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.

,,Aj, aj, a ty gałganie, a toś znalazł sposób na moją ciekawość literacką"

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."

Spre deosebire de alte incercari filozofice (cum ar fi Sartre cu a lui "Fiinta si neant" din care citeam si nu intelegeam nimic), aici textul curge si este clar. Stau in fata laptop-ului si ma gandesc ce naiba sa scriu. Cum sa scriu un review la un asemenea text???

- dragostea ca dorinta, trupul ca sclav al dorintei sexuale (desfrau vs cumpatare)
- indragostitul vs omul rational. Omul manat de dorinta vs ratiune
- dragostea ca nebunie. Forme de nebunie (pricinuita de bolile omenesti si nebunia produsa de parasirea vietii obisnuite ca urmare a unui indemn divin)
- fiinta, calatoria sufletelor (cei doi cai, sufletele calatorind impreuna cu zeii...povestea este foarte frumoasa)
- arta oratoriei (arta calauzirii sufletelor cu ajutorul cuvintelor), arta manipularii prin limbaj
- ce este adevarul? "A convinge nu are nici o legatura cu a spune adevarul". Nu trebuie sa spui adevarul, ci sa spui ceva asemanator adevarului (verosimil) si sa il spui atat de bine incat sa poata convinge (devious!!!!). Pentru a putea convinge, trebuie sa stii cui te adresezi si sa iti organizezi discursul in functie de "sufletele" celor care asculta (stil concis, vehement, induiosator).
- caracteristicile discursului. Puterea lui sta in calauzirea sufletului (psychagogie)
"Nu este foarte lesne sa formulezi lucrul in cuvinte" - aici a trebuit sa ma gandesc la Wittgenstein
- scrisul. Cand e bine sa scrii? Cand ai de spus ceva care pentru tine este adevarat, cand iti poti apara propriile idei atunci cand sunt contestate. "Odata ce a fost scris, colindul pastreaza aceeasi infatisare si pentru cei care il inteleg, si pentru cei care nu"

Asta iarasi mi-a placut: "Nu suntem noi in dezacord unii cu altii, ba chiar si cu noi insine?"

Mi-ar placea sa iau fiecare paragraf in parte si sa il analizez. Voi face si asta. Calatoria alaturi de Platon abia a inceput.

Personal, partea a doua, despre arta oratoriei, a discursului, m-a fascinat mai mult decat dialogurile despre iubire.

Ο Δάσκαλος Λιαντίνης έλεγε για τον Πλατωνικό Φαίδρο ότι " είναι το ωραιότερο ερωτικό ποίημα της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας!! Στο βαθμό που είμαι ένας επαρκής αναγνώστης, δεν βρίσκω πιο όμορφο και πιο μεγάλο κατόρθωμα στο χώρο της ερωτικής ποίησης από τον Πλατωνικό Φαίδρο. Είναι ο κατεξοχήν ερωτικός Διάλογος..."

Written by Plato, this Socratic dialogue with Phaedrus, focuses on the topics of rhetoric (as in its correct use and practice) and that of erotic love.

Spoiler alert: This book is not about a "philosophy of love" as many reviewers seem to believe. As every dream has its manifest content (a storyline) that masks a latent content (the suppressed, unconscious emotions that bubble into our semi-conscious REM sleep), Socrates' discourse on the nature of love thinly masks the true subject of this dialogue: bullshit, how to produce it, and how to recognize it. For the reader, his dialectical approach gives us a hint about how to resist it.

With self-deprecating charm -- true to form -- Socrates schools beautiful young Phaedrus on his own susceptibility to bullshit, alternately praising Phaedrus's current object of infatuation, the silver-tongued rhetor Lysias, and ruthlessly dismantling the rhetorical artifices of Lysias' manufacture.

This excellent translation by Christopher Rowe is not only accessible to the reader not familiar (or terribly comfortable) with the Socratic dialogs, but manages, too, to emphasize Socrates' sharp wit, good humor, and gentleness of pedagogy. Rowe's scholarly introduction provides context and background making clear the significance of this work.

It is a testament to Plato -- an early generation child and devotee of alphabetic literacy -- that he takes pains to accurately convey to us Socrates' belief that writing would sap the intelligence of the Athenian youth, making them both less knowledgeable about the universal precepts of logic, and less inclined to engage in a dialectic with thought externalized and made permanent.

Centuries before Haddaway--Socrates too asked the all important question: "What is love?"

