In Plato’s Symposium, each person’s opinion on the god or
gods of love, seems to be crucial to their understanding of love. The age and quantity of the gods influence
the idea of love as a whole, especially in Phaedrus’s, Pausanias’s, and
Eryximachus’s definitions. Phaedrus
states that, “All sides agree, then, that Love is one of the most ancient
gods. As such, he gives to us the
greatest goods (9). “ The age of god is
key in determining Phaedrus’s definition of love. Because Love is an old god, Phaedrus defines
love as something motivating, solely good, supremely beneficial to all. Also because he only uses one god he has one
complete definition of love. However,
Pausanias disagrees with Phaedrus and believes there are two Loves a younger
and an older. The younger Love is impure
and vile while the older Love is similar to Phaedrus’s Love. Because of this definition of age, love
changes from something that is consistently good to something that “depends
entirely on how it is performed (14).” I
believe that Pausanias’s definition of love is skewed due to his idea that
there are two gods of love. Pausanias
forces himself to create this idea of good love and bad love. What Pausanias defines as the younger Love is
not love at all it is truly lust.
Therefore, I think Pausanias lets the idea of two gods of love affect
his definition, by feeling that he must create two different types of love.
Eryximachus also lets the idea of two gods of love form his
definition. Eryximachus believes that
the love coming from the older god is “felt by good people (22)” and the
younger god directs love that is “common and vulgar (22).” I believe that like Pausanias, Eryximachus
lets the idea of two gods of love waste his time defining something that is not
love at all. Moreover, both of their ideas of love created
by the younger Love are baseless and only created because of the idea of two
gods.
I agree with Evan's ideas on that each of the men have defined love on their opinions of the gods. I also agree with Evan on the fact that each person focuses on what love is not for the majority of their speeches. Since love is very hard to define, each person has to make sure to define what it is not. It would be also essential to note that they begin to build off each other's speeches. Like Evan points out, Phaedrus begins with love being just, beneficial, and good. Then Pausanias disagrees and creates the term love with more depth due to his idea of the two distinct gods. Pausanias says, ".. there are two kind of Love" and continues to say "Love is not in himself noble and worthy of praise; that depends on whether the sentiments he produces in us are themselves noble" (13,14). As Even points out, Pausanias sees that love must be defined by the way it is produced because of the idea of two kinds of gods. If love produces noble things, it is from the older god; if love produces shameful things, it is from the younger god. Thus, this alone began to define his idea of love.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by the different interpretations that we saw in each of the speeches. Like Evan i found the number of Gods of love or rather a differentiation between a young and old to be interesting. But it was the evidence used in each of the speeches that I was the most interesting in my opinion. Phaedrus looked to the heroes of old to prove his points, Pausanias sought his answer in the sexual culture of their society, and finally Aristophanes speech looked to the biology of men and women. Each of these different speeches had roots in their Gods but then looked to human sources as a means to prove their point.
ReplyDeleteEvan does a good job defining how Pausanias' belief in two separate gods of love leads him to divide the concept of love in two as well. As Evan points out, Pausanias assigns positive tributes to the older form of love, deeming it "Heavenly Love" (180E) while the younger love is deemed "Common" (180E) and therefore vulgar. I think that the age of the loves can be further analyzed; those holding the conversation are themselves elderly, and the majority of them decide that Heavenly Love is the elder of the two. They also deem Heavenly Love as homosexual attraction between two men, while the other sort of love is "the love felt by the vulgar, who are attached to women no less than to boys" (181B). Can anything be inferred by their rhetoric in favor of homosexuals, labeling it as part of the elder Love, that they themselves prefer young boys to women?
ReplyDeleteThe speakers often praise homosexual love because it's the more masculine kind, eter being attracted to the better sex or to someone similar to the self. Especially in this case wherein several of the speakers themselves are homosexuals, the text says they use homosexuality as an idiom in their speeches. Also the love of little boys is a relationship in which the young man would gain wisdom and knowledge from his lover and hopefully form a lifelong friendship whereas relationships with women have no similar goals.
DeleteEvan makes a interesting point in differentiating between the various definitions of love pertaining to the age of the gods who are responsible. Additionally, Morgan adds another key point that this notion of the gods is then applied to the humans as a way to provide fuel for these arguments. Morgan's point specifically caught my eye because I found throughout the speeches that the gods' origins acted as a frame story for the definition of love that was being portrayed. Specifically in Pausanias' rendition of love, Urania and Pandemos provide the framework for the different types of love; one that is, "free from the lewdness of youth,"and the other that is, "vulgar" (181B-C).
ReplyDeleteLachlan, I also think that this idea of the ages of love is fascinating. I found Phaedrus to be very interesting in his thinking mostly because he seems to embrace Hesiod's Theogony and the idea that love is very old. I was fortunate enough to read the Theogony in another class. In the Theogony, in the beginning there are four fundamental gods: Chaos, Gaia, Tartaros, and Eros. These are the four that come first out of nothing. Phaedrus uses this to prove that "Love is one of the most ancient Gods" (178C). There is also this interesting idea perpetuated later by Eryximachus, "I think people have entirely missed the power of Love, because, if they had grasped it, they'd have built the greatest temples and altars to him and made the greatest sacrifices" (189C). We see this idea perpetuated that love is this fundamental being who has been there since the beginning of time. But it is also sad because it is brought up that Love never really gets what is due to him. In fact, that is one of the reasons why they have the discussion in the Symposium in the first place.
ReplyDelete