{"id":71560,"date":"2022-07-08T09:59:00","date_gmt":"2022-07-08T13:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=71560"},"modified":"2022-07-18T11:03:05","modified_gmt":"2022-07-18T15:03:05","slug":"plato-on-love-symposium","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/plato-on-love-symposium\/","title":{"rendered":"Plato on Love: Symposium Overview"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What is love<\/a>? How does love connect to philosophy? How can it lead to human happiness? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato addresses these questions and more in his Symposium<\/em>, a work which claims that passionate desire, rather than cold and detached analysis, drives philosophy. Symposium<\/em> also provides insight into Plato\u2019s views on happiness, education, and reproduction.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below is a brief overview of Plato’s Symposium<\/em> on love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Plato’s Symposium<\/em> on Love<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Plato\u2019s Symposium<\/em> tells the story of a group of Athenian men at a party all giving speeches <\/strong>in praise of love. Their speeches and discussions quickly lead them to try and answer the question, \u201cWhat is<\/em> love?\u201d<\/strong> Plato explores this question through the different characters in attendance, and in the process explains the connection between love and philosophy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this article, we\u2019ll explore Plato’s Symposium<\/em> on love in three parts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Early speeches on love\u2019s benefits<\/strong> (Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, and Aristophanes\u2019s speeches)<\/li>
  2. Descriptions of the god of love <\/strong>(Agathon and Socrates\u2019s speeches)<\/li>
  3. Diotima\u2019s description of love<\/strong> (Socrates\u2019s speech)<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    (Shortform note: Like all of Plato\u2019s works, the Symposium<\/em> is a dialogue<\/a>: A philosophical work written as a fictional conversation between characters. The form of dialogue allows Plato to add in intentional ambiguities and implied meanings not just through what is said, but also who says it, why they say it, and how they say it. Like most of Plato\u2019s other dialogues, a majority of the Symposium<\/em>\u2019s characters are real people from fourth century BCE Athens. Our guide will explain who the Symposium<\/em>\u2019s major characters actually were and how this might inform philosophical ideas in the work.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Part 1: Early Speeches on Love\u2019s Benefits<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The first four speeches of the dialogue focus on how love can benefit a person.<\/strong> These speeches fit into two categories: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Love as virtue: <\/strong>Phaedrus, Pausanias, and Eryximachus begin by discussing what kind of love makes a person virtuous\u2014in other words, what is the best and most moral way to love. <\/li>
    2. Love as completion: <\/strong>Then, Aristophanes speaks on how love \u201ccompletes\u201d a person\u2019s life. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      In this first part of our guide, we\u2019ll explain the main arguments of each speech regarding the benefits of love. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Love as Virtue<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      Phaedrus gives the first speech connecting love and virtue, while Pausanias and Eryximachus further develop this argument afterward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Phaedrus\u2019s Speech<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

      In his speech, Phaedrus argues that all<\/em><\/strong> love is beneficial and praiseworthy because it makes people more virtuous. <\/strong>Everyone wants the people they love to view them highly, so when a person is in love they\u2019ll be more driven to do good deeds and more ashamed of their bad deeds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Pausanias\u2019s Speech<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

      Pausanias disagrees with Phaedrus\u2019s argument that all love is praiseworthy, claiming instead that some love is virtuous and some is not. Pausanias explains that virtuous love focuses on intelligence rather than physicality. <\/strong>People who love only for physical pleasure don\u2019t distinguish between good and bad deeds in service of that pleasure\u2014and therefore are not virtuous. He believes that the most virtuous love is a long, committed relationship between two men: Men are more intelligent and a long relationship allows a lover to better develop the intelligence of their beloved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Eryximachus\u2019s Speech<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