Stephen Scully's translation of Phaedrus
Focus 2003

---

amazon review

This is a fine translation, both fluent and accurate. It captures the range of tonalities of the original in elegant English that is neither stiffly formal nor cheaply colloquial….The supplementary matter is appropriate and useful. The introduction is crisp and clear, the interpretive essay illuminating…Scully has done a sound and serious job of translating and annotating for the general reader. Above all, his translation is excellent in respect to style and clarity: really a pleasure to read.

David Konstan, Brown University

---

A modern translation and commentary; what it misses in the depth achieved by earlier translation-commentaries it makes up for with clarity of thought and expression. If you have the chance, read it aloud with a friend using a second translation. It'll double your pleasure!

---

Pursuing wisdom, inspired by beauty

I suppose I should start by establishing the fact that I am anything but an expert on Plato. When persuing my undergraduate degree in philosophy 30+ years ago, I read most of the dialogues and found them uninspiring, indeed, some like The Parminedes I found to be incomprehensible.

All these years later, I have come to believe that without an understanding of Plato, one cannot understand the story of Western Culture. And so I have been trying to reread Plato with mixed results.

I have never read any of his dialogues that I enjoyed as much as Scully's edition of Phaedrus. I have no Greek, I cannot assure you that it is a accurate translation. I can tell you that this is the first time I wanted to see the dialogue performed by really good actors. There are moments of great beauty in this dialogue - in the setting, the words and the thought.

As pointed out by the other reviewers, there has been much debate on the central theme of this dialogue. Scully does an excellent job of explaining the different interpretations that other translators or scholars have brought to their readings and how his differs.

So among other graces, Scully serves as an introduction to the literature around the dialogue and influenced by the dialogue (he offers passages by Shakespeare, Donne and Eliot as examples of that influence).

I find myself swayed by what Scully sees as the central theme in the dialogue - the turning of the soul back toward its true understanding and nature. Around this theme of how we can guide or be guided back to the truth, Plato weaves a the myth of the charioteer to explain the nature and history of the soul, a Egyptian myth to explain the difference between writing and speech (influential on Derrida) and explains the difference between the true use of rhetoric and the common use of it in (somewhat)democratic Athens.

All of this is woven around a framework of a holy place (part of what we have lost in our understanding of the Bible and of the Greeks is that God/s were present at certain places. Those places were holy because they were inhabited by God/s and people would go to those places to meet with and interact with that presence). Socrates, as always, proves to be more aware than any of his contemporaries of the presence and the gravity of God/s.

The dialogue is also woven around an older man trying to seduce a younger man. That seduction is largely spiritual but there are moments when I think Socrates is supposed to be tempted. The language of the dialogue is full with methaphors for tumnescence (the wing stubs of the soul throb, etc.).

I would take Scully's theme and put it another way. I think that a lot of ancient philosophy is best understood as a relationship between a teacher and an acolyte.

In this dialogue, Socrates is proven a teacher with many methods of turning the soul of young Phaedrus inward toward a remebrance of his vision of the forms. The dialogue as a whole is striving toward, a loving pursuit of what is true about the nature of our soul.

The discussion of rhetoric, the use of myths, the gravitas of the holy place are all means a teacher uses to inspire his young lover toward remembering that vision.

It is a beautiful work presented by Scully with great skill, sensitivity and scholarship.
Whether you read it as a key work in Western culture or to guide you on your own personal path, this is a great edition to read.

Greg Taylor

A truly miserable read. Two stars only because it has so much importance

Entre los diálogos platónicos existe uno que es curioso por dos razones a resaltar: la cantidad de interlocutores es mínima, por un lado, y, por el otro, la variedad de los temas que desarrolla es tal que no puede clasificarse ninguno de los mismos como el predominante.

tEs decir que, en primer lugar, quienes conversan son dos personajes solamente: Sócrates y Fedro (lo cual se podría considerar como una rareza al comparar las distintas obras platónicas). Y, en segundo lugar, al continuar la costumbre de disponer subtítulos indicativos del eje central a las obras, en este caso particular sería tarea complicada. Por eso algunos traductores han optado por una solución arbitraria, y le pusieron «Fedro o...» del amor (en la edición de Gabriel Silva Rincón), de lo bello y lo ético (en la traducción de García Bacca). Mientras que otros, quizá por no querer añadir nada al original, sólo toman en cuenta el título (en la edición de Gredos).

tPero el punto sigue siendo el mismo: si nos preguntaran sobre qué se habla en el Fedro no podríamos decir «sobre esto», sino que, por rigor, habría que aclarar «sobre esto, aquello y lo otro». O, en otras palabras, sobre el amor aparente y el verdadero, las distintas locuras que aquejan al hombre, la trascendencia del alma, la oralidad y la escritura y los tipos retórica detrás de ambas.

