Symposium - *****
Phaedrus - ****

Total: 4.5 *s

possibly my favourite pair of dialogues! they synergise so well with each other. uchicago core memory would be when prof jochim brought us out into the quad to talk about socrates’s speech in the symposium

Nunca sé realmente qué piensa Platón. Siempre habla por medio de los demás.

Pues son como 6-8 weyes hablando de lo que es el amor en una época... muy diferente en ese sentido.

Del lado filosófico tienen puntos sobre el placer, la belleza, el amor, el sexo, etc... Perp todo el discurso es sobre el amor. Definen algunos conceptos que hoy en día damos por obvios. Al final es Grecia antigua, pre-estóicos, con algunas verdades absolutas como los dioses y demasiado civilizados. Interesante, pero no mind-blowing.

Muy curiosa la super-sexualización de Sócrates y los "hermosos jóvenes", y querer pasar las noches con él, y ponerse celosos por él, y estar enamorados de él y hasta ser friendzoneados por él (morros de 16-ish por un vato de 40-ish).

Medio inesperado lo abierto que era el tema sexual. Hablan de orgías como cosa regular entre ellos y a veces con mujeres también. Dificil imaginar que hace 2000 años eran más abiertos sexualmente que hoy.

Hace 2000 años y hoy en día, el tema del amor y la forma de verlo no ha cambiado tanto. La belleza, el sexo y los demás temas que tocan, desgraciadamente, sí han cambiado mucho.

Me lo aventé express en unos vuelos que tuve. Casualmente así es como siempre eh leído a Platón: en aviones.

Dato curioso: Mencionan el dicho famoso que los borrachos y los niños no pueden mentir. Es el uso mas antiguo que yo eh visto.

Reading ancient classics in their entirety is an interesting exercise. Not reading them from start to finish, and instead gaining one's classical education purely from secondary sources, is a sure way to reinforce modern prejudices. The standard "folk-style" (re)interpretations render one's thoughts on the classics, the Renaissance, ethics, and sexuality recast in modern fashions of morality. This is no laughing matter, and as recent as 2005, pointing out the obvious was less an exercise in self-flagellation (pardon the pun), and more an exercise in publicly shooting oneself in the foot. For example, the book Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West was not going to be published (according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 October 2005) following objections by "conservative activists". This is what leaves me shaking my head - if being a conservative is all about respect for the traditions of the past, where "Western" thought and the Hellenic tradition are one and the same (especially in opposition to "others"), then the veritable chink in the conservative armour is undoubtedly amour homosexuel. That is not to say that one shouldn't take the best bits of the past and reject those practices that were not simply actions between consenting adults (specifically pederasty, but bestiality and cannibalism probably count, for that matter), but to whitewash history so thoroughly dishonours George Santayana's legacy no end. In Symposium, it was a real treat to hear from Alcibiades (even if he did mention how he tried to seduce Socrates). Undoubtedly,
Steven Pressfield's depiction of Alcibiades' character in Tides of War was magnificently rendered. It is a challenge to deliberately reconfigure my "knowledge", which was invariably based on abridged and whitewashed versions of history, and taught by well-meaning but oppressive moral crusaders. As I write this I am experiencing waves of liberal education that are making me feel truly free. I will have to find all of the sources that have stated time and again that if you do not read, you are not free. This is true. I am fortunate to have read History of the Peloponnesian War and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values (Vale Robert Pirsig) beforehand, but whether a proper reading of Homer is better before or after I shall not know until I get through that tome. While Baz Luhrmann innocuously advises one to wear sunscreen, I would advise one to read. But don't blame me if taking the red pill destroys the prefabricated foundations to your intellectual existence.

Just when you think you're done reading Plato, he finds a way back to you

Written For School:

“Love is born into every human being; it calls back the halves of our original nature together; it tries to make one out of two and heal the wound of human nature.”
― Plato, The Symposium

Summary:
tThe Symposium and Phaedrus explore the concept of love in a simultaneously philosophical and unpretentiously honest way. In both translations Plato’s passion for exploring the topic and his reverence for his teacher Socrates. The Symposium follows a light-natured competition to give the best speech dedicated to the Greek god of love, Eros. The text explores the many definitions of love, the impact it can have on men, and the perils of less derivative definitions. Phaedrus is a dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus, an Athenian aristocrat. The pervasive theme of love extends throughout the text, but their dialogue also explores the concept of reincarnation, the constructs of the human soul, and the art of rhetoric.

Author:

Plato is considered one of the most important figures of western philosophy. Taught by Socrates, he was able to contemplate complex ideas of politics and philosophy, a gift that he passed on to his student Aristotle. Not much is known about Plato’s early life, but we do know that he was born into a family of aristocrats with three siblings. He was said to be eager to learn and work hard in his studies, so he was likely trained by the most prestigious teachers of his time. Plato would go on to found The Academy just outside of Athens. In 375 BC Plato wrote and compiled his masterful Socratic dialogue entitled The Republic.

Observations:

The Symposium:
tThis is perhaps the best [and most natural] example of Plato using a Socratic Dialogue, a style he mastered throughout 35 works. The Symposium takes place at the dinner table in a friendly contest, thus, unlike a piece like The Republic, its conversations feel unforced and unpretentious. Each speaker provides a passionate speech dedicated to love, but as usual, Plato focuses the most on the words of Socrates. Unlike the other speakers, Socrates supposes that love is not a god, but instead a force between god and man that connects them and everything else in the universe.

