Phaedrus is a beautiful dialogue of Plato. I confess, I listened to the whole thing while laying down mulch for hours with my earbuds. Librivox.org, man. Plato first sets the stage by narrating a scene of playful leisure to set the stage for layered, increasingly deeper contemplation. The dialogue offers valuable, time-tested insight and guidance in the life of the mind and itself embodies the insight.

Perhaps we get the word philosophy from this dialogue. At least in it Socrates defines the types of persons who devote themselves to wisdom as "lovers of wisdom." He says they are not themselves wise, as wisdom, he caveats, is an attribute of God alone, but they love wisdom.

There is much that is memorable, much that is strikingly relevant. Socrates recounts as an Egyptian tale of ancient wisdom how a bird invented writing and blithely assumed it would assist people's memories. His mythical interlocutor shrewdly responded by saying that often inventors are not the best judges of the effects of their inventions and that writing would in actuality have a deleterious effect on our memory because people would begin to rely on it rather than their memories. He was right. This strikes me as undyingly current, strikingly relevant today. As we continue to experience huge technological innovations such as the Internet, we ought not to be too sanguine and self-blinding in our enthusiasms and enjoyments. After the industrial revolution, etc., etc. we need to learn to dignify our discriminatory powers more so that every reserve about uses of technology is not treated as fanatical, obtuse, weird, a too cumbersome to think about issue.

Plato also has brilliant, memorable sections where he likens human beings to two horses drawing a chariot, one strong and toward the upright and good, the other drawing down to the lower and more base. One section I remember vividly describes with this analogy a youth's sexual desire and the competing directions of the horses. Socialization of the sexual impulse.

There is also a significance to the whole tone set at the beginning, as I alluded to earlier. It is out of a self permission and a permission among friends for leisure that this contemplative height arises. It is easier with friends. Certain capacities in the mind have to be valued enough by a society and the avant garde of the mind in that society for this to be accomplished. A too pressing 'practicality' does not give due honor to philosophy and doctrine and it ironically becomes the most impractical of all viewed from a distance, a distance it does not allow itself.

Συγκλονιστικό!
Δε θα αναφερθώ παρα μόνο επιγραμματικά στο φιλοσοφικό μέρος του διαλόγου.
Σε αυτόν ο Πλάτωνας μας δίνει αρκετά στοιχεία της θεωρίας των Ιδεών, για την θεώρηση του της ψυχής και για την γνώση. Παράλληλα καταφέρεται εναντίον των σοφιστών και της ρητορικής. Στο τελευταίο μέρος μιλά για την ανωτερότητα του προφορικού έναντι του γραπτού λόγου.
Κυρίως θα αναφερθώ στο λογοτεχνικό μέρος του διαλόγου.
Ποιός Κούντερα και Φρομ, Ρίτσος και Καβάφης; Ο Πλάτωνας μας προσφέρει την ωραιότερη εικόνα για τον έρωτα και όλα αυτά 2500 χρόνια πριν.. Όλος ο διάλογος μιλά για τον έρωτα αλλά η παλινωδία του Σωκράτη είναι από τα ωραιότερα και ποιητικότερα κείμενα που έχω διαβάσει! Και είμαι σίγουρος ότι το έριξε το γκομενάκι..!

Το κείμενο δεν είναι εύκολο ακόμη και από την άριστη μετάφραση του Θεοδωρακόπουλου. Τα σχόλια επίσης στις 200 πρώτες σελίδες είναι πολύ επεξηγηματικά για όποιον δεν είναι γνωστής της Πλατωνικής φιλοσοφίας.


Καλή ανάγνωση σε όλους!

كتاب لايضيف شيئًا، الغريب أن حب الغلمان كان منتشر بشدة في عصر الفلاسفة الإغريق

Great to read in companion with the Symposium. Socrates at his absolute best here. For and against speeches on whether it’s better to befriend as a lover or no. His ultimate aim is to point Phaedrus to the task of philosophy which is superior and indeed a prerequisite to good speech making and rhetoric. Really enjoyed this one.

اول تجربه مع محاورات افلاطون و بدايه مشجعه ، اسلوبها عقلاني و سلس و ترجمة دكتورة اميره حلمي جيده.
معرفش ليه الناس اهتمت في المحاروه بقضية حب الغلمان و معتبرتهاش قضيه بنت عصرها ،و تغافلت عن قضية الحب و العشق باعتبارها قضيه ممتده الى الابد.
و برضه مش عارف ليه مكتوب انه المحاوره عن الجمال و هي مش عن الجمال ، و مش عن موضوع واحد ، و لكن اجمالا عن 3 مواضيع .

