Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sheffield - Ethics of Desire - Alcibiades (Symposium)

    Uploaded by

    danolmo
    9 views24 pages
    F. Sheffield - Ethics of Desire - Alcibiades (Symposium)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    F. Sheffield - Ethics of Desire - Alcibiades (Symposium)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views24 pages

    Sheffield - Ethics of Desire - Alcibiades (Symposium)

    Uploaded by

    danolmo
    F. Sheffield - Ethics of Desire - Alcibiades (Symposium)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    “he aim of the Onford Classical Monograph series (which replaces the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish Plato’s Symposium: Sookewoncke gens Seana Se . : Ings ane loopy sani! y te Rey Bou The Ethics of Desire Classis. FRISBEE C. C, SHEFFIELD OXFORD 182 Socrates Spec Concern for Otherst ands embody then ofthe they ay be vad fr te see ite or heir ae ina pur ofthe fom, Parte, Fought pps he nent andthe Toason the lsophers seat ot princes appropriate tan scout of 0s argued Sheth metry ture ee soget egpgement wih ters in tree of pide Contemplation a the frm may not req wmeu pebn, bat our asus nay egw oe eling {fa dui iv ors and fo communicate bck om the vine fem oth eam af man concer, And fone ee oe the (Soyo vie form inthe werd around us mote cea. then that word willbe worthy of ere and wl sd appear more ‘tua resus One wil, one imagines became a beter ier nan eps) el orifatshi th Sie arcto play lente moral edsation of he young a many Of in previous spears add, then ach elatnships mst Be Ltd dean understanding of tos thing tht are enn val 22 for buman i tloves are to pay such aoe happy and Aohing ity then they mus pore and kro those tgs that te aly etl and conduct or hapins. This isthe Kind Face pull posse by hose who ave pat hiro sols in re ft 6 ‘Nothing to do with Human Affai Alcibiades’ Response to Socrates Inthe last chapter I explored an issue that has been seen to ative from Socrates’ account, about the nature of the philosopher’ en- agement with others. At the end of Chapter 4 I raised a further {query about the character ofthe philosophical if: To what extent is ita distinctively human fet Would Aristophanes thwarted interec: tion at the end of Socrates’ speech perhaps have been thatthe ascent toa divine state of wisdom is a hubristic overtepping of our mortal natures (compare his description of an anabasis at 1908 with 21le1)? For in his speech an ascent to the divine led to punishment bythe gods. Friendship with the gods resides in recognizing the limits of the human (193b3-4). These twa issues are related. For if the godlike philosopher involves himself with other persons and not just the divine form, then we have good reason to suspect that Ine leads a characteristically human life in, at leas, thie respect. But since Socrates has taken er0s to new intellectual and theological heights, we may want to know mote, like Aristophanes (2125). ‘We are given litte opportunity to reflect upon the relationship with the divin form of beauty and the gods, and no time for Aristophanes toairhis point, Take meto Agathon, we hear a drunken voice bellow inthe background, It is Alcibiades, who will provide the answer to this query in his speech about Socrates. Or so I shall argue in this chapter ° Ariopanes may aio be rng feu, o Sorte rebut of hi cin sheer pre te kon (208600 Bak instr Soar ego alates ‘nthe ct ht we pre thc appnet hrc the dvs tes pot te Inst corned 184 ‘Nothing todo with Human Afi?” Alcibiades arrives crowned with ivy and violets, drunk and supported by a train of flute girls. He appears as the very embodi- ‘meat of the Dionysiac forces which, although appropriate to the traditional symposium, have been excluded from this evening’ entertainment? Alibiades offers an encomium of Socrates, though itis leo peppered with blame (22238). Those who focus on Alc ades’ charge of hubris and his use of satyric images argue that his speech undermines that of Socrates by offering us a new and quite diferent truth about evs, based on the experience ofa particular individual who suffered asa consequence of the abstract and distant e708 of the philosopher» Alibiades is appropriately embodied as Dionysus because he isto reintroduce those elements of mortal life denigrated as ‘mortal trash’ by the distinctively other-worldly phil sophicalerds depicted by Socrates. Read in this way, Pato leaves the reader with a disturbing vision of philosophical eas, whereby one must ehoose between the pursuit ofan abstract ideal and engagement jn human affairs. But others have argued that philosophical ers is positively celebrated inthe final speech. The speech is designed to show Socrates as the embodiment of philosophical ers outlined in his own speech, a reading which makes good sense of the praise, in particulars Any interpretation ought to take account of the mixture of insights, by a man wo says he wil speak nothing but the truth (21410-21501, 21622, 21762-3, 219€2, 220e4), and ofthe present tion of those insights by a figure who embodies Dionysus and charges Socrates with hubris” In this chapter, I argue that the ‘mixture of abuse and praise for Socrates, most centrally seen in the Nines downs eit nia (214), His runkenes apart i he langage of te ser be repetie ulus ad oer demons fot ‘ple he iene be acres Sorat st Eras 3219884 2d STIS wih Dickey (199615 1167 a "Nothing todo ith Human Afi? 1s, supposed objection that philosophical eds has ‘nothing to ‘do with ‘human affirs'* The pursuit of immortal thoughts takes place very _much within the context of a distinctively human character and life 1, ALCIBIADES' SPEECH; ASATYRIC DRAMA Socrates himself characterizes Alcibiades’ speech as a ‘satyric or Silenic drama’ (22243~4). This clearly refers, a the very least, 0 the portrayal of Socrates asa satyrie character, but satyric drama also ‘means ‘satyr play’ and eading the speech with thsi mind wil allow us to appreciate the particular tone ofthe speech, The claim will not bbe that Alcibiades’ speech i itslf«satyric drama in any substantial ‘sense, but tha it exploits aspects ofthe genze of sayric drama, both inits characterization of Socrates, and in its tone, Establishing a case {or this reading will lay out the necessry groundwork forthe claim that the speech works closely together with that of Socrates, and in ¢ ‘way that does not undermine is central themes Although tle is known with any certainty about the detail ofthe satyr play its introduction as the final ofthe tragitd didaskaia was believed to have been a response to the fact that tragedies had ‘nothing to do with Dionysus’? The satyr play, with its east of lewd and lusty attendants of Dionysus, was the most obviously Bacchic element Akibiades drunken entrance with a tain of flute gts, a satyie topos. can be taken to indicate the satyic tone ofthe specch Since satyr plays formed the finale atthe tragic competitions they ‘often drew on the plot structure of the previous tragedies. Not only were thematic links common practice, but the language ofthe play often closely resembled that of waged), although for humorous Purposes it was modified into a more contemporary idiom. We fm much the same ya ay play was a sponse othe that agin br oting odo with Die ™ » According he peste Chamaon in is mvograph on Ths fi 38), bluse