Phaedrus:
tLike The Symposium, Phaedrus centers around a few speeches on the topic of love. The central characters are Socrates and the young Athenian aristocrat Phaedrus. Throughout the dialogue, the two have several disagreements that ultimately lead to constructive realizations. To me, the most striking part of this dialogue is the way Socrates changes his mind [while crossing the river] thanks to Phaedrus before giving another speech. Besides love, Phaedrus also discusses madness, the soul, the madness of love, and rhetorical devices. The most powerful [or at least iconic] section of Phaedrus is Plato’s “Chariot Allegory”. In this allegory, the charioteer [the driver] embodies intellect and the human mind. One horse represents man’s rational passions and the other represents irrational impulses. The charioteer’s job is to steer the two in the same direction without letting the swerve in different directions.

Conclusion:
tThe Symposium and Phaedrus are significant milestones in Greek philosophy and humanity’s understanding of love. Each offers equally valuable knowledge and insight that will leave the reader with a more diverse view on love as well as speech and Socratic dialogue. I would recommend these books to anyone with an interest in philosophy or morals and reasons for love.

A very illuminating book on the nature of love and making speeches, filled with elaborate allegories and dramatic elements. My favorite allegories were the charioteers and the original humans who were split in half. This book is the most enjoyable to read from what I read from Plato.

El banquete 5/5, Fedro 3/5. De cualquier modo, la exposición del mito del carro alado en el Fedro ya bien vale la leída. De El banquete, decir que es de las cosas más hermosas jamás escritas. El mito del ser humano dividido en dos mitades que expone Aristófanes, del cual surge la definición del amor como la búsqueda de la otra mitad, es sublime. Tan sublime que esa es una de las definiciones/teorías del amor más extendidas hasta nuestros días. Más de dos mil años de vigencia.

To be clear, I'm giving The Symposium 5 stars, not Phaedrus. The Symposium was a delight to read! I absolutely loved it. Phaedrus was okay, but I think Plato has much better dialogues, honestly.

“When a lover… meets the real thing (i.e. his other half) he is completely overwhelmed by friendship and affection and desire, more or less refusing to be separated for any time at all. These are the people who spend their whole lives together, and yet they cannot find words for what they want from one another. No one imagines that it’s simply sexual intercourse, or that sex is the reason why one gets such enormous pleasure out of the other’s company. No, it’s obvious that the soul of each has some other desire, which it cannot express.”

With some amazing bits on memory and dialogue, I found these two texts really thought-provoking. But on the whole, there's a lot of tediousness to be gotten through. When you're set up immediately with the understanding that the "final truth" on any subject will rest with Socrates, I found that I read with a significant amount of indifference to what most of the other participants in the conversations had to say, and then very critically about what Socrates concludes. The narrative stuff is gold, though.

Le banquet

On pourra bien s’opposer à la philosophie de Platon, personne ne va nier la puissance exceptionnelle avec laquelle il l’a l’extériorisée. Et en plein cœur de cette œuvre sublime, les caractères du premier alphabet disposant de voyelles brillent comme jamais dans le dialogue consacré à l’amour qu’est « Le Banquet ».
L’atmosphère festive où se déroule la discussion donne au lecteur une impression de fraîcheur et de légèreté, alors qu’il assiste à une discussion portant sur des sujets parmi les plus graves et les plus sérieux, comme l’amour, le sens de la vie, le Beau et le Bien. De plus, comme on le dit avec tant de justesse depuis si longtemps « In vino veritas ». Chacun des convives (exception faite de Socrate dont l’esprit est toujours le plus libre), l’esprit délié par le vin s’y exprimera en toute franchise et avec plus de souplesse et d’ingéniosité qu’il le ferait habituellement.
Dans la continuité de l’Apologie, Platon présente à son banquet un Socrate parfaitement chaste qui ne corrompt en rien la jeunesse. Bien au contraire, l’interruption de la discussion par Alcibiade permet de montrer toute la fausseté de cette accusation faite contre Socrate à son procès, puisque ce dernier, dédaignant même le corps du plus joli des jeunes hommes d’Athènes, n’a jamais fait mine de séduire les jeunes gens que pour leur faire accoucher de leurs meilleures possibilités spirituelles et morales.
Sur le plan du discours, Platon réalise aussi sur son lecteur le même phénomène maïeutique que Socrate pratiquait dans les rues de sa cité. Il sait que personne ne peut s’élever à la moralité si elle est présentée directement, mais qu’en appâtant habilement le lecteur avec des discours esthétiques et légers, l’amour du Bien viendra couronner le tout d’une manière toute naturelle. Son apparent éloge du dionysiaque se transforme ainsi insensiblement et d’autant plus sûrement en un triomphe complet des principes apolliniens.
Quelle admirable réussite que ce Banquet!
Platon demeure d’ailleurs le seul auteur de l’Antiquité dont l’œuvre entière nous soit parvenue (dans la mesure, évidemment où l’on met de côté les hypothèses sur une œuvre ésotérique qui n’aurait été distribuée qu’entre les seuls murs de l’Académie).
Véritable étoile au ciel de la philosophie, mais aussi de la moralité et de l’art, Platon reste éternellement présent, depuis le moment où il a dicté ou écrit lui-même ses dialogues, en passant par les multiples mains des copistes et traducteurs, puis par les presses d’imprimerie jusqu’aux formats numériques, d’environ 380 avant le Christ jusqu’à aujourd’hui, presque 2500 ans plus tard, il continue encore et toujours à servir aussi magnifiquement de point repère dans l’horizon spirituel humain.