      Eryximachus mostly agrees with Pausanias on virtuous love but alters his definition slightly. He suggests that virtuous love requires moderation in all loves and desires<\/strong>. Excess and obsession lead people to commit harm or harm their health (in the same way that eating or drinking too much negatively impacts health or judgment), so it follows that moderation leads to good. Eryximachus also suggests that love doesn\u2019t just apply to sex and relationships\u2014after all, people also love arts and activities like sports or music.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Aristophanes and Love as Completion<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      Following the first three speeches that try to define love as virtuous and beneficial, Aristophanes approaches the subject in a new direction. He tells a wild story proposing that love allows a person to complete themselves: <\/strong>Humans used to be two<\/em> people in one, fused back to back. However, they became arrogant, and the gods split them in half as a punishment. Now, love and sex are human attempts to return to that previous combined, \u201cwhole\u201d state.<\/strong> From this story, Aristophanes draws three main conclusions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      1. People have \u201csoulmates.\u201d <\/strong>Aristophanes suggests that everyone still has their other half in the world somewhere, and they are perfect for each other. <\/li>
      2. Love is the desire to become whole.<\/strong> What people experience as love is actually just their desire to become whole again. This is why soulmates that find each other will stay together for their entire lives\u2014it\u2019s as close they can get to being whole again. <\/li>
      3. Homosexuality<\/strong> (among men in particular) is natural and moral. <\/strong>Aristophanes claims that some of the dual-humans were pairs of two women or two men\u2014and so their love results from the same divine \u201csplit\u201d that created heterosexuality. In addition, Aristophanes suggests that homosexual men are more<\/em> courageous and manly\u2014and therefore more moral\u2014than heterosexual men because they\u2019re attracted to those traits in others<\/em> as well.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        (Shortform note: If you think Aristophanes\u2019s speech feels out of place, then you\u2019re right\u2014and scholars suggest that Plato did that on purpose. For the most part, the men in the Symposium<\/em> speak from left to right, and each speech develops the ideas of the previous. However, Aristophanes breaks both of these rules\u2014they skip over him until later, and the ideas of his speech mostly exist independently. Scholars suggest that this is Plato saying that Aristophanes (a staunchly conservative comic playwright and strong critic of Socrates) and others like him don\u2019t contribute to the development of wisdom\u2014and even disrupt it<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Part 2: Descriptions of the God of Love<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Agathon\u2019s speech<\/a> again approaches love in a new way\u2014addressing not the <\/strong>benefits<\/em><\/strong> of love, but rather love itself: Eros, the god of love.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        (Shortform note: To better understand the distinction Agathon makes between love and the god of love, let\u2019s examine the Greek word for love that the Symposium<\/em> uses: eros<\/strong>. Eros means love in the sense of passionate desire, usually in a sexual context<\/a> (the English word \u201cerotic\u201d derives from eros). However, Eros is also the name of the god of love and sexual attraction<\/a>\u2014a god the Romans called Cupid. At the start of his speech, Agathon argues that the others only spoke of the feeling<\/em> eros, rather than the god<\/em> Eros. To make this difference clear, our guide will use Eros to describe the god, and \u201clove\u201d to describe the feeling\u2014<\/strong>even though \u201ceros\u201d technically applies to both.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        This second part of our guide will explain the main ideas of Agathon\u2019s description of Eros, as well as Socrates\u2019s rebuttal and alternative description. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Agathon\u2019s Description of Eros<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Agathon describes Eros as having many qualities\u2014but these qualities tend to fall into three categories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1. Eros is beloved<\/strong>: Agathon describes Eros as a beloved\u2014a creature of beauty, grace, and eternal youth who\u2019s desired by others rather than being the desirer himself. Everyone<\/em> desires Eros, but he surrounds himself only with other beautiful and soft things. <\/li>
        2. Eros is an artist: <\/strong>Agreeing with Eryximachus that love can apply to all arts and skills, Agathon claims that Eros must be an expert<\/a> at them all. Since love inspires people to become great<\/a> artists, then the god<\/em> of love must have talent himself to impart to others.<\/li>
        3. Eros is good:<\/strong> Agathon suggests that love is incompatible with injustice or other evils\u2014as a result, Eros is always fair, generous, and moral in his dealings and actions. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          (Shortform note: Historical context helps to contextualize the ideas of Agathon\u2019s speech. Agathon was a poet in ancient Athens known for his tragic plays and incredible physical beauty<\/a>. He was also the beloved of Pausanias (who spoke earlier in the dialogue) in a relationship that ended up lasting 30 years (far longer than was typical of pederasty). Based on these details, scholars generally suggest that Agathon compares himself to Eros in his speech<\/a>\u2014he speaks of the great physical beauty and poetry of Eros, and of his virtue in relationships (something that Agathon\u2019s lover Pausanias also discusses). By comparing himself to Eros, Agathon further cements his view that Eros is the beloved of a pederastic relationship.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Socrates and Diotima\u2019s Description of Eros<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Socrates praises the beauty of Agathon\u2019s speech, then politely informs him that everything he said was wrong. Then, Socrates gives his own speech on love. His speech mainly consists of him recounting a past conversation he had with a wise woman named Diotima. Diotima, he says, taught him everything he knows about love. For the rest of the guide, we\u2019ll discuss Diotima\u2019s explanation\u2014but keep in mind Socrates is actually the person present and speaking at the party.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          (Shortform note: In a dialogue primarily concerned with the intellectual and homoerotic lives of men, it might seem confusing that Socrates cites a woman for his views on love. Scholars suggest that Socrates cites Diotima as a way to gain credibility<\/a>. Diotima speaks at length on childbirth, pregnancy, and reproduction (which we discuss later in the guide), all subjects strongly associated with women and femininity in ancient Athens. These scholars therefore suggest that Socrates (and perhaps Plato through him) uses Diotima to appeal to that perceived feminine \u201cexpertise\u201d in his arguments.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          According to Diotima, Eros is not <\/strong>beloved<\/em><\/strong>, but rather is a <\/strong>lover<\/em><\/strong>\u2014one that desires and seeks out beautiful things. Instead of a soft, youthful, and beautiful god, he\u2019s an old, tough, and hardened spirit. He acts as a messenger between the humans and gods, delivering human prayers and offerings to the gods and divine instructions or blessings to humans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          (Shortform note: Plato evokes Socrates\u2014an old, gnarled man seeking out beauty and wisdom\u2014with this description of Eros. Plato\u2019s works (and the Symposium<\/em> in particular) are some of the only surviving descriptions of who Socrates was and what he was like\u2014other descriptions include Aristophanes\u2019s The Clouds<\/em><\/a> (a comic play satirizing Socrates and his philosophy) and philosopher Xenophon\u2019s dialogues. All three of these works present Socrates as absent-minded, unkempt, and more interested in knowledge than he is in the concrete world around him. By having Diotima describe Eros in a similar way, Plato implies that Socrates is the ideal erotic man\u2014a claim that makes more sense once Diotima connects love and philosophy.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          To explain this conclusion, she further defines the act of loving and what it reveals about Eros.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Loving Is<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