Web ee Ston 1980) 16) a eco (19K 12 facing (197) 9 ston (980) 128 19, 6 1 Sat 1980) 12,6; Eseing (1997) 38, 186 “Nothing to do with Human firs? now of atleast twelve such satyr plas, sx of which show thematic connections with the previous tragedies.” Since we only have fone complete satyr play—Furipides” Cyelops—and roughly half of ‘Sophocles’ Tracers (Ichneut) with no preceding tragedy cjce with ‘which to compare either of them, the precise nature of those links remains speculative. But the evidence suggests the themes were revis- ited ina different spirit by means ofa juxtaposition ofthe heroic and the comic, which generated s humorous incongruity? The sty play ‘mixed together the spoudaion proper to tagedy and the phaulon proper to comedy. Lissarague writes about the satyr pla as follows: ‘The recipe is as fllows: ake one myth, ad says, observe the result The joke is one of incongruity, which generates a serie of surprises... Tagedy pose fundamental question about the lations between mortals and gods, frit reflects on sch eiou sue ae sacrifice, war marvage, ol Saye ‘rama by contrast plays with cure Bist by distancing it and then eco- structing it through its anitypes, the says. It does not seek 9 sere a ontovesy, nor bring man face to face with is ft or the ods Irpays ina Aierent key, withthe displacement, ditorton and reversal of what const- tutes the woud and ultre of men; it teineoduces distance and risers Dionysos in the cene ofthe theater “The tragic themes were played out ‘in a diferent key" If Aleibiades? speech isa sayric drama, then we should expect a revisitation of, themes from Socrates speech. The first task, then sto establish that theresa relationship between the two speeches, and then to examine the natute of this revsitaton. For the sake of clarity I willis the ‘numerous points inthe speech which directly mieror the portrayal of ‘ers im Socrates speech. Sv 1988) 21-4 2 Soon (38) "Ons decgon of wage and oy ete, ea, 18s, tabtiay Ont! gy nd ome ey. ‘Shines Pe 50 wenn 123 1,8 ne Cy 90) 8 atop 90] bce ag (99 a © Lee (at 288s near eps were olen ¢ mas co expr hee rong ene i Ta sf eto, Sint ofucchaacer we sppnina oer srorener eek ‘tt for ape en nd plage Sr ara 1O9) Says) ayo te pl vss en ed by Modi cf ive, Pilghumene v8 Gacy Fenn Conca re nga St Pin Mac re 186,23 wi ly CD) 3 “Nothing todo with Human Affairs? 187 Description of ros’ nature (S)—Aeibiades’ portrayal of Socrates (A) (18) Bros as shoeless (drumdBros, 20341) (1A) Socrates as shoeless(ZevmiBrr0s, 22086) (2:5) “[Bros| is a schemer after the besutiful and the good! (GriBownés dor ris sada wal rats dyadeis, 2034-5) (2A) ‘Socrates is always in love with beautiful young men and is always around them’ (uxpdeys dpurais ulwerras ry seahiv wai del mepl rosrovs dort, 21642-3) (8:5) ‘(Bros always weavingnew plans (def roas mdmen pngondss 2036) HA) ‘youve planned to get a place on the couch next to the most beautiful person’ (Sugenanjow Brus rap x wedNony nav évBov waraxsien, 2134-3) (4:8) [Eros] isa lover of wisdom (ponjoca dmfeyyris, 20346) |A) Socrates stood there all day thinking (2 Zalwov povriGan 7 darmue, 2067) (6: 8) Bos isa clever sorcerer, wickster, and sophist (Bavés yéns al dapnaxeis wai oopiaris, 20348) (5: A) Socrates spellbinding logo (axed rats dipdinous, mendes denhrre, 215 Hh) (6:8) Brosis resourceful (nipyues... drav ebnoptoy, 2032) (6A) Socrates is resourceful (eindpus wad mBuwdy Aéyew ype, 22328) (7:8) Bros as a daimon (Sadi péyas, 202413) (9A) Socrates asa demonic man (sony ip Bayowign 2191). Highest Mysteries of er (S]—Alcbiades' portrayal of Socrates (A) (1:5) The ites of ros the Saja (rekerds,203al)—The Mysteries of es (rd rea al erent, 210-12) (1: A) Socrates’ Adyor reveal those who are in need of the gods and their_mystries (Slat rods rw Gen re wad rend Beonévovs, 2153-5) (2:5) Theamazing beauty of the form (Goxyaordr rv dew wade, 210e4-5) (2:4) The amazing and divine beauty inside Socrates (€bofor Bre Beta xa! ajo, 21686-217al) 188 ‘Nothing todo with Huma Affi?” (2:5) The philosopher searches for educative Ajyoe (2101-4) (G:A) Socrates’ Aéyou are of the greatest importance for anyone who wants to become a traly good man" (22281-6) (4:8) The philosopher will ‘relax this passionate love for one ‘body, despising it and thinking it a small thin’ (xaradpoe sjourra, 21068) (4A) Socrates doesnot care whether person is beautiful or rich oF famous (naraggovein, 216d-e, with xaragporeiv at 2198), ‘These parallels confirm that in the second spesch we ae revisiting themes from the first and thatthe Socrates of Alcibiades speech is the embodiment of the philosophical eras described in his own speech.” Socrates is the shoeess, needy lover who schemes afer the good and beautiful things he lacks. His needy nature is also resourceful; he is always weaving new devices, and isa spellbinding ‘magician with ogo. He reveals those who are in need of the mysteries ‘of philosophy and possesses the inner beauty of one who knows how to become a truly good man. ‘This embodiment of philosophical erds is reconstructed in [Aleibiades’ speech through the images of satyr and Slenus, images that play out the philosopher’ atebues ina different key. The most ‘obvious reconstruction of philosophical ersis through the image of Silenus with which Alibiades begins and ends his speech, 1 declare shat (Socrates) i most ike those Silents tht sit inthe statuary shops, the ones the craftsmen mak, with pipes raul, and when you open them up by taking them apart, they tues out to have statues of goin them. declare too, that he ke the sate Marsyas: Now that you ae Ike them in your physical appearance, not even you, Soerates imagine, woud iste; but what you are going to ear next show you resemble the in eveything ese oo (2156-66) “The image of the Silenus statues to be ‘opened up’ by Alibiades points to a contrast between an accessible appearance and a hidden nner nature, Alibiades uses this image as part of hie claim that nobody rally knows Socrates (216c7-dl). Iti the incongruity be tween how Socrates appears—as a lowly, comic character—and his Bury (1982) 5, Osborne (1594) 96-7, ad Rowe 18984) 26 "Nothing todo with Human Affi?” 189 beautifil inner nature that generates a humorous collision between the comic and the serious so characteristic ofthe styr play! Socrates’ appearance is notoriously ugly (215a5). The satyes area fitting figuration of this ugliness, perhaps because they, 100, were often portrayed as snub-nosed and with protruding eyes (as well as bearded and goatsh).¥ Although Socrates’ ugliness was a notori- ously comic aspect ofthe philosopher, Alcibiades is not much inter- «sted in his physical appearance here. The contrast he forges between tan appearance and a hidden nature is not primarily a contast berween Socrates’ physical looks and an inner beauty; the interest lis inthe way in which Socrates is like the satys ‘in everything els’ too (215b6). On the one hand, Socrates appears lusty sty who lacks and schemes after the beauty he finds in others (213c, 216d, see also Charm. 