fínasta heimspekirit, hef svo sem ekki mikið að segja,, bara fínt.

I got tired of Lysias/Phaedrus’s know it all attitude about love and eros real quick and found Socrates arguments here fairly weak. If you are interested in ancient Greek attitudes on friendship, lovership and everything in between, then this is your jam, otherwise this is a long Plato read than can be skipped with little loss imo.

Am citit cartea asta ceva mai greu decat mi-as fi imaginat. Poate si pentru consistenta mare a ideilor, condensate in fiecare propozitie a dialogului. Schema discursului a fost de mare ajuor pentru intelegerea structurii, iar pt. cei interesati (nu pt. mine) de un studiu aprofundat exista cateva zeci de pagini de note cu explicatii suplimentare.

Dialogul este despre multe lucruri, de la fumos la iubire, insa cea mai semnificativa sectiunea mi s-a parut cea referitoare la arta discursului, la retorica si eristica.

Mi-au placut si ideile despre suflet, metafora celor doi cai si a vizitiului dintre care unul cal, cel negru, doreste totdeauna sa se napusteasca asupra celui indragit, si sa-si manifeste iubirea si celalalt, alb, care se stie stapani.

Traducerea: Gabriel Liiceanu

I'm not sure about this, but I think the Phaedrus is probably among the most famous of the Socratic dialogues. On the surface, the first half of the dialogue pertains to the benefits and harms of erosic love, whereas the second is dedicated to one of Plato's favourite topics, the uses and abuses of rhetoric. However, I think its greatest contribution—and certainly its most discussed—is the Analogy of the Chariot, which provides insight both into Plato's conception of the soul and his theory of forms. The soul, Plato tells us, is like a chariot, with the charioteer driven by a charioteer (reason) and led by a good horse (the noble emotions) and a bad horse (desire). In the well-ordered soul, reason tames desire in such a way that it can pursue what is highest and most beautiful. I don't think it quite ranks among the very best of Plato's dialogues—Republic, Gorgias, Theatetus and the like—but it's close.

I read this dialogue over several months. I kept coming back to it. Parts of the dialogue I liked and in particular the sophistry of rhetoric. I also liked the dangers of the written word and reliance on it without analysis by the majority of people. The part I did not like was Phaedrus who gives meaning to the term yes man! Plato is trying I think to tell us question everything or take what we hear with a pinch of salt.

so sick of zoom calls, just want to walk barefoot in a stream with my homie and talk about love as extreme sexual tension crackles between us i don't want click and collect i want my bros to read speeches to me please i jsut want to walk in a stream please i don't want a smartphone i

This was very funny! And short! And the vibes *were* flirtatious……

Very similar to Symposium.

Oturduk üstatlarla beraber uzun bir çınar ağacının altında, hani şu Boreas 'ın Orethyia' yı kaçırdığı söylenen yerlerde, destansı bir sempozyum yaptık. Phaidros kuşkulu biraz, sonradan uyum sağladı gerçi bize, ben ağzı açık şarap budalası hem içtim hem dinledim, Platon ;tek kişilik dev kadro, çekirgeleri bile hayran bıraktı kendine.. Netleştirdik bir çok konuyu, ruhlarımızın doğasını kavradık, kanat takıp ruhlarımıza tanrıları hizaya sokup geldik. Deli miyiz neyiz dedik sonra kendi kendimize. Demez olaydık, Platon aldı sazı eline (Sokrates'in ağzından) deliliği iki türe ayırdı ; ilkini biliyorsunuz dedi hastalıklardan kaynaklanan, diğeri ise zamanla davranışlarımızın tanrısal bir biçim almasını sağlayan deliliktir dedi. Dört gruba ayırdı o tür deliliği ;dört tanrıya denk gelmekteydi. Apollon kehanetleri, Dionysos sarhoşluğu, Musalar şairliği ve son olarak da en iyisi olduğunu söylediğimiz Aphrodite ve Eros aşkı.. Daha sonra nasıl oldu bilemiyorum ama aşkın etkisinden söz ederken bazen gerçeklerin peşinden gidip bazen başka yollara girince baştan sona tuhaf bir konuşma yaptık. Gitmeden önce de oranın tanrılarına dua etmeyi ihmal etmedik.

A Twist in Your Toga

As they say in the classics, I’m glad I reviewed "The Symposium" before "Phaedrus".

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Although the two relate to similar subject matter, it’s uncertain in what order they were written.

However, "Phaedrus" isn’t the toga party that "The Symposium" was, primarily because there are less participants. And everybody knows, the bigger the toga party, the better. (Well, it has a potential for more surprises, though apart from the surprise element, I don't think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with a toga party for two.)

