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

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 ؟

Very similar to Symposium.

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

Having spent limited time with Plato, (maybe just the Symposium?) I decided to read Phaedrus after it kept popping up in older queer texts and contemporary queer historical fiction. (Pretty much any time an Oxbridge queer romance occurs pre 1955, Phaedrus will show up).

Philosophical dialogues on rhetoric aren't an intuitive genre for most, but Phaedrus' brevity and specificity make it a fairly breezy read, all things considered. The third speech on love is the most famous, and is powerfully evocative, even if the nuances and implications of the charioteer metaphor are still tricky to parse for this particular reader, no matter how many times I encounter it.

I'm usually fan of Penguin editions and their text notes, but this translation, although semi-revised in 2005, is largely a 40-year-old text and I felt that in the language. Also, the endnotes were solely concerned with disciplinary debates and delineations about 17 layers deeper than the average Penguin Plato reader (me) can climb, and generally stymied rather than illuminated. But since I was in some ways reading the text from the lens of its meaningful place in queer dialogues of the past centuries, having a more staid and aging translation was likely a closer representation of the text readers were engaging in the past than the more poetically direct contemporary translations such as the Phaedrus passage in Seán Hewitt's "300,000 Kisses" collection on queer love in the ancient world.

As an intertextual nerd, if I see a title mentioned enough times in enough novels, I'm going to read it. It's a little like reading in character, seeing what the character saw and being able to bring that layer to one's own interpretation. As a constant conversation partner in queer discourse for centuries, Phaedrus is fascinating now for the questions it raises and insights it provides about what it helped people see, to say, and to carefully avoid saying, much less what it meant for Plato's generation.

Not sure what the etiquette is here but I thought I'd get this one done today. In future I think I'll post Plato as larger blobs according to the larger books. So I read this in prep for the fearsome text I will be reading imminently.

It's my first encounter with Plato qua Plato! And I did enjoy. Full of life, smoothly human, rather sweet (the terms of endearment!!!).

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

Plato is RIDICULOUS. In all the best ways. I'm sort of inclined to agree with a friend who said that if you're trying to sort out the Socrates from the Plato, a pretty good indicator for the Socrates is the concentration of dirty jokes. The Phaedrus is rife with them. It actually opens with Lysias arguing for hookup culture. That makes the subtle little ways that Socrates pulls out the rug from under you all the more delicious.e

3,5/5
Ο Πλάτων σκιαγραφεί μια κλίμακα ερωτικής ανάβασης που διαδοχικά καλύπτει την έλξη προς ένα ωραίο σώμα, την έλξη προς τις ωραίες ψυχές, την έλξη προς τις ωραίες δημιουργίες και μαθήσεις, για να καταλήξει στην αποκάλυψη ότι το πραγματικό κίνητρο του έρωτα είναι η ταύτισή του με το ιδεατό ωραίο, με την ιδέα της ωραιότητας. Ο Πλατωνικός έρωτας δεν είναι ένας έρωτας ανεκπλήρωτος. Είναι ο έρωτας στην πλήρη μορφή του. Εκεί που οι ερωτευμένοι μετά τη σωματική έλξη και την ψυχική ένωση καταλήγουν σε κάτι ανώτερο.

Στο δεύτερο μέρος αναλύουν τη ρητορική και την αισθητική του λόγου. Με το μύθο που παραθέτει καταλήγει ότι τα γραπτά είναι ένα εργαλείο που βοηθά τη μνήμη . Στον αντίποδα ο προφορικός λόγος χαρακτηρίζεται έμψυχος γιατί στηρίζεται στη βαθύτερη επικοινωνία δύο ψυχών. Κυρίαρχη είναι η αξία που δίνεται στη διαπροσωπική επαφή, την οποία κανένα γραπτό κείμενο δεν θα μπορούσε να υποκαταστήσει.

#readathon18 8/13 Ένα βιβλίο με όνομα στον τίτλο
Άνδρες/Γυναίκες 5/3

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

The Phaedrus was not one of the dialogues we read in my Plato seminar in grad school, so I thought I'd finally tackle it. I didn't like it much. I'm guessing that that might be the influence of my particular professor, but I'm not sure.

Some of the other goodreads reviews are very well-written and do a nice job of analyzing the dialogue. Many highly recommend it.

The dialogue is a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus out for a walk on a hot summer afternoon. They take shelter in a cool spot and discuss love and rhetoric.

The dialogue begins playfully and flirtatiously, and I enjoyed the discussions of same-sex love which is often part of the cultural milieu in Plato's dialogues, but is explicitly discussed here.

Socrates argues at one point that lovers must be avoided and then turns around and argues the exact opposite, which then leads into the real topic of the dialogue -- rhetoric and how it can be used to argue most anything and to deceive people from the truth. A number of other topics appear, including the immortality of the soul and its make-up and even interesting comments on divine possession, revelation, and religious practice (I wrote an essay on Socrates on this topic in grad school).

There is good and important information here for student of Socrates/Plato, however I didn't find it, overall, as engaging (both as literature and philosophical treatise) as many of Plato's other works.

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.