154c, Prt 308a, Gr. 4814). But on a dexper level things are very different He contains within himself a wondrous and divine inner Beauty (xa! uot ZBager ores Bia wal xpvedefvas wal yao seal @aynord, 21607-2172), described here in language which echoes the description of the form of beauty (Baspaarir rip $low xadés, 2i0e, with +8 Bow xadév at 21163). This lacking lover is also the very embodiment of the beauty he manifestly lacks on the outside, He is the man with outstanding sophrosune who disdains (xaraggovir) ‘the physical beauty of the iresistible Alcibiades (219e-<)sa man with sufficient endurance to withstand extremes of alcohol and cold ‘weather (220al-5): man whose courage on the battlefield at Potidea (219e6-220e?) and Deium (220e7-221el) should have won him honours in the city had it not been for his disdain (earaggoreir again) of such things (216e1-5 with 220e3-5). Just ike the Silenus ‘Statues which open up to reveal images ofthe gods inside, ifyou open up this apparenty phauos aner there is a spoudaios aner within, ° whi Sarton (1980) 162 ad Lisargue 190] 26. The esos beeen ‘heserious apd he comics fe, bt ot aay dae spree he bere {he word fhe ety fo ample I usp Cylp In Bares Seas ta {evi exes in ones the same india it dota the ct of Soa ‘Shon 1980) Tle One sald be wny of pring tht the sys our es enced primary though the conn bern he eo ates fs ‘Boucher endian smbigoar ponton been te palo she ua “Fors aaks se Suton (1080) 15 Scat ay ie ao so Xen som. 190 "Nothing to do with Human Affairs? ‘The contrast between the phaulon and the spoudaion i also app- arent in Alcibiades description of Socrates’ logo. These loo, to, ate Tike the Silenus statues which open up: their outer coating i like “some mischief-making Satyr’ skin’ (221¢3), He talks continually of, ppack-ases and blacksmiths, cobblersand tanner, an isalways being ionic and plying with people (elpuvewjeos 88 wal raion, 216e4), Moreover, ‘he is ignorant of everything and knows nothing? (gvoci ndvna eal oi8ey ofBex, 21643). On the one hand, Socrates’ goi—like his persona—appear to some to be ridiculous, or comic (2142: feveter de névw yeloion 28 mpiron, 221e6-222a1: Gore arepos wa dvdyros épumos wis dy ri Nyuv warayedioeer, see also 2134). Socrates’ logo’ appear to be those of phaulos ax, ‘one who is completely ignorant and goes around exposing his own need and the needs of others such as Alcibiades (216a4-6). Such logoi expose deficiency in their listeners and make others fel ashamed for neglecting the things of the greatest importance (216a5, 62). These tare lowly logoi inasmuch as they consist in discussion of lowly characters (pack-ases and blacksmiths, cobblers and tanners), and ‘because they bring people down, and make himself and others appear foolish (even his victorious hos, as we have seen). But on the other hand, these logo! are also resourceful and permuasive (22338), If one relly listens, one will find them worthy of serious atention one were ose (the yor being opened up, and ge inside them—then frst of alone wil in tha they ae the onl ome, ofthe things ome het that have intelgence within thems thn that they ate tothe highest degree divin, contain within them the gretxtnusaber of statues of virtue, and have the grestest reach or rahe, hat they extend to everthing that itis appropriate for the man who means to be a person of quality to consider (a2si-6), ‘These very same log’ that cause ridicule should not dismissed as foolish nonsense. They reveal ‘all that is necessary for a good and Deautfl man to know’ (22235-6; see also 216a4, 2171-2), pethaps those very rites of ers of which Socrates says he tres to persuade ‘others ashe himself has been persuaded by Diotima (212b1-7). This same man who goes around talking of pack-asses and cobblers, and aims that he is ignorant of everything—a phalos ar who is a ‘Nothing toda with Human Affairs?” 191 Sing abject for comedy and laughter aoa pda andra tne who worth tow ation We ay hugh, bt we shuld Shree aware ofthe eri and beau dene Trenton the ncongtiy tween an apart baen dan inner testy at gnats the Guster ay humo of th oech but as he ay in which thi dal tre fle toning and dcp fle rere. The Incongry between lw Soca appnt (love) andi den hatte och Ins han cj of ee for ther) genta come en ‘ine the ben oung Aes cats ar the gy, ler Seca When his ine baiy i unmased, oct anor heal ie te altro the wy ply, orn aking oer into bet lore, Aci ares Soca or hs dsepion Which expt tht oes wil nota be eeved (22015) “cher and decpion were prominent eenin any st ply “ett charters, ch a Auf, Odes, Say and Harmer mont notorious ntholopal tesa speed ins py. The prtnyale octet ava dveve ho tant Fimve rm lve tn bubved canbe sen laying on he tyre topo "a marae break that tae the modifi of eros themes character the sty py, Alcide goes ont evel the des of his tempted seduction of Socner a if he were teeing the highest mysron. Abas mimic he tastion Teiwee the lover andthe higher mysteries fom Soca speech wihabreak ins nana between hoe pecs his account hat Can bvtld wo anyone @21722-)-and these he an reed oly 0 he 2» Ics this cofon of seadtonal pede rls ae which male Alls ste an aed sdmaon to thes, which he hopes wil fel {ny pote relsonaip tween Apston abd Sores (220), "a Som wi th ie promot of tha cater type se unt pre dominant ayy san etd the ee he Suton (1980) 1 et et hn yg he mae, en BisEice and Son 9) 31 When Aline tien Socrates wh ge tothe fue paying sll of Mary we eit and enchant the steer he the mags song te Stee (3H8-286) be an be seh aig 8 HS Ink pe Allasio sowing tat Scot arf Be ea a6 tlver agian an rere (2038), i "Nothing to do with Human Afi?” initiated (21863-4, compare with 209e5-210a3). Since Alcibiades ‘was implicated in the profanation ofthe Mysteries which, inciden- tally, was supposed to have taken place at a symposium, Pato gives this moment of parody a particular poignancy. It is not the Elea- sinian Mysteries that Alcibiades is making fun of to his deteiment here, but those of ers, The detals of Alibiades’ attempted seduction of Socrates play With Socrates’ aetiological myth about eres. Penia was described as scheming "because of her lack’ to have a child from the resourceful Poros who lies asleep in the garden of Zeus (ct, émBovdesovea, 20367). She lay down beside Poros and conceived Eror (cf. arawciverat,203cl). Here it is Alibiades who schemes after Soc- rates (2riBoutetu, 2178 @overo, dl; éBovresoas, 2) a8 way of remedying his lack He lies down beside the sleeping Socrates, as Penia lay down with the slumbering Poros (xaraxves, 21967). Socrates’ ample inner beauty reverses the traditional patern of seduction, and makes him an object of deste for others who lack such beauty themselves (222b1-2). It is the beautiful and young Alcibiades who ends up admiring (dycuevoy) this man’s innet beauty—his ouponiin and courage (21964-5). Socrates becomes ‘more of a beloved himself instead of a lover (222b2-3) and Alibi> ades is left confused at having to pose as the lover ofthis ugly old rman, ‘as if Twere an égaaris, plotting to have his way with his sreudind (21767-8), Aleibiades sets up a mock til? where we Socrates’ apparent hubris. ‘This man so muh go the Better of me ook down on me aught my beauty ested it eximiclly~and it was jot that respect that {thought was something. gentlemen ofthe jury; for is upto you to judge Socrates’ arrogance. What sate of mind do you think wa in aer that onthe one hand thinking Fl been homilite on the other loving this man for bit ‘ature, his self-control his oarage, Because Pd come actos a perton with thesort of wisdom and capacity for endurance thought ' never encounter aed) invited 10 judge 2 Natur (1979) 12 "Nothing todo with Humane Afi?” 