Under Plane or Chaste Tree?

Ironically, my assessment of the number of participants might not be strictly correct. It’s a tribute to Plato’s metafictional structure that, in both cases, only two people are speaking in the present. The difference lies in how many people’s views they recount (in significant detail, too).

Here, Socrates and Phaedrus discuss only one other person, Lysias.

In effect, Plato sets up a debate between two rival views of Love held by Lysias (as read from a book by Phaedrus) and Socrates.

Unlike "The Symposium", this dialogue is conducted outdoors by a stream under the shade of two tall trees (one a plane tree, the other a chaste tree). It is also a much more sober affair. Despite all of the flirtation, it swings between plain talking and chasteness.

Lover and Beloved

Plato’s dialogue concerns two options for a [male] youth or "Beloved". Lysias’ tale concerned a "fair youth who was being tempted" by a "Non-lover".

Lysias advocates that a Beloved should prefer a "Non-lover", while Socrates advocates a "Lover".

However, this is not a contrast between a non-sexual relationship and a sexual relationship. They are both forms of homoerotic sexual relationship. The real issue is the extent to which there is a pedagogical or spiritual function in the relationship that would constitute Love or "Eros" in the Greek sense (i.e., the relationship between "Lover" and "Beloved").

Lysias

Lysias advances the case of Non-lovers effectively by attacking Lovers:

1. Lovers attach pedagogical and spiritual duties to their passion or desire for the Beloved. The compulsion of their duties is the cost of their passion. As their passion wanes, they count the cost of their passion and they come to resent their Beloved. They cannot maintain the façade of selflessness once their passion flags.

2. The esteem in which Lovers hold their Beloved will suffer when they find an alternative Beloved.

3. The Lover’s love is madness, and who would be taught by a madman?

4. Because the number of Non-lovers exceeds the number of Lovers, the Beloved has a greater choice of sexual partner from the pool of Non-lovers.

5. Lovers limit the Beloved’s access to society at large.

6. Lovers fall out of love when they discover their Beloved has grown into a lesser adult.

7. Lovers praise the Beloved for ulterior motives.

Phaedrus is convinced.

Socrates’ First Speech (Desire and Reason)

Socrates believes that Phaedrus has simply been enchanted by the rhetoric of Lysias’ arguments.

He sets out to puncture the enchantment by defining the nature and power of Love.

Socrates argues that the above problems result not from the duties of Love, but from Passion or Desire, which is equally found in a Non-lover:

"Every one sees that Love is Desire, and we know also that Non-lovers desire the beautiful and good. Now in what way is the Lover to be distinguished from the Non-lover?"

The difference between the types of Lover depends on the ability to manage or master Desire:

"...in every one of us there are two guiding and ruling principles which lead us whither they will; one is the natural desire of Pleasure, the other is an acquired opinion which aspires after the Best; and these two are sometimes in harmony and then again at war, and sometimes the one, sometimes the other conquers.

"When opinion by the help of Reason leads us to the best, the conquering principle is called Temperance; but when Desire, which is devoid of Reason, rules in us and drags us to Pleasure, that power of misrule is called Excess."

Socrates elaborates on the cause of this imbalance:

"...the irrational desire which overcomes the tendency of opinion towards Right, and is led away to the enjoyment of Beauty, and especially of personal beauty, by the Desires which are her own kindred— that supreme Desire, I say, which by leading conquers and by the force of Passion is reinforced, from this very force, receiving a name, is called Love ('erromenos eros')."

Socrates’ Second Speech (The Madness of Love)

In the first speech, there is a tendency to regard Love as a form of madness or mania that overcomes Reason.

In contrast, in his second speech, he refers to it as "inspired madness":

"...let no one frighten or flutter us by saying that the temperate friend is to be chosen rather than the inspired, but let him further show that Love is not sent by the gods for any good to Lover or Beloved...we, on our part, will prove in answer to him that the madness of Love is the greatest of heaven’s blessings."

Socrates proceeds to recant the views in the first speech and to reinstate Eros, at the very least, side by side with Reason.

He starts by asserting that the Soul is immortal, because it is forever in motion. Because it is self-moving, it has no beginning and equally no ending. It cannot be destroyed. A body which is self-moving or moved from within has a Soul. "The Soul in her totality has the care of inanimate being everywhere."

He then describes the Soul in terms of a figure of a charioteer with a pair of winged horses. The horses of a human charioteer differ from those of a divine charioteer: one is noble (reason) and the other is ignoble (passion). The pursuit of truth requires both horses to be harnessed. If their wings are damaged and they are unable to stay in flight, they fall to the earth and form mortal creatures composed of both Soul and Body.