الجزء الاول بيبدا فيه فايدروس بالقاء مقال لوسياس عن المقارنه بين العلاقات عن الحب و غير الحب ، و بيبدا سقراط في طرح رؤيته عن رفضه للحب المبني على الانجذاب الشهواني و بس و بالتبعيه رفضه للحب و العشق عموما ، و بعدها بيتراجع عشان يوضح اربع انواع للهوس الالهي و هم هوس النبوءه ، هوس الكشف الصوفي ، الهام الشعراء ، و اخيرا الحب و بالتاي الحب تعبير عن شئ ذا صله بالاله و المثاليه

الجزء الثاني بيتكلم فيه سقراط عن نبذ الخطابه عندما تهدف فقط لاقناع الجمهور زي الخطابات السياسيه و الاعلاميه ، و بالصدفه اتفرجت بعدها على فيلم اسماء 2011 و كان ماجد الكدواني بيمثل دور المذيع اللى ينطبق عليه النموذج اللي نبذه سقراط ، و انه لاقامة نموذج خطابه حميد لازم شروط منها ادراك ماهية و حقيقة موضوع الخطبه ، ثانيا ادراك حقيقة النفس و كيفية التاثير و التفاعل معها.

الجزء الثالث بيتطرق فيه سقراط لموضوع الكتابه و دورها في المعرفه اذا توافرت فيها الشروط المعرفيه و الفلسفيه زي الخطابه.

في اكثر من تعقيب ع المحاوره

مداخلات سقراط و اسلوبه الحواري المعتمد على الاسئله و استفزاز ذهن المحاور اسلوب عبقري جداا ، تقريبا نفس اسلوب مايكل ساندل في كورس الفلسفه اللى عملتله هارفارد عن العدل تحت اسم Justice , what is the right thing to do ?

الثانيه انه اعتقد المثاليه في فلسفة افلاطون بذورها و اسسها واضحه في فلسفه سقراط ، و عقلانية و منطقية ارسطو برضه اسسها وبذورها واضحه في فلسفة سقراط ، و ده يودينا للنقطه التانيه و هي اين ذات افلاطون في المحاوره ؟ و بالتبعيه في محاوراته ككل و ايه الحدود الفاصله بين ارائه و اراء سقراط ، باعتبار انه اغلب الحج في المحاوره بتكون على لسان سقراط في حين انه افلاطون هو الكاتب ؟

Curious about what the great Socrates may have said about Love? Guess what! This is the dialogues for you! Also he covers what he terms the sciences (unfortunately his idea of science is mostly that of Rhetoric) and some other taunting between Socrates and Phaedrus. Always fun to read Plato I must say.

How do you give a note to Plato? His dialogues are among the works reread for centuries—never aged.

ظالمين أفلاطون يا جماعة

Can't pretend to have kept up with the arguments but enjoyed the main speech and the bitching about writers and rhetoricians that came after. Am now ready for the next reread of The Charioteer.

Son varios los críticos que han señalado que el Fedro es un texto inconexo. Como insostenible por sí mismo, los distintos temas que toca parecen carecer de un algo que los anude y otorgue continuidad a un diálogo que habla sobre la poesía, la escritura, la locura, el amor y la retórica (entre otras cosas, claro está).
Sin embargo, encuentro ese nudo en la perspectiva que se tiene del lenguaje y que va a ser de tremenda relevancia para el mundo de la literatura occidental: el lenguaje es alterable, manipulable y posee la capacidad de determinar el comportamiento de las personas. El lenguaje que circula alrededor de las esferas públicas y privadas trae consigo el poder de alterar las percepciones y de engañar a nuestros cinco sentidos. Bajo esta perspectiva, el lenguaje, podría decirse, puede llegar a componerse de distintas ficciones. Son peligrosas en tanto esas ficciones pueden afectar el comportamiento, las creencias y los valores de la gente. Quien posee el poder de manipular el lenguaje a su favor guarda consigo un tremendo poder que, a ojos de Platón, es tremendamente peligroso. Así de grande es el poder que guarda un lenguaje, que, por primera vez en occidente se explicita de manera tan concreta, controla a las masas y altera los regímenes de verdad dentro de lo que se dice y lo que no.

