Son varios los críticos que han señalado que el Fedro es un texto inconexo. Como insostenible por sí mismo, los distintos temas que toca parecen carecer de un algo que los anude y otorgue continuidad a un diálogo que habla sobre la poesía, la escritura, la locura, el amor y la retórica (entre otras cosas, claro está).
Sin embargo, encuentro ese nudo en la perspectiva que se tiene del lenguaje y que va a ser de tremenda relevancia para el mundo de la literatura occidental: el lenguaje es alterable, manipulable y posee la capacidad de determinar el comportamiento de las personas. El lenguaje que circula alrededor de las esferas públicas y privadas trae consigo el poder de alterar las percepciones y de engañar a nuestros cinco sentidos. Bajo esta perspectiva, el lenguaje, podría decirse, puede llegar a componerse de distintas ficciones. Son peligrosas en tanto esas ficciones pueden afectar el comportamiento, las creencias y los valores de la gente. Quien posee el poder de manipular el lenguaje a su favor guarda consigo un tremendo poder que, a ojos de Platón, es tremendamente peligroso. Así de grande es el poder que guarda un lenguaje, que, por primera vez en occidente se explicita de manera tan concreta, controla a las masas y altera los regímenes de verdad dentro de lo que se dice y lo que no.

He allí el nudo que, a mi parecer, logra unir los distintos temas que se tocan en este diálogo y que fue de gran aportación para el mundo de la teoría literaria occidental (cosa que fallaron en enseñarme al momento de toparme con el Fedro en mi formación académica). Platón establece de esta forma una manera de comprender el lenguaje como manipulación y que es, precisamente, lo que se realiza al momento de concretizarse una obra literaria: ya sea con fines estéticos, políticos o didácticos, el producto literario es de alguna forma u otra lenguaje manipulado. En tanto lenguaje manipulado, debe de ser cuestionado y analizado en las formas que transmite la información, pues de lo contrario puede guiar nuestras mentes a lugares que no deseamos que sean guiadas. Las distintas formas de organización del lenguaje nos afectan, pudiendo la poesía o el ejercicio escritural incitarnos al amor o la locura (que no son tan distintos entre sí) gracias al poder retórico y artificioso que poseen.

“And so, not to take the Phaedrus seriously in the proper sense is to take philosophy itself seriously. But to take philosophy seriously, perhaps paradoxically but also appropriately for a work that delights in paradoxes and twists of its own, is to take the Phaedrus as well very seriously after all.” —Introduction

the introduction itself deserves five stars—edifying, well-structured, and elegantly written. Consider: “The Phaedrus is not simply discarding a rusted tool [the middle Theory of Forms] that has outlived its usefulness. It is leaving behind a set of views that had led to the most valuable form human life can take; without such views such a life could not have been articulated in the first place. Socrates’ Great Speech exudes gratitude for what first made that life possible. It is a farewell to a dying friend; but its beauty has secured that friend an undying afterlife.”

Reading Phaedrus is enjoyable and rewarding not just because of the pretty prose (uncharacteristic of Plato’s dialogues but very welcomed when you’re speedrunning a book the night before your seminar) but also because it keeps your mind standing on guard, keeping track of how Socrates’s argument progresses (is it just me or is it giving Lysias=Opening Gov, Socrates’s First Speech=Closing Gov, Socrates’s Second Speech=Opp?!) and of the fact that this is an argumentative text challenging argumentation and text.

