In Aristophanes’ speech, he explains
the origin of Love and humans’ attraction toward one another. He cites the myth
in which humans were once male-male, female-female, and male-female double-people
who were too unruly for Zeus’ liking. Thus, Zeus split the double-people in two
to make peace. Aristophanes posits this split creates human love “since their
natural form had been cut in two, each one longed for its own other half”
(191A). In this quote, Aristophanes defines love as the attraction for another
who satisfies their “incompleteness” as half the human being he or she once
was. Under this definition and since humans in this mythology are descendants
of the double-people, Aristophanes offers an explanation of sexual orientation.
Men or women split from the androgynous type often lecherously run after the sex
(191E). In homosexuality, “Women who are split from a woman—lesbians come from
this class. People who are split from a male are male-oriented” (191E). Aristophanes’
definition of love has no quarrel with sexual orientation, as his definition
transcends any stigma by focusing on one’s search for his or her “other half.”
In Aristophanes’ words, “Each of us, then, is a “matching half” of a human
whole…and each of us is always seeking the half that matches him” (191D). Earlier
in the drinking party, Pausanias offers the most effective method of finding
one’s other half.
In Pausanias’ speech, he speaks
about how one’s actuates his or her love is more valuable than the love itself.
His example is that a man should fall in love with an older rather than younger
boy so the two will form a better relationship. Pausanias says that a man under
the honorable Love of Heavenly Aphrodite “is prepared to share everything with
the one he loves—he is eager, in fact, to spend the rest of his life with him”
(181D). When one actuates the honorable kind of love, he or she is more likely
to find his or her “other half,” because, in this example, the lover is better
prepared to find and form better relationships in search for the perfect one. Aristophanes
confirms this better relationship by stating “when a person meets the half that
is his very own…something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their
senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another” (192B). Through
Pausanias’ method of honorably finding one’s other half, something wonderful
happens to every resulting relationship—the two make their natural whole
regardless of orientation, and, under Phaedrus’ definition, when each person is
with his or her soul mate, the “best possible system of society” will result
(178E).
Eric's ideas on Aristophanes' and Pausanias' ideas on love are very interesting. They both focus on this idea that human being are seeking to fill this void and find wholeness by having a relationship with their perfect mate. Aristophanes defines love by saying it "is the name for our pursuit of wholeness, for our desire to be complete" (192E). In his ideas of double-people, which Eric mentions, this helps argues his definition of love. There seems to be a natural inclination to find a mate and supposedly in order to fill this void of being only half a person, which is what love must be-according to Aristophanes. The idea of the best society comes from humans who have found their perfect mates is also very interesting. Many of the speakers continually point out that out of Love comes something good and beneficial to each in the relationship. Agathon points out that "Love fills us with togetherness and rains all of our divisiveness away. Love calls gatherings like these together... Love moves us to mildness, removes from us wildness" (179D). Love brings a sense of wholeness, which can bring tranquility to each in the relationship, which thus can create a healthy society.
ReplyDeleteEric and Liezel make great claims as to how Aristophanes and Pausanias define love. In particular, Aristophanes describes love to be the reuniting of two perfectly matched pairs. When reading this portion of the reading, I was greatly reminded of deBeauvoir's description of the woman as a man's "vassal", and that "the woman's body seems devoid of meaning without reference to the male," (9,6). In her interpretation as well, there is a notion of two parts to a whole in a relationship. However, the two perspectives differ because Aristophanes neglects any sense of womanly submission in this relationship, even though he distinctly points out the biological connection between the man and the woman like deBeauvoir. Aristophanes describes a much more equal reciprocity between both partners. In fact, these partners need not be a woman and a male. He also notes that two men and two women can be paired just as legitimately as a man and a woman. While these relationships are different, they are equally as natural and harmonious as that of a man and woman in love. "And so, when a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, whether it's to young men or not, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense o belonging to one another," (192C). Aristophanes' definition of love does not subscribe to conventional gender roles and promotes all harmonious relationships.
ReplyDeleteEleanor brings up an interesting point about the differences between the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir and Aristophanes. The idea of gender roles do not seem to play into the notion of love as they do in "The Second Sex." As both Eleanor and Eric bring up, the love described in Aristophanes' speech is harmonious and equal, everyone being a, "matching half of a human whole"(191E). This is remarkably different from the role women play in de Beauvoir's notion of companionship, which describes women as a receptacle for the male's offspring; and idea which bears little resemblance to "love."
ReplyDeleteI think that Eric makes a really good point about how sexuality is seen in the text, but I disagree that all sexual orientations are seen equally. It's obvious from the text that male homosexual relationships are more widely practiced and/or accepted within the society of the text. Phaedrus only speaks about the wonders of male homosexual relationships, as does Pausanias'. Aristophanes is the only one who speaks of female homosexuality at all. This indicates that it is either more taboo or less widely practiced or accepted. Additionally, most of the reasons given for why male homosexual relationships are good relate only to males. For example, Pausanias explains homosexuality because men "find pleasure in what is by nature stronger and more intelligent" (181C). This reasoning, by its nature, cannot hold for women.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Lauren in that women are considered are considered equal. Though in his discourse Aristophanes references the love women have for women, the love women have for men, the love men have for men, and the love of men for woman as essentially equal, the result of being survivors of Zeus' wrath, he goes on to define men who love other men as "themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature" and goes on to prove it by stating that all statesmen are of this nature. This makes a strong assumption about the inherent superiority of men over women, an assumption counter to all Simone de Beauvoir stood for.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that gender roles are applied differently in Symposium than in the Second Sex, as was brought up eariler, I think that these differences stem largely from the fact that heterosexual relationships are not the primary focus in Symposium. As Emma points out, male homosexual relationships are prefered to other types of love because of the qualities that males possess. In many cases, heterosexual relationships are formed on the basis of needing to reproduce (192B). Because of this, I would argue that gender roles are still influential in the way love is presented in Symposium.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric's insights and would like to emphasize his last point about the "best possible system of society"(178E). in his speech Pausanias notes that "we see the point of our customs: they are designed to separate... the proper love from the vile... it is like a competition, a kind of test to determine to which sort each belongs" (184A). this quote shows further illustrates the value that the speakers put upon "proper love" and the extent to which they shaped their society in order to foster it.
ReplyDelete