He allí el nudo que, a mi parecer, logra unir los distintos temas que se tocan en este diálogo y que fue de gran aportación para el mundo de la teoría literaria occidental (cosa que fallaron en enseñarme al momento de toparme con el Fedro en mi formación académica). Platón establece de esta forma una manera de comprender el lenguaje como manipulación y que es, precisamente, lo que se realiza al momento de concretizarse una obra literaria: ya sea con fines estéticos, políticos o didácticos, el producto literario es de alguna forma u otra lenguaje manipulado. En tanto lenguaje manipulado, debe de ser cuestionado y analizado en las formas que transmite la información, pues de lo contrario puede guiar nuestras mentes a lugares que no deseamos que sean guiadas. Las distintas formas de organización del lenguaje nos afectan, pudiendo la poesía o el ejercicio escritural incitarnos al amor o la locura (que no son tan distintos entre sí) gracias al poder retórico y artificioso que poseen.

Socrates makes Phaedrus read this speech he heard from this guy Lysias about how a non-lover is better than a lover. The argument is basically when you love somebody, it makes you jealous and angry and doesn't last long and it ultimately hurts the lover and the beloved in the end while the non-lover who just makes friends with people doesn't have strong emotions like jealousy has a better relationship since you have all of the benefits of love without the negatives and gives a ton of arguments to support it.
(I dont agree with this idea. I think it's too rational for a normal human being to follow. In my opinion, it's a hyper-utilitarian idea which is justified by being "for the greater good" but completely disregards the beauty of the human spirit. One of those things that is good in theory but never in practice. We'll see what Socrates says.)

Phaedrus says this speech is masterful in arguments but Socrates is like "nah". Phadrus goes "Come on man, at least admit the writing was tight and crisp". Socrates goes "I can't do that or it would be an insult the the ancient sages". Socrates basically said it was mid. Phaedrus goes "Give me a better speech on the topic". Socarates says no and then Pheadrus threatens him and he agrees. I get the feeling this what Socrates wanted. Just to flex buy giving an even better speech impromptu that he didn't even want to give, asserts his dominance, real alpha shit.

Socrates says there are two ways we make decisions, desire and reason. Then he stops his speech cause he's getting too hyped up and even asks Phaedrus "Am I not killing it right now?" Phaedrus agrees that Socrates is killing it. The man's barely said anything yet. Anyway, he goes on saying love does make a man emotional and the beloved weaker. The lover is too protective of the beloved that they will never be able amount to anything because they have lived soft lives.
(At this point I realize when they talk about love, it's between a man and a boy. My previous parentheses was about regular adult love. Can't these guys just fuck women? Or just other men?)

Here Socrates takes sympathy on the boy in the man-boy relationship. Asks doesn't the boy feel trapped and used by an old, ugly man in this type of relationship? And then when it's time for them to grow, their lovers are mean to them and reject them. Let's fucking go Socrates

Then he cuts his speech short and decides to leave for some reason???? But comes back because of some supernatural force telling him to praise the lover instead of just admonishing him. To bring balance to the force or something. Because you can't have an ancient Greek story without talking about all the benefits of fucking boys.

Socrates says love is madness but the madness of love is one of heaven's greatest blessings. Okay, I'm on board. But then he gives this long, weird story/analogy about chariots and the soul. I don't know what this was all about, man. The point is is something like if the lover resists sex, they ascend to a higher plane of existence the Gods bless him in the afterlife or something. This is justification why the lover is greater than the non-lover because it leads to something divine where the other cannot. Socrates really grasping at straws here, coming up weird stories to justify his thoughts. If this was a analogy I'm too stupid to get, that's fair. It could be something like the feeling of love is divine where as friendship can never reach that state which I agree with but this whole chariot thing threw me for a loop.

Phaedrus agrees this speech was better than Lysias'. The rest of the book is great. They talk about what makes a good speech, whether its the ability to persaude or knowledge of truth or artistry, etc. What was interesting here is Socrates says you must structure a speech where you define the thesis, then make your points, then have a conclusion summarizing points. I don't know if this was the first instance of this idea but this is legit what every school teaches kids how to write essays. If Socrates came up with that, and it's still being used to day, that's awesome. The story about the Egyptian Gods was great. Basically, says with words being written, it will harm people to a degree because they will not actually have wisdom, just be reminded of someone who did. True today to an extent. Loved this section of the story.

I liked this more than the Symposium. The only miss was that fucking chariot section. No idea what that was all about.