The Soul is sustained by the Divine:

"The Divine is Beauty, Wisdom and Goodness...and by these the wing of the Soul is nourished...the reason why the Souls exhibit this exceeding eagerness to behold the plain of Truth is that pasturage is to be found there, which is suited to the highest part of the Soul."

In short, Love is a desire of Beauty, Wisdom and Goodness, and therefore the Divine. Love nourishes the Soul, and reunites it with the Divine.

Hence, "he who loves the beautiful is called a Lover, because he partakes of it," the Divine and its "heavenly blessings".

So Socrates concludes, "great are the heavenly blessings which the friendship of a Lover will confer upon [the Beloved]."

Non-lovers cannot offer a Beloved these heavenly blessings. They work solely within the framework of mortal or earthly Desire.

The Ranks of Beauty and of Love

You could argue that the dialogue is of limited relevance to our contemporary concepts of heterosexual Love, because it operates within the framework of homoeroticism and the pedagogical/spiritual world of Greek polytheism.

However, this is a potentially superficial argument.

Firstly, I think that the mechanism of Love is very similar, regardless of the gender of the participants.

Secondly, it's easy to imagine how the same concepts could be adapted to Monotheism. However, it's also arguable that Beauty might play a similar function within Love, regardless of whether Beauty is associated with Wisdom, Goodness or Divinity. Thus, the relationship of Beauty and Love could apply equally in the case of Atheism.

Remarkably, this latter argument finds some support in "Phaedrus" itself, partly as a consequence of the polytheism of Greek religion.

Socrates believed our views on Beauty depend on the gods we follow. Perhaps there is some subjectivity in our choice of god. This subjectivity might equally affect our perceptions of Beauty and our Love:

"Every one chooses his love from the ranks of beauty according to his character, and this he makes his god, and fashions and adorns as a sort of image which he is to fall down and worship.

"The followers of Zeus desire that their beloved should have a soul like him; and therefore they seek out some one of a philosophical and imperial nature, and when they have found him and loved him, they do all they can to confirm such a nature in him, and if they have no experience of such a disposition hitherto, they learn of any one who can teach them, and themselves follow in the same way.

"And they have the less difficulty in finding the nature of their own god in themselves, because they have been compelled to gaze intensely on him; their recollection clings to him, and they become possessed of him, and receive from him their character and disposition, so far as man can participate in God.

"The qualities of their god they attribute to the beloved, wherefore they love him all the more..."

It’s almost as if, because the Lover’s sense of Beauty is subjective, there is inevitably an overwhelming desire to both seek it out and project it onto the Beloved of choice.

But that’s a whole other story...it will be told, only elsewhere...



VERSE:

The Form That Love Takes

Like Bob Dylan, I’ve
Tried love fast and slow,
But still sought answers
From those in the know.

So, to enquire,
I searched high and low,
Trying to fathom
Lust and desire.

I even wondered,
Are they part of love?
Do they connect to
Virtue or higher?

Can’t someone tell me?
Does anyone know?
How do we fall and
Cupid deal his blow?

What makes you realise
It’s love at first sight?
What is it that smiles
In a lover’s eyes?

Who chooses the shrine?
Why love one person
And another scorn?
What makes love divine?

What causes these storms
That so lash my heart?
Says what’s good for me
Isn’t always so?

What kind of black coal
Fuels this mad fire?
How do you explain
What controls the soul?

Could the Greeks be right?
Are the answers in
"Phaedrus" and/or
"The Symposium"?

What god’s law is it
That true love informs?
Or is it these god
Damned Platonic Forms?



SOUNDTRACK:

Frankie Goes to Hollywood - "The Power of Love" [Extended Version]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLw_K-...

Frankie Goes to Hollywood - "The Power of Love" [Official Version]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vpo0p...

ABC - "All of My Heart" [From the album "The Lexicon of Love"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfph30...

ABC - "The Look of Love" [From "The Lexicon of Love"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMbNYj...

Nick Cave - "Babe, You Turn Me On" [Live at the Brixton Academy London, 2004]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXk6PF...

Nick Cave - "Nobody's Baby Now"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQNsSS...

"...these are my many letters
Torn to pieces by her long-fingered hands."

2,5⭐️
Hmm, juju fínasta heimspeki. En ekki gaman. Ég vildi bara Samdrykkjuna aftur en við fáum víst ekki allt sem við óskum okkur:/

I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know; although if we found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?

Delightful rumination on the contrast of rhetoric and philosophy, on the written against the spoken and the madness which is love. I read this as grist for a Derrida project which failed to appear on command. Other tools require being readied.