          Diotima begins by describing the act of loving\u2014after all, loving is by definition what Eros does. She reaches the following two conclusions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          1. Love requires an object: <\/strong>Love only exists in relation to something else. For example: \u201cAristophanes loves wine<\/em>.\u201d Without the object, the sentence makes no sense: \u201dAristophanes loves\u201d doesn\u2019t mean anything. <\/li>
          2. People love what they don\u2019t have: <\/strong>Loving an object means desiring it, and nobody would desire something they already have. If someone says they love something they have, it actually means they desire to continue<\/em> having it. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            (Shortform note: Some scholars suggest that because of these two conclusions, Plato presents a tragic view of love<\/a>. By definition, Plato says we love what we don\u2019t have and can never get\u2014if we ever got the object of our love, then we\u2019d either stop loving it or worry about losing it in the future. She suggests that those with an excess of such desires can often end up as tragic figures, with lives defined by longing, incompleteness, or a lack of satisfaction. As you read the rest of the guide, keep in mind how Plato\u2019s view on love might create such a tragic figure\u2014especially once we get to Alcibiades\u2019s speech.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What Eros Isn\u2019t<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

            Based on her conclusions about loving, Diotima outlines four things that Eros is not:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            1. Eros is not beautiful: <\/strong>Eros desires beauty, and people desire what they don\u2019t have. Therefore, Eros isn\u2019t beautiful. <\/li>
            2. Eros is not good: <\/strong>All good things are beautiful\u2014that\u2019s why they\u2019re attractive. Since Eros desires beauty, it follows that he desires good as well and therefore is not good himself. <\/li>
            3. Eros is not wise: <\/strong>Wisdom is a good and beautiful quality, so Eros must desire it\u2014and, therefore, lacks it. <\/li>
            4. Eros is not a god: <\/strong>Gods are perfect beings that lack nothing\u2014since Eros lacks beauty, goodness, and wisdom, it follows that he isn\u2019t a god. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              However, this doesn\u2019t mean that Eros is ugly, bad, ignorant, and mortal\u2014instead, he exists somewhere between all of these extremes.<\/strong> Someone who is entirely bad doesn\u2019t desire<\/em> goodness, and someone who is entirely ignorant is unaware of their ignorance and therefore doesn\u2019t desire<\/em> wisdom. Therefore, Eros has just enough wisdom and goodness to recognize what he doesn\u2019t have\u2014and to recognize that he wants it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              (Shortform note: Plato\u2019s Apology<\/em><\/a> clarifies what it means to be \u201cbetween extremes,\u201d particularly the extremes of wisdom and ignorance. In the Apology<\/em>, Socrates distinguishes between divine wisdom and human wisdom: Divine wisdom (the wisdom of the gods) is absolute knowledge of all things, while human<\/em> wisdom is the ability to recognize how little you actually know. Socrates suggests that people are better off recognizing what they don\u2019t know than they are incorrectly assuming that they have knowledge\u2014recognizing you know nothing encourages you to learn and examine the world around you. Diotima describes Eros as having a similar type of wisdom since he both desires knowledge and lacks the divine wisdom of the gods.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Part 3: Diotima\u2019s Description of Love<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

              After describing Eros, Diotima discusses the human experience of love. She concludes that the main object of love is <\/strong>not<\/em><\/strong> beauty. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              In this third part of our guide, we\u2019ll explain Diotima\u2019s views on human love by explaining what <\/strong>humans love, why<\/strong> humans love, and how<\/strong> humans should<\/em> love. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              What We Love<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

