenly love is love for men who are more beautiful and smarter than women. For lovers, everything is allowed, but only in the sphere of soul and mind, unselfishly, for the sake of wisdom and perfection, and not for the sake of the body.
The following statement seems to be a general and not very specific conclusion of this speech: “We can say about any business that in itself it is neither beautiful nor ugly. Whatever we do, it is beautiful not in itself, but depending on the fact that how this is done, how it happens: if a thing is done beautifully and correctly, then it becomes beautiful, and if incorrectly, then, on the contrary, ugly. The same thing with love: not every Eros is beautiful and worthy of praise, but only the one who motivates It's wonderful to love."
What follows will only deepen what Pausanias said. Firstly, it was necessary to clarify the position about opposites in Eros, translating it from the language of mythology into the language of more developed thinking - the language of natural philosophy, following the example of the opposites of cold and warm, wet and dry, etc. Thus, Eros, with its characteristic opposites, already received cosmic significance, which is the subject of the third speech - the speech of Eryximachus. He says that Eros exists not only in man, but in all of nature, in all of existence: “He lives not only in the human soul and not only in its desire for beautiful people, but also in many of its other impulses, and in general in many other things in the world - in the bodies of animals, in plants, in everything that exists, for he was great, amazing, all-encompassing, involved in all the affairs of people and gods." Eryximachus’s thought about love spread throughout the world of plants and animals is typical of Greek natural philosophy.
The second speech also gives rise to another problem: the cosmic opposites outlined in it could not be thought of dualistically, but it was necessary to balance them with the help of the theory of the harmonious unity of the higher and lower, showing, moreover, the whole inevitability of this harmonic principle of Eros and the passionate aspiration for it of those who found themselves in the power of Eros. The separation of the two Eros must be subject to the need for them to be in constant harmony, “after all, this requires the ability to establish friendship between the two most hostile principles in the body and instill in them mutual love.” The beneficence of two Eros is possible only if they are in harmony, also in the sense of the correct alternation of the seasons and the state of the atmosphere that is beneficial for humans. “The properties of the seasons depend on both of them. When the principles, heat and cold, dryness and moisture, are mastered by moderate love and they merge with each other judiciously and harmoniously, the year is abundant, it brings health, does not cause much harm. But when the seasons fall under the influence of the unbridled Eros, the rapist Eros, he destroys and spoils a lot." Finally, sacrifices and fortune telling are also acts of love harmony, between people and gods, for this is connected “with the protection of love and its healing.”
A logical continuation of both thoughts expressed in the second and third speeches is found in the fourth speech - the speech of Aristophanes. Aristophanes composes a myth about primitive existence in the form of both men and women, or ANDROGYNS. Since these people were very strong and plotted against Zeus, the latter cuts each androgyne into two halves, scatters them throughout the world and forces them to eternally seek each other to restore their former fullness and power. Therefore, Eros is the desire of dissected human halves towards one another for the sake of restoring integrity: “Love is the thirst for integrity and the desire for it.”
Aristophanes' speech is one of the most interesting examples of Plato's myth-making. In the myth created by Plato, both his own fantasies and some generally accepted mythological and philosophical views are intertwined. The generally accepted romantic interpretation of this myth as a myth about the desire of two souls for mutual union has nothing in common with Plato's myths about monsters, divided in half and eternally thirsting for physical union. One can agree with the interpretation of K. Reinhard, who sees in him the desire for the ancient integrity and unity of man, purely physical, instead of the divinely beautiful integrity with its ascent from the body to the spirit, from earthly beauty to the highest idea.
The general result of the first four speeches boils down to the fact that Eros is the primordial world integrity, calling loving couples to unity on the basis of their irresistible mutual attraction and the search for universal and blissful serenity.
Further development of this position required the concretization of Eros as a purely vital human aspiration, and secondly, its interpretation using a general philosophical method, not even limited to natural philosophy.
Agathon, unlike previous speakers, lists individual specific essential properties of Eros: beauty, eternal youth, tenderness, flexibility of the body, perfection, his non-recognition of any violence, justice, prudence and courage, wisdom both in the musical arts and in the generation of all living things, in all arts and crafts and in the ordering of all the affairs of the gods.