“Come una corrente di vento o un’eco che rimbalzando su una superficie levigata e solida si ripercuote al punto d’origine, così la corrente di bellezza penetra di nuovo nel bell’amato attraverso gli occhi. Così per il suo naturale canale raggiunge l’anima, e come vi arriva disponendola al volo irrora i meati delle penne, stimola la crescita delle ali e a poco a poco riempie d’amore l’anima dell’amato.”

La domanda legittima è: perché, quando uno sta già leggendo altri sette libri, una bella mattina si sveglia e legge il Fedro di Platone? È una forma esplicita di insania mentale? Un pervicace accanimento della sorte? In realtà si tratta soltanto di una cortesia fatta a un familiare: mia sorella mi ha chiesto di leggerlo in sua vece. Così per due giorni ho accantonato Guerra e pace per fare un tuffo nella non-troppo-lontana vita liceale e fare un saluto a… Platone.

Deluderò le aspettative di molti se dico che la filosofia non mi ha mai intrigato granché. Sì, è carina da studiare, interessante quanto volete, abitua al pensiero, ma non sono mai stata disposta ad attribuirle un fondamento di verità. Un uomo coltissimo e acuto (coltissimo e acuto quanto volete, ma pur sempre un uomo) un giorno si dà a trascrivere la propria visione del mondo, che è la sua propria, senza dover necessariamente essere la mia. Perché la sua visione del mondo dovrebbe essere più fondata della visione di un uomo qualunque? Non negheremo che la filosofia ha una importanza culturale e artistica assoluta, che è uno strumento in grado di cavalcare la storia ed influenzarla, di guidare il pensiero degli uomini, tuttavia, se permettete, la filosofia è anche qualcosa di personale. C’è la filosofia di Platone. C’è la filosofia del mio vicino di casa. La differenza sta nell’esposizione. Quanto al contenuto, impossibile stabilire se il mio vicino di casa abbia meno ragione di Platone.

Mentre faccio questa tirata, il Fedro mi guarda in cagnesco appoggiato su un gomito. È un dialogo abbastanza permalosetto, di quelli che se la tirano. « E secondo te io non avrei più ragione della tua vicina col cane che abbaia sempre? ». Ok, abbasso la cresta. Il Fedro è una bestiolina un tantino intimidatoria.
« Innanzitutto io sono un pezzo di storia, capito? Non scherziamo con queste cose. La vostra concezione del mondo dipende in gran parte me, occidentali spocchiosi dalla memoria corta. Uno, il vostro Cristianesimo da strapazzo ha fatto copia-incolla e riadattato quello che di me gli andava più a genio. La vostra anima che sopravvive al corpo e bla bla bla, da chi pensate che viene, eh? E no, vogliamo mica parlare dell’amore platonico? No, vabbè, meglio non parlarne, sennò mi vengono certi nervi. No, perché, insomma, siete menomati mentali o cosa? Come se l’amore platonico fossero due cretini che stanno lì a guardarsi da lontano e s’amano. Ma dico, s’è mai sentita una scempiaggine del genere? Il vostro amore platonico ha finito per essere un travisamento totale del mio. L’amore che io dico è un amore dell’anima, certo, ma non prescinde certo dall’amore del corpo. L’amore che io dico è un amore perfetto di anima e di corpo, che mena amante e amato alla sapienza. I vostri due damerini che languono e sospirano sono pure abbastanza patetici da guardare. Poveri occidentali sfigati che avete dovuto inventare tutto un mito di amore puro… e di che avevate paura? A parte che, parliamone, che noia quel vostro amore uomo-donna. Donna… conoscerò giusto tre donne con cui valga la pena di parlare. Le altre se fanno la minestra è meglio. Vogliamo invece mettere l’arricchimento del rapporto tra un uomo saggio e un bellissimo giovane tutto da educare? Dio, non vedete che favolosa storia d’amore è? No, non lo vedono. Loro preferiscono quei due beccamorti di Dante e Beatrice che, per carità, tutto il bene del mondo, ma l’amore gli è passato attraverso “li occhi” ed è rimasto lì. Che tristezza, che tristezza mi fate. »

Beh, il Fedro s’è innervosito e straparla. Mai svegliare il Fedro che dorme.
Signor Platone, caro Fedro, se non vi spiace io tornerei a Guerra e pace, eh? Perché, se debbo dirvi la verità, a me il falso-amore-platonico mi garba tanto e pure Nataša Rostova e il principe Andrej. Ma è stato un piacere. Questo è il mio numero di telefono. Fate uno squillo quando siete in zona, che ci facciamo un aperitivo.