all in all very fun

Ce texte a été écrit par Platon il y a vingt-cinq siècles. C'est un dialogue, sans doute imaginaire, entre Socrate, qui fut l'un de ses maîtres dans sa jeunesse, et qu'il fait largement intervenir dans ses œuvres, et Phèdre, un jeune homme de la noblesse Athénienne qui le fréquente. Le prétexte de cette causerie, c'est une promenade en dehors de la ville, où Phèdre entraine Socrate après l'avoir appâté par son enthousiasme à l'idée de lui faire entendre un discours qui l'a enchanté. Ce discours, composé par Lysias, est la plaidoirie d'un homme à celui dont il voudrait être l'éraste, pour en faire son éromène, pour la raison plutôt paradoxale que n'étant pas amoureux de lui, il se conduira mieux que s'il l'était, et que la chose tournera à leur avantage réciproque s'il se montre complaisant. Socrate reçoit ce discours assez froidement, et ne partage pas les transports de Phèdre. Mais pressé par ce dernier il accepte de traiter le sujet à son tour. Par contre, il se borne à traiter des écarts de conduite de celui sous l'emprise d'un amour débridé, et se garde bien de faire l'éloge de celui qui n'aime point.



Alors qu'il s'apprête à quitter le lieu, Socrate feint ou non de ressentir l'appel de son "démon", qui lui indique qu'il a commis une faute envers la divinité par son discours impie, et qu'il ne pourra expier que par une palinodie. D'abord, Phèdre n'aurait-il pas honte de tenir un discours pareil à deux amoureux honnêtes ? Ne le jugeraient il pas très défavorablement ? Socrate reprend donc son discours, non plus d'un point de vue purement logique, mais en faisant appel à un mythe pour faire sentir de manière plus complète la nature de l'amour comme l'un des états de l'âme où elle est, hors de son état normal, sous l'emprise d'une passion érotique - comme l'inspiration mantique ou poétique - qui peut être décomposée en plusieurs parties: D'une part un désir qui prend sa source dans une douleur, un manque, et qui est donc considéré comme aliénant et avilissant. D'autre part, un désir plus pur qui ne provient d'aucun manque, mais simplement du plaisir de contempler la beauté et la bonté (deux notions presque indissociables pour les grecs). Ces deux désirs de nature différente sont représentés dans le mythes par des chevaux dont un cocher essaie tant bien que mal de discipliner l'élan et la fougue. Mais d'où vient que l'âme puisse "inconsciemment" reconnaître la beauté et la bonté, alors que "consciemment", la chose semble bien difficile?

Socrate lève cette difficulté en supposant la métempsychose, l'âme ayant été antérieurement à la naissance amenée à suivre au delà des cieux le cortège circulaire des étoiles, suivant l'un des douze dieux (l'une des constellation), s'étant imprégné du dieu correspondant (cf l'astrologie), et ayant contemplé la perfection incarnée par Zeus, qui préside au centre de l'univers ( univers = une chose qui tourne en latin). Ce dernier discours enthousiasme Lysias, qui revient complètement du plaisir que lui avait causé celui de Lysias. Il a l'avantage de ne pas infirmer la part de vérité du discours précédent, mais en le complétant, de le corriger des fausses conséquences qu'il insinuait. Sur la forme, il est certes très joli, mais quel crédit un lecteur moderne peut-il lui accorder, surtout avec toutes ces fables extravagantes ? Et surtout, qu'en pensent réellement Socrate et Platon ?

A mon avis, la réponse à cette question se trouve dans un échange préalable ayant lieu entre Socrate et Phèdre, alors qu'ils cherchent encore un endroit pour s'installer confortablement dans la nature. Comme ils sont près d'un ruisseau qui coule près de la ville, ils en viennent à évoquer une légende relative à l'enlèvement de la nymphe Orithe par Borée. Or Phèdre, en faisant allusion aux interprétations physique du mythe, demande à Socrate s'il y croit, ce à quoi il répond de manière nette que son problème n'est pas tant de démêler la vérité sur une question douteuse de cette nature, mais bien plutôt de viser à sa propre édification morale:

n  
n  σκοπῶ οὐ ταῦτα ἀλλ΄ἐμαυτόν
Ce ne sont pas ces fables que j'examine, c'est moi-même.
n