But the more detailed the various outlandish properties of Eros are considered, the greater the need to present them in synthetic form, so that they flow from a single and immutable principle. This is precisely what Socrates does in his sixth speech, armed with a much more complex method than natural philosophy, namely the method of transcendental dialectics. For the most complete understanding of this speech, it is necessary to understand Plato’s point of view in order to clearly imagine all the unproved for us, but for those times the most obvious prerequisites, in the presence of which only it is possible to grasp the logical sequence of Socrates’ concept. These premises boil down mainly to the ancient CONTEMPLATIVE, but at the same time to the REAL ONTOLOGISM, which, when applied to the most innocent logical constructions, immediately turns them into mythology.
The first stage of this dialectic is that every phenomenon (and therefore Eros) has its own subject. And if something strives for something, then it partly already has it (namely in the form of a goal), partly it does not yet have it. Without this having and not having, no aspiration can exist at all. This means that Eros is not yet beauty itself, but is something intermediate between beauty and ugliness, between blissful fullness and ever-seeking poverty, which is what is said in the prologue of Socrates’ speech. The nature of Eros is middle; he is the son of the heavenly Poros (Wealth) and Penia (Poverty) - says Plato's myth. This myth, however, is far from the naivety of primitive thinking and is only a poetic illustration of that dialectical unity of opposites, without which Eros itself as an aspiration is impossible. This myth also testifies to Plato’s contemplative-material ontologism.
What follows is the simplest concept: the goal of Eros is the mastery of good, but not just any particular good, but every good and eternal possession of it. And since eternity cannot be mastered immediately, it is only possible to master it gradually, i.e. conceiving and generating something else in its place, which means that Eros is love for eternal generation in beauty for the sake of immortality, for generation both physical and spiritual, including love for poetic creativity and social and state legislation. Everything living, while it is alive, strives to generate, for it is mortal, and it wants to establish itself forever. But Plato, of course, cannot remain on the basis of such a simple and abstract conclusion. If love always strives to generate, then, he argues, there is eternity, for the sake of the embodiment of which only all the creations of love, physical and non-physical, exist. In this argument, contemplative-material ontology again clearly appears.
The famous hierarchy of beauty also arose here, which became popular for millennia. At first we like physical bodies. However, one can talk about a given body only when there is an idea of the body in general. The physical body, taken by itself, according to Plato, is inert and motionless, but since in reality all bodies are active and mobile, there must be a principle that moves them; and the beginning is already incorporeal, non-physical. For Plato, as for all of antiquity, such a self-motivating principle was what was called the soul. Without this prerequisite, the thinkers of that time did not allow life and existence at all, although they defined the essence of the soul in different ways. The soul moves and moves everything else. In contrast to it, there is also something motionless, just as White color suggests black, top suggests bottom, etc. This immovable thing in the soul is nothing more than science, and all sciences presuppose for themselves the same eternal and immovable object, which they are called upon to realize. The hierarchical sequence in the theory is as follows: from one beautiful body to all bodies, from here to beautiful souls, from souls to sciences and from individual sciences- to the limit of all sciences, to the idea of beauty, which is no longer subject to any changes, but exists eternally and unchangeably. Contemplative-material ontologism forces Plato here too to teach about the limit of all sciences as the eternal and immovable idea of beauty. With this, Plato again slips from a purely logical path to the path of mythology, and his ultimate idea of beauty, proven by him with complete logical impeccability, suddenly appears in a new, not entirely logical light. The doctrine of the eternal and ideal kingdom of beauty appears, with which not every logician will agree and which cannot do without an axiomatic mythology of beauty, albeit unproven for Plato, arising on the basis of unrestrained contemplative-substantial ontologism. Thus, it is necessary to separate Plato’s logically impeccable proofs from illogical mythology, although in this teaching of Plato about the eternal idea of beauty there is no such separation of logic and mythology at all. And in reality, of course, there is more than just mythology here. This is a mythology that is not naive and pre-reflective, but which has already been constructed logically, dialectically, transcendentally. Later, Kant's transcendentalism aimed to formulate the conditions for the possibility of thinking about certain objects. This is how it turns out for Plato: in order to think about a body, one must already have the concept of a body, in order to think about the concept of a body, one must already have the concept of a soul, and in order to think about the idea of a soul, one must think about the idea in itself. This is the real TRANSCENDENTALISM, and even rather dialectical, and the ideas are objective. Plato conceives of a certain a priori ideal nature, which for the first time makes possible an a posteriori sensual nature. This proves the truth of the statement that Platonism is objective idealism.