193 Itisan ironic tis to this scene thatthe hubris often associated with sexual assault” and attributed to the behaviour ofthe lusty sat, is here the result of Socrates’ sephrosuné and sexual abstinence, This character trait was identified in popular Greek culture withthe very opposite of hubris (cf Pir 237¢-8). Judged by Alcibiades’ percep- tions of beauty, Socrates rejection of is advances may well appear unfair, But Socrates asks Alcibiades to rethink his criteria for beauty, and adds that if he realy sees in him an inner beauty ofthe kind he describes, then Alibides” outer Beauty isnot an appropriate barg- ining chip (21885-219a1). With his inner beauty as an object of| deste, Socrates drives a mich harder bargain, The humorous coli- sion between the perception of Socrates’ lowly outer appearance and the admirable qualities that arouse Alcibiades’ deste, provides a good lustration of the strategy of revisiting serious themes in a different sprit, Socrates may appear to be alowiy,hubristic, charac: ter but he embodies the sentiment ofthe correct lover in the ascent ‘who disdains the beauty of the body and thinks ita small thing (21008-6)2 His rejection isnot hubris, but ultimately unmasked 4s temperance and worthy of admiration (219445), ‘The serio-comic manner in which Alcibiades depicts the phil sopher’s virtue is also apparent in is description of Socrate’ courage at Delium. He recalls the army’s retreat ftom Delium, when he was there as a cavalryman and Socrates was there as a hoplite (220¢7-221c1). Inthe retreat, Sorates and Laches got away safely because of Socrates’ composure and acute look-out skis He stood hie ground without fear and effectively dodged the enemy. So we are told from a man with insight into the event. But he appeared quite diferent. The perceptive scouring ofthe battlefield fr the enemy is described —with a direct quotation ftom Aristophanic comedy—as ‘though Socrates were onthe look-out for beautifal young men, ashe ‘goes “swaggering and casting his eyes this way and that (221b3-4 ‘with Clos 362). Again we ate ivited to pereie the virtues ofthis ‘man, from a perspective where Socrates appears as lowly and base, 2 Sep, for eum, Ls 12, Dem. 18. 208 wih Fier (1992) 104-1 Ser ato again (197) yh Ses Thc 4.75, an ado (1976) 17 for he uh. {Stn of har Asap play Sopra he eHub Oi San ee agar (197) 31 38 3° GE ary 198) 1 Dons (980 166 Set (2000; Rowe (1998) 205. 194 ‘Nothing todo with Human Affi?” but isin fact, virtuous: he may swagger around, but he i, nonethe- Jess, resource soldier ‘Whilst on this campsign Socrates stood for many long hours in| thought and agtin aroused the sespicion of his fellow soldiers (21532, 221d2). We are invited to imagine him, infront of a group ‘ofuncomprehending soldiers, who came out to stare at him (2206) Alcibiades invites us to perceive Socrates’ contemplation, as they perceived it, as strange and out of place in this content. The descrip- tion of Socrates contemplating, desirous of the wisdom that eluded him, recalls the description of Eros the eager seeker after wisdom (([Bros] gporfjocas 2vluprfs, 2036-7; [Socrates] 2F dofivod SorriLuw me Zorywes 22067) Socrates may appear odd, but he is engaged in the pursuit of wisdom, The soldiers further thought that Socrates was disdaining them (caragpove again, 2201) by ‘walking barefoot across the ice, when they found it dificult to cross with shoes. But Socrates is not disdsining the soldiers, any more than he was disdaining Alcibiades. Socrates exhibits the barefoot, hardy nature of ros ([Eros] dverdByros, 20341; [Socrates] ‘vunddros, 206) and embodies the sentiment ofthe correct lover of is own speech who disdain the body (xarapoeeis) and thinks it «small thing (21005). We may laugh at his eccentricity, or resent his apparently base disdain, but we should takea second look and catch his beauty: courage and temperance. ‘The serio-comic manner in which Alcibiades explores the virtues ‘of the philosopher is characteristic ofthe way in which satyri dramas ‘exploed serious themes in a different, humorous, spiit2® We ate invited to laugh at the man who wanders around in a state of ignorance talking of pack-asses and cobbler the man who pursues the beauty of the young and yet causes confusion by rejecting their advances, the man who appears eccentric on campaign contem- plating, and disdainfl in his temperance, but this does not serve to undermine Socrates’ character and life, Rather, it returns always to the philosopher’ virtue. And this is what we might expect from the satyric gente. Satyric humour was not designed to lampoon its subjects, or simply to render the serious characters ridiculous, but Alabinder deakennes x appropri here He pec combines sity (alec BiSas ale, 319623, 2102, aed) and comedy (150, ‘Nothing todo with Human Affair? 95 to ‘explore and translate into contemporary idiom the moral issues implicit in the [Homeric] prototype, in much the same way as Alibiades does here Indeed notice that when Alibiades revisits previous themes he explores these ina familiar context of social and {ive lf. We witness the philosophical character engage in elation: ships, on campaign, and in conversation with others. Tis generates the humorous incongruity at various points, for when placed in this context the philosopher is much misunderstood. Ttalso has a point which the ample resonances between Alcibiades ” ‘The satyrs, al-human and half-animal in appearence, manifested « bestial nature, but, on the other hand, they had a privileged telationship wit the divine which showed iselfin the divine insights which Midas sought, fo example, by catching aSilen in his garden. Silenus, acording to some stories, was, in fact, the pedagogue of Dionysus, as Socrates was to this ‘Dionysus character, Alcbiades. ‘The semi-divine Marsyas was associated withthe wisdom and sexual abstinence which are central to Socrates’ portrayal here (cf 222a1~6, 2iVe-d)2 The satyrs themselves were demonic beings and the 2 On theset-comic turf Socrates Rowe (98) 216) Chy (1983) 189, © Hae 8 ct Ser 198) 7 Sef (198) 4, 22 Zanker (1995) 30 Maya wala ces he wl who te paying se oth ated wih pine ap ater, sp bln enchant at reboih buses beat (2501-5) Oa the sigh 98 "Nothing todo with Human Affairs? intimate companions of gods. Since Socrates manifests a similarly ambiguous position in between the lossy and the diving, the says are appropriate models for comparison (2214). Tis misture ofthe lowiy and the divine, the phaulon and the spoudaion, in Socrates nature makes i fitting that Alcibiades employs the very genre whose essence iti to blend together those two categorie. “This serio-comic mixture is designed to embody insights into the nature of philosophical ets. Socrates manifests the complex nature inkerted from Penia and Poros ofthe lacking but resourceful Erts— that demonic being who mediates between ugliness and beauty, Jgnorance and wisdom, poverty and nobility, the human and the divine (201e-202c, 2034-204). Eros is the offpring of the lowiy character Peni, who came begging, uninvited, to the feast of the gods. Asa lowly character, she ia fitting subject for comedy. But the divine Poros i a highbrow character who partakes of the happy life ofthe gods. As the offspring ofthis mixed parentage, Bros is placed ‘between the lowly and the divine, the needy and the resourceful, aporia and euporia. Eros