              To understand the human experience of love, Diotima first outlines what <\/em>humans love. She suggests that, instead of beauty, the main object of human love is goodness. This is because goodness brings people happiness\u2014a meaningful life well-lived. <\/strong>By definition, a good<\/em> life is a happy<\/em> life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Furthermore, Diotima concludes that humans desire immortality: As explored earlier, if people have good things, they desire to continue having them. Therefore, people want to <\/strong>permanently<\/em><\/strong> have good things.<\/strong> The longer someone lives, the longer they can have good things, so by desiring goodness people desire immortality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              (Shortform note: To understand what Plato means by happiness, it helps to consider the original Greek word: eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is usually translated to \u201chappiness,\u201d though it doesn\u2019t entirely match our modern definition. While we usually think of happiness as a temporary positive emotion, eudaimonia refers to an overall state of living life excellently<\/a>. The stabler, longer-lasting state of eudaimonia also explains why Diotima says people want permanent good\u2014she\u2019s saying people want to always live excellently, not that they want to always experience pure joy or bliss.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Why We Love<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

              Diotima suggests that the purpose of love is reproduction, either in a physical sense (creating a child) or a mental sense (creating virtue and wisdom). <\/strong>Creating physical or mental offspring is the closest a human can get to becoming immortal (and therefore permanently having good things). An individual\u2019s offspring will live much longer than they do\u2014physical children will carry on parts of their ancestors, and great works of art, ideas, or virtuous acts are often remembered long after the death of their creators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Diotima emphasizes in particular the importance of mental children\u2014a great work or great deed lives far longer than any physical child, and therefore brings its parent closer to immortality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              (Shortform note: It seems like Plato contradicts his other dialogues here by saying we reproduce because we desire immortality. In several of his other works (including the Meno<\/em><\/a> and Phaedo<\/em><\/a>), Plato argues that people have immortal souls (his idea of the soul is similar to the mind or the self) that are reborn into many different bodies. This raises the question: If our souls are immortal, then why is reproduction the closest we can get to immortality? Some scholars argue that this is<\/em> an inconsistency where Plato temporarily appeals to a more pragmatic, skeptical viewpoint<\/a>. Others suggest that in the Symposium<\/em>, Plato talks about individual<\/em> immortality\u2014immortality of one person rather than of their soul<\/a> (which over time inhabits many<\/em> people).)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Love as Reproduction<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

              According to Diotima, everyone is pregnant in some way\u2014every individual has the potential to create physical or mental offspring. However, people can only give birth in the presence of beauty<\/strong>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              In a physical sense, beauty excites people to seek out suitable sexual partners and makes them happy and relaxed enough to engage in sex (or, later on, childbirth). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              (Shortform note: You might wonder why Diotima suggests that males and females can become physically pregnant. Scholars suggest that Plato refers to ejaculation as the male form of pregnancy and childbirth<\/a>: An aroused male is pregnant and gives birth upon ejaculating. This conception of male childbirth further cements the connection Plato\u2019s trying to make between beauty and childbirth\u2014beauty inspires sexual arousal which allows a male to \u201cgive birth\u201d and ejaculate during intercourse.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              In a mental sense, a beautiful body or beautiful mind inspires new ideas. Particularly, Diotima suggests that a beloved with a beautiful mind and body can inspire a lover to birth excellent intellectual offspring. These intellectual children are speeches on virtue or wisdom that make up the educational component of a pederastic relationship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              (Shortform note: Plato seems to have two competing ideas on intellectual offspring in a pederastic relationship. He mentions one just above: A beautiful beloved inspires their lover to birth intellectual offspring. However, Plato\u2019s Theaetetus<\/em><\/a> suggests that Socrates acts as a \u201cmidwife of the soul\u201d\u2014just as a normal midwife helps deliver physical offspring, Socrates helps deliver mental offspring. This metaphor suggests that the lover (Socrates) actually inspires the beloved<\/em> to birth intellectual offspring. Scholars suggest that this contradiction might result from Plato\u2019s personality and ambiguous feelings on homosexual desire<\/a>\u2014the Symposium<\/em>\u2019s view seems to celebrate these desires, while the Theaetetus<\/em> takes a more restrained approach.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              How We Should Love<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

              Since people only give birth in the presence of beauty, it follows that beauty is crucial for a good life\u2014even if it isn\u2019t the main<\/em> goal of love. Diotima then explains how to pursue beauty and birth offspring in a way that leads to the happiest life possible. <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              The Ascent<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

              Diotima explains that the best way to pursue beauty requires a journey of self-realization that she calls the \u201cascent\u201d: A process of learning to love<\/a> beautiful things that are more and more good and meaningful. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n