However, the seventh speech in the Symposium, namely the speech of Alcibiades, does not allow Plato’s teaching to be reduced to abstract conceptual objective idealism. Alcibiades' philosophical concept is that in addition to the usual coincidence of internal and external, subjective and objective, ideal and real, life also forces us to recognize their unusually diverse and vitally colorful inconsistency. Socrates, it would seem, is an ideal sage who only knows what he designs various kinds logical categories of objective idealism. Alcibiades compares Socrates to the Silenians and the satyr Marsyas. Socrates uses speeches, not a flute, to captivate his listeners, forcing people to live in a new way and be ashamed of their unseemly actions. Socrates is unusually physically resilient, courageous and brave - this is evidenced by his heroic behavior in war. Socrates also has an incomparable personality. To a large extent, Socrates is like that, both historically and in the image of Alcibiades. And yet, all this Socratic-Platonic transcendental dialectic and mythology is given in the form of an extremely deep and acute universal irony, which perfectly proves to us that Plato is not just an objective idealist, but also a very passionate, contradictory, eternally searching nature. Objective idealism, as it is given in the Symposium, in addition to the transcendental-dialectical doctrine of ideas, is permeated from beginning to end with a painfully sweet feeling of life, in which the ideal and the material are hopelessly confused and mixed - sometimes even to the point of complete indistinguishability. This is also confirmed by the seemingly random remark of Socrates that the true creator of tragedy must also be the creator of true comedy, which is not just a random aphorism of Plato, but is the true result of the entire philosophy of ideas in the Symposium.
Central to The Feast is the problem of the MIDDLE. Namely, “correct opinion” is something between knowledge and sensuality. In the Symposium there is not only a mention of it, but the problem of Eros is interpreted here directly as the same problem of correct opinion. Consequently, what is new in the concept of Eros is that “knowledge” and “doxa” are accepted here much richer and more fully, because here is not just “knowledge” and “doxa”, but what can be called “feeling”, “emotion”, etc. In "The Symposium", although not in a very explicit form, there is a problem of the connection between knowledge and sensibility, terminologically fixed as the problem of the middle. The novelty of the “Feast” in this regard lies in the fact that both named spheres are given as one, single and indivisible sphere, in which it is no longer possible to distinguish between one and the other. Knowledge is so closely united with sensuality that their complete identity is obtained. From Poros and Poros is born Eros, who is no longer either Poros or Poros, but that in which both of them were identified. All possible opposites were united here into one integral life, into one total generation, into one becoming identity. It is here that the transcendental method first reaches its maturity; and the meaning that it is called upon to unite with reality only here for the first time becomes DYNAMIC MEANING, creative dynamics, an active sum of infinitesimal increments. Becoming Eros, dynamic synthesis, eternal potency and integrity, eternal generativity and intelligent aspiration - this is the result of Platonism at this stage.
The problem of unifying knowledge with sensibility, as well as ideas with being, is essentially a problem of SYMBOL. Transcendental philosophy provides a genetically semantic interpretation of the symbol. In the Symposium, as in the Theaetetus and Meno, the transcendental evolution of symbolism is clearly visible. From now on, Platonism is for us a fundamental and final symbolism with a different philosophical nature of the symbol, and at this stage of Plato’s philosophical development we find the SYMBOL as a transcendental principle. This is the philosophical content of Plato's Symposium.
APOLLODOROUS AND HIS FRIEND
I think I am sufficiently prepared for your questions. The other day, when I was walking into the city from home, from Faler, one of my acquaintances saw me from behind and playfully called out to me from afar.
“Hey,” he shouted, “Apollodorus, resident of Phalerus, wait a minute!”
I stopped and waited.
Apollodorus,” he said, “but I was just looking for you to ask about that feast at Agathon’s, where Socrates, Alcibiades and others were, and to find out what kind of speeches were made there about love.” One person told me about them from the words of Phoenix, the son of Philip, and said that you also know all this. But he himself could not really say anything, and therefore tell me about all this - after all, it is more fitting for you to convey the speeches of your friend. But first tell me whether you yourself were present at this conversation or not?
And I answered him:
Apparently, the one who told you really didn’t tell you anything really, if you think that the conversation you’re asking about happened recently, so I could have been there.
Yes, that’s exactly what I thought,” he answered.
What are you saying, Glaucon? - I exclaimed. - Don’t you know that Agathon hasn’t lived here for many years? And since I began to spend time with Socrates and made it a rule to take note of everything he says and does every day, not even three years have passed. Until then, I wandered wherever I could, imagining that I was doing something worthwhile, but I was pathetic, like any of you - for example, like you are now, if you think that it is better to do anything but philosophy.
Rather than laugh at us,” he replied, “better tell me when this conversation took place.”