Pour les explications, il lui suffit donc de prendre celle qui est communément acceptée. Si le mythe est ce qui plaira le plus au grand nombre, alors c'est une forme adéquate, mais il ne méprise pas pour autant les interprétations plus rationnelles. C'est une manière de subordonner et la physique et la métaphysique, à la question morale et éthique. A mon avis, ce choix avisé vient d'une volonté de ne pas diviser sur une question aussi difficile et clivante que la nature de l'âme, et donc de prendre une forme neutre - celle du mythe - qui puisse être acceptée par tous, lorsqu'il s'agit de traiter d'une question morale. Les fables d’Ésope ne sont elles pas elles aussi, des vecteurs d'édification estimés ? Une autre raison qui me pousse à cette interprétation, c'est le discours de Socrate rapporté par Xénophon au jeune sceptique, auquel il explique qu'il est honteux de faire appel aux dieux pour les questions que la logique peut résoudre, mais non pas pour ceux où elle est inopérante (il s'agissait de mantique).

Mais comment donner son assentiment à la signification morale de tel ou tel mythe ? Car c'est là, finalement, la question. Il n'y a, à mon avis, pas d'autre moyen que de rentrer dans soi-même, et puiser dans sa propre expérience la manière dont le mythe s'accorde ou non avec la vie intérieure. C'est-ce qu'il me semble, dans ce sens qu'il faut interpréter la suite du récit, en particulier le mythe égyptien de Teuth.


Le dieu Toth

Le revirement causé par ce discours est en effet l'occasion de rebondir sur le cas plus général de la manière d'employer les discours, que ce soit pour enseigner la vérité, ou pour persuader. De la même manière que pour l'amour, toute question peut être traitée de manière complète ou partielle ( et donc partiale). Socrate nous donne un critère pour identifier les discours philosophiques, cherchant la vérité plutôt que la simple persuasion, qui n'est finalement pas très loin de la méthode de Descartes(*): il s'agit, lorsqu'on traite une question de poser des définitions, de procéder par une analyse à une décomposition en éléments plus simple, et enfin de vérifier par une synthèse qu'on a bien épuisé la question dans son ensemble. A la fin, chaque élément doit être à sa place, en harmonie (qui en grec, signifie ajustement). Et surtout, le plus important, chacun des point doit être divisé jusqu'au point de nous paraître évidemment vraie, comme si nous la savions déjà. Pour les discours visant à convaincre, l'important n'est donc pas tant de lister toutes les ficelles dont l'usage a montré l'efficacité que de savoir devant qui, dans quelles circonstances et dans quel but il faut les employer: omettre ces points, ce n'est pas traiter la question à fond.

Finalement, le texte finit par la prière que Socrate fait à Phèdre de prévenir Lysias qu'il ne mérite pas le nom de sage, tandis qu'il fait un éloge d'Isocrates. Le choix de ces deux personnages n'a pour moi rien d'anodin, et comporte une signification politique. Lysias était un avocat, versé à fond dans la rhétorique, et les quelques textes qui nous sont parvenus nous font voir l'habileté de ses plaidoiries, ainsi que son engagement à défendre les démocrates suite aux abus de la tyrannie des trente, malgré les promesses de paix. Au contraire, Isocrate avait des sentiments aristocratiques, et a plutôt écrit des exhortations morales, des lettres édifiantes à des princes et des tyrans, et a toute sa vie travaillé au "grand dessein": la fin des luttes intestines qui divisaient la Grèce, et l'unité contre les barbares. Platon laisse ici éclater de manière transparente ses opinions politiques, en fustigeant une démocratie abimée par la démagogie, et en louant les dirigeants ayant avant tout le souci de l'éthique et de la morale. Un regret quand même, c'est que les anciens n'aient pas pu ou voulu envisager la question de l'éducation.