is aware of all that he lacks, and yet able to remedy those deficiencies (204bd-6), just a8 Socrates ix aware of his deficiencies (21643), and yet “esourcefal in finding something persuasive to say’ (xal viv di ebmdps xal mBardr Aor ype, 22339). "To the extent that Socrates is a mixture of the phawlos and the spoudaios he isa fitting subject for both comedy and tragedy. One _mjght ess the idea that the exposure of deficiency is comic, bu itis 1 feature of many so-cilled clenctic dialogues, in particule. In the CCharmides for example, in respons to the aporia about the nature of temperance, Socrates says thatthe inquiry has exposed as useless > Sed (988) 22 ces the allowing Sens Bo as Sdaeordze ry $0, tpion 8 ryan ets dvoy fe Taeop. DS FO 7), st Rabades pour bona chase who cep Ha dnetic Practice and voces the avtebes of lack, sais ¢eestve ape characer Th | ise wit Viasos (9910) 3 that tbe oct f Alsi pect of the Hencc aogucexhaey (CE Buboane ad rit 1900) 109), Th 3 Taher dios aeons tae eth te po tha the Sorta ac {Enlogr doe nat ropoue ther of pote dan wee nig che ‘he Pha and te Rape Ba the pe of Scat set se ‘Aiba decom of Scie the man who kn ht ear fr food and bent man tba (258-9 “Nothing todo with Human Affi? 199 the definition which they presented earlier, and in so doing it has “made fn’ of the truth (6NAd roaabror xareyéhace alvin, 175d-e). Inresponse to the aporiaabout the definition of courage inthe Laches, Socrates suggests that they search forthe best possible teacher ‘and it anyone laughsat us (et 8¢ rs jv warayehdaeras) because we think itworth whileto spend ur time in school at ourage, Ithink weshould confront him with the following phrase, “Modesty isnot a good mate fora needy man” (2014+) Inthe Lysis when the inguiry reaches ‘aporia, Socrates says that ‘we have made fools of ourselves (earayéhaaros yeyéraen, 2238), since they have not been able to find out what a friend is when they are friends with each other. In the Protagoras, Socrates ays that ifthe discussion had a voice it would ‘mock them, and chide both Protagoras and Socrates fr being rid lous (Gore drdpenos warnyopeir re nad arayehiv, 3618-b). The characters involved in the inquiry ate lowiy characters—fitting for ridicule—because they donot know the things ofthe greatest import: ance. But philosophers are no ust eccentric people who expose their deficiencies, and seem to need instruction beyond thei year, but also men who are resourceful, and to that extent beautiful, good, and spoudaio. Philosophers are those who are in between lack and poss- ‘ession, ignorance and wisdom, the phavlon and the spoudaion, the mortal and the divine. They ae not oo puffed up with pride to think themselves to be in possession of the goods ofthe gods, nor are they like the ignorant, They are very much avare oftheir Buman limita- tions, and yet resourceful in pursuit ofa divine ideal. As such they, warrant a genre that combines the comic and the tragic in its presentation ofthe humanity and the divinity of the philosophical fe. Perhaps this isthe reason why the final words of the dialogue are devoted to an argument to convince Agathon and Aristophanes that the man with knowledge is able to write both tragedy and comedy (223d1-5). As many commentators have noted, a natural way t0 imagine the fore of this argument isto suppose that it eflets Plato's view ofthe demanding requirements for a genuine techn, and in so oing it highlights the value of philosophy. But there may be @ GE Th, 174d, hte plsopher dpi of yi daira Se Kao (1988) 10, compares th argument to We ne made more ply inthe on CE Buy 982) and Rave (998) Wield (198), a Cl 200 ‘Noting to do with Hhuman Afi? farther reason that links this final argument more directly to the expressed subject ofthe dialogue. I eros tre nature isin between the lowly andthe divine, andthe spoudaion isa ftting subject for tragedy and the phaulon for comedy, then one vith knowledge of ers in particular, must know how to combine the two.” And these two interlocutor are particularly appropriate ere, For recall that Arsto- pphanes emphasized the lowly nature of er and ts needy nature. He highlighted the particularly human character of ere and exp- essed concern that erds stay inits proper (mortal) place and avoid 4 hubristc ascent to the divine (190c8). Agathon, by contrast, ‘lsimed that Eros was a great god and lovers in a divine state of abundance (19535, 197a1). Socrates” account has explained that ends is in between @ state of lack and possesion, the mortal and the divine, Since eras has this nature, one who understands it must know that it is not just a deficient state fitting for Aristophanic portrayal, nor just an abundant state of communion with the divine, fitting fora priestess or tragedian to poreay. The tre nature of edsis a needy, yet productive aspiration towards a divine state and is best captured by a combination ofthe low and the high, the mortal and the divine, the comic and the tragic. The answer to Aristophanes’ thwarted interjection, then, is embedded in both the form and the content of Aleibiades’speech. Eros has a compound nature, straddled between the mortal and the divine, The gods will not punish those sera te ctenattahaet See creamer eee eros ee Seo ucet ears Seenaeecerster arenas Spas Merieaeececuee fearon icine tah tipacomndanca nearer ratte wet enrages Sane “Nothing todo with Human Affaire” 200 Wino are aware of, and yet try to transcend their moral limitations, for this is what itis to be the distinctively human, desting, beings that we a 3, DEFENDING SOCRATES AS EDUCATOR I Alibiade’spesch captures the true nature of philosophical er we might be left wondering why it is delivered by a notoriously wayward associate ofits stellar practitioner, The use of Alibindes to praise Socrates, andthe emphasis on hs edvcational conversations cannot help but ecall the charge that Socrates corrupted the youth * The praise of Socrates can be seen as an extended version of that section of the defence speech which presents the services of the accused tothe city The fact that such praise is delivered by Alcbi ades providesa rich opportunity to address a remaining and pressing objection to my account: If Socrates was not a distant and uncaring ‘companion, but engaged in human aff, in part, at a concerned tnd resourceful educator, then what went wrong in this case Within the larger context ofthe dialogue defending Socrates as educator is an important part of showing that philosophical erie beneficial and praiseworthy. “The inclusion of Alcibiades is particularly pertinent tothe theme ofthe dialogue, and ot just because of his association with Socrates. Alcibiades was notorious for his wayward eric! Plutarch reports that he carved a shield depicting a thunder-besring Eros in place of the usual ancestral emblem (Alc. 16.1-2) and there are ample reports of bis overbearing sexual appetites. In a dialogue concerned with the correct form ers should take, the inclusion of Alcibiades mast be of particular significance. These associations are recalled when see Bary (982) Robin (198) se ei, Dor (198) 16, and Rowe (Thigh cain vy many f Sacre iv vit ighghd(2285- 12) Gee (1059) 11518 prover ence thatthe encomium pablo "PCL mayan nd dyn (Thue 154 mel noras pour (Pu Ae 16} Woh (1995) 35 202 “Nothing todo with Human Affi?” Alcibiades enters as the embodiment of drunken and lewd