“During our childhood,” I answered, “when Agathon received a reward for his first tragedy, the day after he celebrated this victory with a sacrifice along with the Horevites.
It turns out it was a long time ago. Who told you about this, was it not Socrates himself?
No, not Socrates, but the same one who gave Phoenix - a certain Aristodemus from Cidafin, so small, always barefoot; he was present at this conversation, because he was then, it seems, one of the most ardent admirers of Socrates. However, I asked Socrates himself about something, and he confirmed his story to me.
So we had a conversation about this along the way: that’s why I feel, as I already noted at the beginning, quite prepared. And if you want me to tell you all this, let it be your way. After all, I am always immensely glad to have the opportunity to conduct or listen to philosophical speeches, not to mention the fact that I hope to derive some benefit from them; but when I hear other speeches, especially your usual speeches of the rich and businessmen, melancholy attacks me, and I feel sorry for you, my friends, because you think that you are doing something, but you yourself are just wasting your time. You, perhaps, consider me unhappy, and I admit that you are right; but that you are unhappy is not something I admit, but I know for sure.
You are always the same, Apollodorus: you always vilify yourself and others and, it seems, you consider absolutely everyone except Socrates worthy of regret, and yourself first and foremost. Why they called you possessed, I don’t know, but in your speeches you really are always like this: you attack yourself and the whole world, except Socrates.
Well, how can I not rage, my dear, how can I not lose my temper, if this is my opinion both about myself and about you.
There's no point in arguing about this now, Apollodorus. Better fulfill our request and tell us what kind of speeches were made there.
They were roughly of this kind... But I will try, perhaps, to tell you everything in order, just as Aristodemus himself told me.
So, he met Socrates, washed and wearing sandals, which rarely happened to him, and asked him where he was dressed up like that. He replied:
For dinner at Agathon's. Yesterday I ran away from the victory celebration, frightened by the crowded gathering, but promised to come today. So I dressed up to show up handsomely to the handsome man. Well, you,” he concluded, “would you like to go to the feast without an invitation?”
And he answered him:
As you order!
In this case,” said Socrates, “let’s go together and, in a change to the saying, we will prove that “to worthy people a worthy person comes to a feast without being called.” But Homer not only distorted this saying, but, one might say, violated it. Portraying Agamemnon as an unusually valiant warrior, and Menelaus as a “weak spearman,” he forced the less worthy Menelaus to appear uninvited to the more worthy Agamemnon when he was sacrificing and giving a feast.
Having heard this, Aristodemus said:
I’m afraid that it will not turn out my way, Socrates, but rather Homer’s, if I, an ordinary person, come without an invitation to the sage’s feast. Will you be able to somehow justify yourself by bringing me? After all, I won’t admit that I came uninvited, but I will say that you invited me.
“If we are making the journey together,” he objected, “we will discuss what to say.” Went!
After exchanging these words, they set off on their way. Socrates, indulging in his thoughts, lagged behind all the way, and when Aristodemus stopped to wait for him, he ordered him to go ahead. Arriving at Agathon's house, Aristodemus found the door open, and then, according to him, something funny happened. A slave immediately ran out to him and took him to where the guests were already reclining, ready to start dinner. As soon as Agathon saw the newcomer, he greeted him with these words:
And, Aristodemus, you came at the right time - you’ll have dinner with us. If you are on some business, then put it off until another time. After all, I was already looking for you yesterday to invite you, but I couldn’t find you anywhere. Why didn’t you bring Socrates to us?
And I,” Aristodemus continued, “turned around, and Socrates, I saw, was not following; I had to explain that I myself came with Socrates, who invited me here to dinner.
“And he did well to come,” the owner answered, “but where is he?”
He just came in here after me, I myself can’t understand where he went.
Come on,” Agathon said to the servant, “look for Socrates and bring him here.” And you, Aristodemus, position yourself next to Eryximachus!
And the servant washed his feet, that he might lie down; and the other slave, meanwhile, returned and reported: Socrates, they say, turned back and is now standing in the entryway of a neighboring house, but refuses to answer the call.
“What nonsense are you talking about,” said Agathon, “call him more insistently!”
But then Aristodemus intervened.
No need, he said, leave him alone. It’s his habit to go somewhere aside and stand there. I think he will appear soon, just don’t touch him.
Well, let it be your way,” said Agathon. - And for the rest of us, you servants, please treat us! Give us whatever you want, because I have never placed any overseers over you. Consider that I and everyone else are invited to dinner, and please us so that we cannot praise you enough.