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

[Abridged in The Norton Anthology of World Literature, Volume A]

I've also read this a few years ago in full, here we skip the long set-up and love discussions and focus just on Socrates's thoughts on rhetoric and writing. He seems to be against writing because it allows you to know without remembering. Writing is silent and doesn't answer questions or defend itself - easily misused.

"The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge—discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it happy as any human being can be."


>first speech of socrates
We are all ruled, he says, by two principles: one is our inborn desire for pleasure, and the other is our acquired judgment that pursues what is best (237d). Following your judgment is "being in your right mind", while following desire towards pleasure without reason is "outrage"

>Second speech
-madness given as a gift of the gods provides us with some of the best things we have.
-A soul is like the "natural union of a team of winged horses and their charioteer".
-What is outside of heaven, says Socrates, is quite difficult to describe, lacking color, shape, or solidity, as it is the subject of all true knowledge, visible only to intelligence.
-One comes to manifest this sort of love after seeing beauty here on earth and being reminded of true beauty as it was seen beyond heaven
-A lover's friendship is divine, Socrates concludes, while that of a non-lover offers only cheap, human dividends, and tosses the soul about on earth for 9,000 years.

> Discussion of rhetoric and writing
-persuasion being the purpose of speechmaking and oration. Socrates first objects that an orator who does not know bad from good will, in Phaedrus's words, harvest "a crop of really poor quality"
-one must make systematic divisions between two different kinds of things: one sort, like "iron" and "silver", suggests the same to all listeners; the other sort, such as "good" or "justice", lead people in different directions.
-He goes on to compare one with only knowledge of these tools to a doctor who knows how to raise and lower a body's temperature but does not know when it is good or bad to do so,
-Socrates tells a brief legend, critically commenting on the gift of writing from the Egyptian god Theuth to King Thamus, who was to disperse Theuth's gifts to the people of Egypt. After Theuth remarks on his discovery of writing as a remedy for the memory, Thamus responds that its true effects are likely to be the opposite; it is a remedy for reminding, not remembering, he says, with the appearance but not the reality of wisdom. Future generations will hear much without being properly taught, and will appear wise but not be so, making them difficult to get along with.
-No written instructions for an art can yield results clear or certain. Writings are silent; they cannot speak, answer questions, or come to their own defense.

Fedro é um dos diálogos de Platão sobre o amor e a retórica entre Fedro, um jovem ingênuo, e Sócrates, o filósofo que basicamente o educa na arte de ser enganado por belas palavras e nenhuma substância. Contrário ao discurso de Lísias, que acredita serem os apaixonados pessoas pouco confiáveis e entregues às paixões nocivas, Sócrates defende que o amor inspira ações sublimes como o culto aos deuses, as artes e a filosofia. Para ele, o que move a cultura é o amor e, após explicar o que para ele são as almas de acordo com a metáfora de um carro alado guiado por dois cavalos, um bom e um ruim, também explica a diferença entre os discursos que enganam e os que influenciam positivamente quem os escuta, para que Fedro possa aprender a diferenciá-los. É um texto bem simples, sem grandes atrativos e que poderia facilmente ser resumido em um diálogo mais curto.

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.

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.

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.

''Bezumna požuda, koja je savladala misao i njenu težnju za onim što je pravo i
pohitala za uživanjem naslade što je daje lepota, pa je opet od njoj srodnih požuda
dovedena telesnoj lepoti, te je tako na svom pobedničkom hodu ojačala do najživljeg
razvitka snage, dobila je ime po toj istoj snazi i nazvana je ljubavlju.''


Mnogo lepo Platon piše o lepoti i zanesenosti, o duši i istini, o ljubavi... Ali, njegova predstava je toliko idealistička da sam u jednom trenutku stekao utisak da će se tekst ispred mene rasparnuti u hiljadu komadića, kao kad bi neko maljem udario o ogledalo. A, možda je to i zbog toga što sam knjigu čitao u pdf-u.

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.

Initial Problem: Can a lover be a stable friend?

P1: The Lover is more dis-ordered than the non-lover.
P2: Love is a desire [Plato 237]
P2a: Erromenos Eros is the Supreme Desire.
P3: (Socrates speaking): The non-lover has all the advantages in which the lover is deficient.

P(1-3) establish that the lover is always unstable. He is concerned with pleasing the beloved. It seems if he is controlled by desire (Eros), then he isn’t rational. In fact, he is mad.

But Socrates raises an interesting question: Do we not consider Eros divine (the ancient Greek would have said yes)? If so, he can’t be evil. If he isn’t evil, does that call into question P(1-3)? Socrates renews his argument:

P4: What if madness weren’t necessarily an evil? [244]

Prophecy is a kind of madness, yet no one considers prophets evil (not usually). Therefore, “love” might be a madness, but it isn’t automatically evil.

Here Socrates breaks the narrative and talks about the nature of the soul. The soul is immortal, which means it is indestructible and self-moving. Therefore, the soul can’t be evil. Therefore, presumably, it’s desiring isn’t madness. In fact, it has to be mad.

P4*: Souls long for that which is beyond themselves [248].

Plato introduces the famous metaphor that the soul is a charioteer.

Soul tt=tGood Horse (forms)ttORttBad Horse (defective)
tttttttCharioteer

Knowledge

Problem: Truth is in the eternal realm, yet I am in this world of flux. How can I know truth? How can I know what I don’t yet know? Desire (Eros) mediates between what is known and what is unknown. As Socrates says, “I love, but know not what” [255]. Thus, knowing is a form of loving. As Catherine Pickstock says, “Eros is described as a liquid, pouring into the eyes and overflowing into others” (Pickstock 239).

Pickstock suggests that knowledge implies a pre-understanding “through a desire to know.”

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.

ach ta miłość

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