behaviour: hh threatens violence (21342), rejects Eryximachus’ plea for justice (214e), and shows an overbearing attachment to Socrates (213415). Alcibiades was also famed for his overbearing desire for honour! This character trait is recalled in the dialogue when Aleibiades explains that itis his desire for honour from the crowd which draws him away from the path of philosophy (216b5). He fils 10 stay with Socrates for fer that he wil grow old beside him and so he stops up his ears to reject the siren song of philosophical conversa tion (216a5-b1). Within the larger context of praise of Socrates as a great educator, the recollection of Alcibiades’ wayward desires can be seen as playing a role inthe exoneration of Socrates, In Socrates’ own speech the central contast between the desiring agents ofthe lover and higher mysteries i that between the love of honour and the love of wiscloms the misguided erds of the former type is ultimately responsible for their failure to produce genuine virtue (ef 2083, 210a-212a). Given Alcibiades’ ov admissions here, it seems ras. ‘onableto assume thatthe love of honour isat least partly responsible for his falure to benefit from Socratic erds Alcibiades filed to evince ‘the necessary commitment tothe philosophical life because he was so ‘enraptured by the values perpetuated by city, and embodied here by ‘Agathon and his peers. Alcibiades’ misguided ers was not fostered by Socrates ‘But we should stil ike to know why the relationship with Socrates failed. After ll, Alibiades was a particularly promising asociate, a talented man of the city who was clearly attracted by what Socrates hnad to offer. Why did philosophical ers fil to get a fr hold on Alcibiades? The ample resonances between the speech of Alcibiades and Socrates invite us to compare Alcibiades’ description of his 1 See oe 163-8 Xen Mew 1212-16 The 5,615, Pht Ale 2116 3-4 ae (199) 57 Te characteristics of AX Bred presi pea. ‘ipo war tetas The dee fr honour we ied by Thue srs reson forthe diets Sil expedton thet eas Ate the na (620 Al ‘ex fares prominent in this exlanation: According wo Thcyes, Fee Pte! bere sored his wat seg and acted want “oe fe foray na iy as ren any mises were ase ha psy he San pee (45.7) tkecomerncesingty Set Tacs ha Alinghi Helwerocatiatacaneof warns fone Sp fd sre Semon (3582 8): Se fre, Wo 199) 3 “Nothing 10 do with Human Affairs? 203 interaction with Socrates with the account of philosophical ers for some answers. Let us turn back to the detail. Alcibiades clearly perceives something valuable about Socrates and desires to reap the benefits of that beauty for himself (219445). This recalls the behaviour of Socrates’ associates at the slart of the dialogue. His appearance of happiness and inner beauty confronts Alcibiades, Apollodorus, Aristoderus, and even Agathon, with something they lack themselves and desire to embody in thir on lives. Aleibiades explains that the perception of Socrates’ beauty makes him fel ashamed for neglecting the things of the greatest importance; in the presence of Sctates, he desies to improve himself (21685). Socrates associates find him (psychicaly) attractive and in associating with hima they hope to reap the benefits ofthat beauty for themselves. In light ofthe account of philosophical er we can now appreciate that these associates have made a promising startin ther attachment toa bbeautifil soul. As the ascent showed, if we are to become beautiful ‘ourselves and achieve the happiness we crave, we need to be drawn towards the right kind ofbeauty (cf 2101), nd to use that attraction san occasion fr reflection upon the sors of things that ae espon- sible forthe creation of beautiful souls. So what went wrong Since Alcibiades reveals the details of his attempted seduction of Socrates as if he were revealing the highest mysteries (cf, 2183-4 ‘with 2095-21098), perhaps ths episode provides the answer. Alc- biades invites Socrates over so that he can reap the benefits of this ‘man's company. He schemes after Socrates (Erifouesan, 2178: eosero, dl; énfounetoas, d2) a8 a way of remedying his lack, and lies down beside the sleeping Socrates (xarashuve/s, 21967). Such etal, a we have seen, recall Socrates’ aetiological myth about eras. Penia was described as scheming ‘because of her lack’ to haves child fiom the resourceful Poros (2riZouleiovaa, 20807); she lay down beside Poros and conceived Eros (carauiverai, 2081). Now the story also explained that wisdom is one ofthe most beautiful things (2odb2-3) and, we lear later, the proper object of ers’ pursuit (212a3-6). Although ths is evidently what Alcbiades desire from Socrates (itis his soul that isthe basis forthe attraction here and not his body, 1944-5), he fis to pursue that wisdom in the appropriate ‘manner. Alcibiades chases Socrates instead and becomes the lover of this man, ‘as if Twere an paar, plotting to have his way with his 204 “Nothing todo with Human Affi?” srasbd’ (217678). Aleibiades desires to exchange his physical arms for those of Socrte’ sou. This isthe opposite step to that Of the comrct lover ofthe ascent (here embodied by Socrates), who ‘isdains the body in favour of te soul (21065-6). On perceiving the beauty of soul one should use this as an occasion for exploring the basis ofthe beaity of soul (2103-4) Tt is only ifone engages in such reflection that one can come to understand the real nature of psychic beauty and so begin to embody that beauty in one’s own life. If Alcibiades thinks that wisdom is the sort of thing that caf! be ‘exchanged for the physical charms of his body then he has not understood what wisdom i, or how one should go about getting it. ‘Socrates reaction here suggests that Alcibiades profanation of the Mysteries of philosophy was to misidentfy its real objec.” His idgltrous ettachment to Socrates prevents Alcibiades ffom making genuine progres towards wisdom and virtue. The transformative potential of ersis thwarted by the manner of Alcibiades’ engagement ‘with Socrates, just as its fr the others. tis not only Akibiades who attaches himself to Socrates and wants to ‘do whatever Socrates told {him} to do’ (217a1)s Aristodemus, too, desires to “do whatever Socrates commande’ (174b1). Arstodemus fllows him around ‘as ‘usual’ (223410) and fils to say a single word (at least any worthy of| remembrance) at this symposium. Apollodorus repeats Socrates’ Conversations (174-5). And Agathon attempts to ‘ay hold of” Soc- rates wisdom (17541, 21922). Apollodorus, Agathon, and Alcibiades Ail make a similar mistake. The eansformative benefits ofan erotic relationship with Socrates are thwarted by ther fixation upon Soc- fates as an individual andthe repository of all that ean make them happy Socrates’ ejection of such associations is not due to a lack of concern on his par, quite the contrary: he urges a relationship of, ‘Shared aspiration towards happiness. Socrates wants to be an occ Alene seeton ofthe Mose fps rings 0 min he a volvement profpaion a ti Bevan Myer, tbe ins eet before {he deprtaeofhe Seian expedition. CE. Nustnum (1979) 132 and . Maroy (Going a9: As Rowe (98) 20 arp, tos contbaton to tis post-war {iSati thtil might not ve tare oo a4 ony Albis had not ‘ote the Nyse pinoy and fcome 2 ve of wisdom ‘am here ace wth Noms (1988) 18 "Nothing to do with Human Affi? 205, sion for a joint search into the nature of beauty (2191 for