1. Primer discurso de Lisias

tFedro, como entusiasta de los discursos, queda gratamente sorprendido y admirado por el que le transmitió Lisias, sobre la conveniencia de entregarse al hombre desapasionado. En el mismo se presentan distintas razones por las cuales el hombre enamorado sólo provoca perjuicios al amado. Secuencialmente son éstas:

a) «los enamorados se arrepienten luego de verse satisfechos» (231a)
b) «pueden sacrificar sus antiguos amores por los nuevos» (231c)
c) «tienen espíritu enfermo y falta de buen sentido» (231d)
d) «cualquier cosa les enoja y creen que todo se hace para perjudicarlos» (232c)
e) «alejan a todos de su amado, dejándoles sin amigos» (232d)
f) «se enamoran del cuerpo antes que del alma, y no puede asegurarse si su amistad debe sobrevivir a la satisfacción de su deseo» (232e)
g) «el amor se debe compadecer, no envidiar» (233b)
h) «en vez de dañarnos, ayudarnos mutuamente» (234c)

tLisias, pues, parte de una descripción del amor que se da efectivamente entre la mayoría de los hombres, aunque no lo reconozca ni lo anuncie así él mismo. De modo que, las razones (de la «a» hasta la «h») aducidas para mostrar las consecuencias contraproducentes para el amado y el propio amante, son una enumeración relacionada única y exclusivamente con el amor aparente, es decir, aquél que se muestra como tal pero que no necesariamente es tal.

tAquél «amor» egoísta, que busca meramente la satisfacción de los propios deseos (232e), a los cuales permanece esclavo, dominado totalmente por los mismos. Aquél «amor» que se enoja por cualquier cosa, por trivial que sea, y que ve enemigos por todas partes (232c); hasta el punto de aislarse de todos y de todo (232d), dejando al amante y al amado encerrados en sí mismos como en la peor cárcel, queriendo abandonarse mutuamente pero sin poder hacerlo, por la mutua dependencia ya establecida. Aquél «amor» profundamente enfermo, que le desgarra el buen sentido al hombre (231d), hasta el punto en que no valora a nadie realmente, pudiendo sacrificar a todos sus antiguos amados por sólo alabar el capricho del más reciente (231c). Aquél «amor» tiránico por naturaleza (al ser esclavo del deseo) y por finalidad (corromper al amado para tenerle controlado), que lo quiere todo a cualquier costo, incluso si le despoja al hombre de lo mejor que tiene... Porque, en fin, dicho «amor» sólo vela por el cuerpo (del amante que quiere satisfacerse y del amado que puede dar placer), y no aprecia el alma (de ninguno de los dos), de modo que es tan inestable que no se puede asegurar que pueda darse amistad alguna luego de que el deseo haya sido apaciguado (232e). Un amor que, más que envidia, sólo debe compadecerse (233b), pues provoca la degradación absoluta de quienes se involucran en el mismo.

tEse no es el amor que merecemos, nos dice Lisias, precediendo incluso a Sócrates, que en otros términos y de forma más extensa, llegará al mismo punto. No debemos entregarnos, pues, a un amor tiránico donde sólo nos hacemos daño, sino a uno donde nos ayudemos mutuamente (234c). Pero sobre éste otro, cuál es y cuáles son sus características, Lisias guarda silencio.

2. Primer discurso de Sócrates

tValga aclarar desde el comienzo que, el primer monólogo de Sócrates, sólo es un re-planteamiento de lo ya dicho por Lisias en su escrito (236b). De modo que no representa su postura al respecto (el amor) ni mucho menos.

tLa cuestión es que, apenas terminó Fedro de leer en voz alta el discurso de Lisias, le planteó Sócrates...

El resto del escrito se encuentra en mi blog: https://jsaaopinionpersonal.wordpress...

Some thoughts herein are eternal. Ahead of its time maybe. I was more interested in how the dialogue flows, however not to say the least of the content. It is highly civilised how Socrates and Phaedrus conversed. All the world problems would be solved in an instance had everybody conversed like these two giants.