L'interprétation du texte est difficile, comme en témoigne la masse des écrits sur le sujet, parfois divergeant, et dont la fin de l'ouvrage brosse un synoptique. Je n'ai aucune prétention sur le fait que la mienne l'emporte particulièrement sur les autres. Elle est en grande partie influencée par la lecture de Plutarque. Il existe des écrits antiques spécifiquement dédiés à l'étude du Phèdre, comme les notes par Hermias d'Alexandrie lors des cours de Syrianus. Cet ouvrage est malheureusement introuvable en français. Il y a aussi les Ennéades de Plotin, mais depuis qu'on m'a dit qu'il était plus froid qu'Aristote, j'hésite à entamer leur lecture.

(*) La Méthode de Descartes en quatre points:
- ne recevoir jamais aucune chose pour vraie que je ne la connusse évidemment être telle : c'est-à-dire d'éviter soigneusement la précipitation et la prévention ; et de ne comprendre rien de plus en mes jugements, que ce qui se présenterait si clairement et si distinctement que je n'eusse aucune occasion de la mettre en doute.
-diviser chacune des difficultés que j'examinerai en autant de parcelles qu'il se pourra et qu'il sera requis pour mieux les résoudre.
-conduire par ordre mes pensées en commençant par les objets les plus simples et les plus aisés à connaître, pour monter peu à peu comme par degrés jusqu'à la connaissance des plus composés. Et supposant même de l'ordre entre ceux qui ne se précèdent point naturellement les uns des autres.
-faire partout des dénombrements si entiers, et des revues si générales que je fusse assuré de ne rien omettre.

On dirait furieusement celle de Socrate dans le Phèdre...!

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.

nieironicznie polecam zakochanym, czy to w słowie, czy w drugiej osobie

Opera celebre, e a ragione. Contiene pagine celeberrime e di altissima poeticità (tanto per fare degli esempi, la bellissima descrizione paesaggistica iniziale, il mito della biga alata, il mito di Theuth, con relativa discussione sul ruolo e l'utilità/ problematicità da una parte della scrittura, dall'altra dei discorsi). Interessante anche la riflessione finale sulla differenza fra scrittori/poeti e filosofi (i quali, unici, scrivono essendo consapevoli e conoscitori della verità, e soprattutto scrivono essendo consapevoli del fatto che tale dimensione vada accompagnata giocoforza da quella del discorso). I poeti di contro, essendo ispirati da un Dio, non sanno quale sia la verità.

9/24: One-sentence summary: in light of the fact that all beauty is inescapably moral, education is about the wooing of the desires toward the transcendent. Still my favorite dialogue.

10/23: Notwithstanding the claims of the Republic, this may be the greatest of the dialogues. The very roots of Classical Education are found in this work, whose three seemingly astonishingly disparate discussions are bound together in the most evocative of ways: by the question of how and in what ways the souls of men are moved. What other work can lay claim to being analyzed equally by literary critics, psychologists, pedagogues, communication theorists, and theologians? I recommend that newcomers spend more time on the second half. It's easy to be both fascinated and disturbed by the first half, and though it contains important concepts and is especially significant as the most obvious precedent for Augustine, it's just not as important to understand as the discussions of argumentative and mythical discourse. A close reading of this dialogue will reveal a web of language, imagination, and thematic interests with as much density as any play by the tragedians or Shakespeare. You can read it each time with a different framework in mind (literary theory, eros, rhetoric, cultural criticism, aesthetics, ethics, etc.) and get something totally fresh out of it accordingly. Stunningly brilliant and easily one of the headiest and most influential great texts of the Western world.

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.

Läsning 3: Jag hade den märkliga upplevelsen att bli skriven på näsan av en AI, angående körsvennsmetaforen. Jag använder gärna och ofta chat gpt för att fördjupa min förståelse av texter, men detta var något nytt. Jag kände mig tvungen att läsa om den, och det... stämmer vad som sades. spännande.

Läsning 2:
Bokens tema är begär, i olika former. Begär efter kärlek, skönhet, vänskap, gudomlig insikt. De första delarna är enkla att följa; de senare hanterar kreativitet och gudomligt vansinne. Dessa senare delar lär också förklara Sokrates egna syn på själen, i ljuset av den egyptiska religionens läror.