his response to Alcibiades, 174d3-4 for Aristodemus, 194-5, for the elenchus with Agathon). Socrates’ point is that we need to reflect ‘on our erotic attachments in a way that is conducive tothe acquis tion of good things and happiness. The beauty instantiated by others should urge us to realize our own. To see individual persons, like Socrates, as the repository of all that can make us happy isnot only a heavy burden for them to carry, but its also an abrogation of our own sense of freedom and the possibilty of our own sel realization, Other persons can awaken you to a sense of posibiity—as Socrates evidently does—but we should not be looking to other persons to make us complet, like Aristophanes lovers. Ifthe nature and man: ner of their pursuit of Socrates is responsible for the failure of Socrates’ associates to be improved by him, then the mistake is ultimately exposed asa misunderstanding ofthe nature and role of imterpersonal relationships ina flourishing life. [Now Ido not intend to deny that Alcibiades speech also shows us the difficulties of engaging in the ype of challenging relationship offered by Socrates*# A partner who will readily confront one with deficiencies and continue to urge progress towards self-improvement will be hard work, Regular bouts of appraisal inthe public sphere ‘may wel seem quite tempting. But happines, Socrates urges, i not to be found that way, The goods that will bring us happiness are those of our own soul. None of Socrates associates seems particularly happy. Apoliodorus says that he is wretched, though beter off for knowing he isin such state, and Alcibiades is groping in the dark— “Take me to Agathon!—he bellows; the pun suggests he cannot find his way to the good. The awesome responsiblity of slf-ceation is what Alibaides, Apollodorus, and Agathon are awakened to in their perception of Socrates’ Beauty, bu ultimately rejecting in their fixa- {ion upon him as an individual. Pat, too is playing out this drama asare those of us who spend out time interpreting Socrates. Plato seems fixated upon the figure of Socrates and he is presented to us, especially in this text, as an intensely desirable abject of attraction. But, lke Alcibiades and his peers, we never get quite enough from “Se Let (198) 148-67 on Aline sag fom a phan pep sve would ae hank ro ene or sng hr gis on ee 206 "Nothing to do with Haman Affais? Socrates, or Plito. Pethaps ‘the communicator disappears, makes himself serve only 10 help the other become? This isa seductive strategy and invites us to wonder whether, and in what sense, we will take the bait T have argued that Alcibiades’ speech functions dilectically in the dialogue and answers the supposed objection that philosophical es has ‘nothing to do with human affairs) To the extent that we are persuaded by its answer, we will aso be persuaded that this eading is 4 response both to {what Ihave taken to be) Aristophanes’ concern about vas overstepping the limits ofthe human and to those eis who have read the speech as a challenge to the preceding account of, ‘73, Philosophical ers doesnot equitea hubris disdain of human aMfairs. One need not choose between the pursuit of divine wisdom and engagement with others. Rather, the choice is between a life in pursuit of wisdom and virtue, which informs a human life ina ‘arety of beneficial ways, and a life in pursuit of honour. We know where Alcibiades’ choice led him In reading Alibiades’ speech we have seen that although Alcbi- des may not be willing to embark on the philosophical life, the speech nonetheless contains insights into its natue. Ths can be seen ‘= another indication that the views presented by non-philosophers in this dialogue contribute towards an increased understanding of the topic. This ia theme T hae tried to bring out with reference to earlier parts ofthe dialogue, too, adit is naw time to turn back to those speeches and substantiate that claim, © Wiehe, Ppl Fragment: 7 Shadow Lovers: ‘The Symposiasts and Socrates Having read Socrates’ speech in is entirety, and met two objections to that account, we are naw ina positon to return tothe relationship between Socrates and his predecessors broached in the fist chapter. In particular, we are nov ina postion to substantiate the claim that Socrates speech is continuous with that of his predecesors and completes and resolves some of the issues raised previously. Now Socrates acount is clearly polemical in tone. For ifwe are persuaded that itis only in philosophical ets that one can achieve the benefits previously claimed for rds then we must also be persuaded that there is something amiss in the previous accounts of the role of eas in a flourishing life. There have already been indications that the Socrates character occupies a privileged place in the dialogue. As we have seen, the dialogue is famed by portraits of Socrates, and he is emphasized from the outset as occupying a special place in this Thetorical contest (1721, 175e7-10). Most significant, as we have ‘seen is the extended critique before Socrates’ own speech (198b1— 199bs). If Socrates’ account is continuous with those of his peers, then, it must be so ina way that accommodate these factors. In the first part ofthe chapter I show the various ways in which Socrates’ accounts continous with the sume themes as his predecessors, and resolves many of the puzzles that emerged from their speeches. Inthe second, argue that the contrast between the symposiasts and Soc- Tates exemplifies the contrast between diferent kinds of er, now familie from the lower and higher mysteries of Socrates’ speech. In this dilogue Plato not only explains why, but also shows that, it is only in philosophical ere that one can be truly productive. Under- 208 Shadow Lovers standing the speeches in light of this contrast wil also provide @ further eason for thinking thatthe previous peeches are forthe sake of our philosophical education, in much the same way asthe account lof the lower mysteries was presented asa propaideutic for Socrates’ instruction into the higher. The philosophy of the Symposium is extended throughout the dialogue, and those of us who wish to ‘ead it philosophically will have good reason to consider the work sea whole, 1, SOCRATES’ SPEECH: CONTINUITY AND RESOLUTION Let us review Socrates spesch in order to clarify hove issues raised by the previous speakers are employed in that account. As we have seen, Soctates professes to speak the truh’ and that is construed, atleast in part in terms of fst explaining the character of erds and then its effects (199cK-d,), Since Agathon had made an attempt at this sort of procedure, his account is a promising place to start an inguty into ros’ nature (199, cf. 201) As we have also seen, Agathon claimed that eros’ nature is beatiful and that ers pursues beauty (1976). On. reflection, he also is shown to belive that eras lacks what it desires (@00e1-5). These opinions are inconsistent. For if eds desires beauty, and lacks what t desires, then eros cannot possess beauty. Ether ends does not, infact, pursue beauty, oF erds lacks the beauty it desires. oth Agsthon and Socrates preserve the view that erdspursues beauty. This sa dominant view inall the speeches and, perhaps, one that was the subject of repeated elenchi between Socrates and Diotima (for ‘which see 201e3-7, 206b5-6, 20745-6). This leads to the