|
|
The Symposium
|
|
PLATO
|
- B. 427, d. 348 BCE
- lived almost entirely in Athens
- an associate of Socrates
- founded the Academy in 385; the Academy did not
close its doors until the 6th century CE
- much of Plato's work is composed in dialogue form,
which does not give straightforward analysis like a
treatise; early dialogues present Socrates as the
questioner who "doesn't know"; middle dialogues, such as
the Symposium, evince a shift with the
introduction of a theory of forms, which does provide a
kind of absolute, final answer (though it can be accessed
only indirectly).
- Plato is known for his theory of forms or 'ideas',
the absolute essence that lies behind the material realm.
Human sense perception can perceive only distorted
material "shadows" of the real (the forms); through
philosophy one may attain to a closer apprehension of the
form, but not yet a direct apprehension.
|
|
INTRODUCTION
|
- Observe the techniques of distancing the reader
from the "actual" (though they are fictional) events and
speeches:
- Time: the symposium occurred "long ago" in 416
BCE; the account is supposedly provided by a certain
Apollodoros in 406-400 BCE; the dialogue was probably
written between 385-378 BCE.
- Sources: the internal (and external) auditor
hears the speeches only at third remove: the actual
speeches filtered through Aristodemos, who was there,
and filtered again through Apollodoros, who was not
there.
- Speakers>Aristodemos>Apollodorus>Plato>reader
- Pay attention to the gentle but humorous depiction
of Socrates' tendency to become 'lost in thought', so
that he arrives late to the drinking party.
- Since a symposium was not only a place to perform
poetry or speeches about love but was also a place to
pursue erotic attachments, we should pay attention to
exchanges of various kinds between the participants as
well as to the content of the speeches themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
PHAEDRUS
|
- Eros is the best guide to virtue; the lover
inspired by eros will be inspired to display
courage leading to self sacrifice:
- Three mythological exempla (all flawed
in one respect or another): Alcestis, Orpheus,
Achilles
|
|
|
|
|
PAUSANIAS
|
- Distinction between two kinds of love: heavenly
love/Aphrodite and common love/Aphrodite (derived from
two myths about the origin of Aphrodite)
heavenly love
- comes only from the male and pertains
only to men;
- exclusively homosexual (male-male)
- more spiritual;
- not directed toward little boys (from
whom one can derive only sexual gratification)
but toward slightly older youths with whom an
intellectual relationship can be fostered;
- Aim is moral improvement
|
common love
- indiscriminately takes male or female
objects
- physical love whose goal is sexual
gratification
- produces regeneration
|
- Contemporary (not mythological) exempla:
- Boeotia/Elis: man-boy love is indiscriminately
approved, which show they are not intellectual enough
to think with sophistication about it
- Ionia/Persia: man-boy love is indiscriminately
disapproved, which shows that tyrannical forms of
government can't tolerate deep spiritual bonds
(witness the tyrannicides/lovers Harmodius and
Aristogiton)
- Athens/Sparta: society encourages the
erastes, but puts obstacles in his way and
discourages the eromenos from giving in. Why?
To weed out the merely common love from the
heavenly.
- QUESTION: Do you think Pausanias satisfactorily
accounts for the sexual element in his argument? Put
another way, in his defense of pederasty, does he
adequately integrate the sexual and intellectual
aspects?
- OBSERVE that, while sex with women or with one's
wife is not ruled out, and even affection for a woman is
not ruled out, women are eliminated from these 'higher
forms' of physical/intellectual bonding because of a
pervasive notion that women were intellectually inferior
and thus not capable of the kind of bonding idealized in
man-boy love.
- OBSERVE: Aristophanes has the hiccups during the
final part of Pausanias' speech. What might be the
significance of this?
|
|
|
|