preliminary ‘oncusion tht ere’ natures sch that i lacks the Beauty it pursues (20241-3). This clarification of eos’ relationship to beauty is ‘extended throughout a large portion of Socrates’ account and the resolution of the confusion between the status of lover and beloved that emerge from Agathons speech aided the formulation ofa viable account of erd# nature (see esp. 204¢6 with Chapter I, Section 5). (Only when a viable definition of evds is reached does Socrates proceed to build up his account and move on tothe aims and activity Shadow Lovers 209 of erds Socrates considers what follows fom tis proposed definition: Lf er® nature i intermediate, then what use is ers for human beings (204c6-7)2 What does eras aim to achieve in this deficient, yet re- source, state (204d1-206a12)? The needy nature of erds was @ central feature of Aristophanes account. Because erds had 2 needy nature Aristophanes infered that erds was after the pursuit of the whole: the oiion. though Socrates doesnot engage Aristophanes in an elenchus, he explicitly refers to this view and uses it to argue towards clarification ofthe aim of eras (205410-206a1). The claim that ers pursues the okeonas such is eected when a further premiss isintrodsced: that we arehappy to telinguish diseased limbs (3-5). 1 ‘we want only to possess healthy limbs (implicit), then there mast bea ‘connection between our desites and our good. Unless the eiksion and the agathon are the same (more on this later), we will not aim to replenish a lack ofthe oeion as such, but the good (206al).For iis bythe possession of good things that we are made happy, and we al want that (205a1-75 eudaimonia was said to be the result of ers correctly employed in almost all the speeches: 180b7, 18848, 19345, 19466, 19535, 205a1). Though itis true that ers pursues what it ack, [Aristophanes had given the wrong account of what itis that we ace lacking, Notice, too, that when this view is subjected to critical ‘modification itis modified onthe bass of view he also holds, namely that ers has a connection to eudaimonia (19345), ‘So mach forthe aim of rds, but what about his activity? Phaedus| and Agathon had clsimed that good things (eg. the virtues) aise from the love of beautiful things (178d1-2, 196e4-5), but their ‘accounts left the relationship between eros characteristic pursuit of, beauty and this goal unclear. Socrates considers this next in the sccount (206b1 fl). The desire for good things manifests itself in the pursuit of beauty (206b1), because it isin the pursuit of beauty that we can be productive ofthe good and beautiful things we value (206c1E-2,), as Phaedrus and Agathon had also held (1781-4, 1978-8), And we now have an answer to why the pursuit of beauty is typically creative rather than possesive. Desiring agents are notin the abundant state Agathon envisaged: we are needy creatures subject to flux and change who need productive work Unlike the divine, human beings cannot possess things in any straightforward way (20745-20865). Production isthe mortal approximation to a state 210 Shadow Lovers of divine possession (20868). So, ers manifests itself in creativity as the mortal way in which we can possess good things. We pursue ‘beauty because beauty arouses us to realize ourselves in certain ways and to make manifest whatever good we take to be central to our happiness. Ifthe desired good end is honour, then desiring agents ‘vill pursue beauifel cities and souls in which they can realize themselves as honourable lawmakers, poets, educators, and crafts ‘men (208a1-e), all activities cited inthe previous accounts (18247, 186d, 1972-b). Phaedrus and Agathon were right that some desiring agents manifest this productive tendency ina love of honour (1785, 19743-6 with 208c5-c3), but wrong to think that this holds forall, FS pte then pch spr be(935) 96, Matos (as 1a eg 9M) 3a C90) og yal te ree proving Sc oe deopl a ayo Shadow Lovers a3 ideas expressed previously. Consider, for example, the following: that erds desires what it lacks (19145-6); that erBs is of beauty. (19768); thac eros forthe soul is more valuable than ere for the body (1i84a1); that good things arise from the love of beautiful ‘things (1978-9); that ers is related to virtue (1785-6, 17938, 18007-8, 18845-6), the good (18845), and happiness (18007, 188d); that eros must be governed by knowledge (1841-2; 184di-el)s that it has some relationship to phrontsis (1827-2, 184d), epstimé (187e4-5), sophia (1964-6), and that ers brings together the human and the divine (18848-8). As we have seen, the speakers have different conceptions of what constitutes eudaimoniaor ‘wisdom, for example. Iis pally because of such diflering, and often inconsistent, accounts of vrtus, or er? relationship to beauty and ‘wisdom, that many ofthe previous views appear ina modified form. For example, Phaedrus was right that rds aims at virtue, though ‘wrong thatthe pursuit of virte isthe oly, or even the best, way to ‘achieve this, Pauses was right that here san intimate relationship between beauty and wisdom, though wrong about the slavish rans- ‘mission of wisdom and virtue. Eryximachus, though righ that exper- tise is essential to the proper activity of eds, mistakenly identified this with the medicalart, and music prophecy, and astronomy. Arstopha- ‘nes was right that er pursues what ilacks, but wrong that tise the vikeion, And Agathon was right that ers has an intimate relationship tobeauty though wrongabout the detail ofthis relationship. But the pointisthat theres no sharp separation between the things suid bythe previous speakers—what they say about ersin a muddled oincom- plete form—and Socrates’ account. Furthermore, many of the puzles and inconsistencies have been clarified by Socrates’ account and put ‘ona more plausible rational foundation? ‘poe wih ine ate 10 wed an ov nny Sea Screener (og Nab ‘3h Cl 9 spe 98) ie Sinope” mech pare sre import fr Sorts Saker (980) rv nee negates a gn soe Aca Taerin rope eypsth Pnabspepre ede bx Dry ‘few pending erence a rsopane’ ny sprog he ‘oe pbsopbieleer miha us inorcnry hua experi fot taon to he ‘ero Pato (988 16) indo ety Pilate se ‘aly ach ee, Sonne might objec th te wakes ae rich fees concepsians of hat const vue oF wim, for expla fe aks te se talk of “strimiySetwee the pec tank Cipher Have fr objction One au Shadow Lovers If itis the case that the speeches raise significant issues and ‘questions in need of resolution for a philosophical account, then ive have gone some way towards elucidating their role in the dia- Jogue. The benefit of having puzzled our way into some of the central ideas and isues that an account of eros needs to address is that we ‘an bette appreciate the resolutions of Socrates’ account. In this respect, at leat, there isa structural similarity between Plato's pro- cedure here and Aristotle's endoxic method. There are als difer- ences. Tete is litle indication thatthe previous views are employed because they are seen to be authoritative and so can ground the truthfulness of an account of ers? There is no explicit statement to the effect that a good theory of erds must respect and preserve ‘ordinary, or reputable views about ers for example. Noris Socrates! sccount tered with (We all believe that P’ statements that serve as futhoritative grounds for his arguments® Further, if it is only acci-

    You might also like