Jag ser inte hur.

Det jag ser är en trevlig text, som tidvis är träffsäker i sin beskrivning av relationen mellan behov av bekräftelse, faran med och glädjen i kreativitet, och hur dessa relaterar till åtrå. Den är riktigt vass i beskrivningen av vänskap, och i beskrivningen av faran med att ge upp sina övertygelser för vänskaps skull, och konsekvenserna, rent själsligt, av detta. Däremot ser jag inte de påstådda förklaringarna av själens väsen.

Det mest behjälpliga med boken, är de delar som handlar om skillnaden mellan de begrepp för vilka vi kan ha en yttre referens, och de begrepp som saknar sådana.

Därutöver är den välöversatt.

[HARRY's apartment from When Harry Met Sally. HARRY is asleep on his couch. On the table next to him are a mostly-empty bottle of bourbon and a copy of Phaedrus. Enter SOCRATES.]

SOCRATES: Good evening, Harry.

HARRY: How--

SOCRATES: Don't worry, I'm not real. This is a dream.

HARRY: Uh--

SOCRATES: I see you're reading Phaedrus. Looking for advice, maybe?

HARRY: I-- I just can't understand how I could have done it. Why did I fuck her? I've ruined everything.

SOCRATES: You're sure about that?

HARRY: We had such a great thing going. We weren't, like, dating, so we could hang out and have fun and talk. There wasn't any jealousy or possessiveness or any of that crap. It was perfect.

SOCRATES: Because you weren't lovers, you could enjoy each other's company much more?

HARRY: Exactly. We did so many goofy things. You know, there was this one time we were in a diner together...

SOCRATES: And what happened?

HARRY: It doesn't matter. All over.

SOCRATES: You seem very upset, Harry.

HARRY: Of course I'm upset! It was the best relationship I've ever had. And now I've just flushed it down the can. I must have been crazy.

SOCRATES: Maybe it's not such a bad idea to be crazy sometimes?

HARRY: Oh, puh-lease. Don't give that mad-people-are-the-only-sane-ones bullshit. It's not going to help.

SOCRATES: Come on, think about it Harry. Whenever you've done anything difficult or creative in your life, weren't you a little crazy? People shook their heads. But sometimes it worked and you felt really good about it afterwards.

HARRY: Okay, Socrates, I see where you're going. But this time I just screwed up. That's all there is to it.

SOCRATES: And it's particularly true with romance. Have you ever made an important romantic decision and not wondered at least once if you weren't doing something totally insane that you'd regret later?

HARRY: Well, now you mention it--

SOCRATES: In everyday life, one must of course act sanely. But with religion and art and love, a little insanity is essential.

HARRY: Hm--

SOCRATES: Here, let me give you this picture I sometimes use to help me focus on my own romantic life. When I want to imagine my soul, I see it as this guy driving a chariot with two winged horses. There's one good horse and one bad horse--

HARRY: You know, you were almost talking sense there for a moment, but now you're losing me again. What's My Little Pony got to do with it?

SOCRATES: No, no, Harry! This isn't about children's toys, this is serious. The good horse is noble and obedient, but the bad one is full of base instincts. When it sees the loved one--

HARRY: Say, let me just ask you a direct question. What is your romantic life, exactly?

SOCRATES: Well, mostly oral sex with underage boys. Some anal. But the whole point of the analogy is that I try to keep it under--

HARRY: So I'm taking romantic advice from a pedophile?

SOCRATES: Now Harry, you need to remember that we belong to different cultures. In my society, what you regard as--

HARRY: I'm waking up now.

[SOCRATES disappears. A moment later, HARRY is sitting up on his couch, rubbing his eyes. In the background, the sound of scattered fireworks.]

HARRY: What the--

[He looks at his watch, which shows 18 minutes to midnight. Suddenly, he grabs his coat and opens the door]

HARRY: I might just be in time. If I run.

"Fedar" je filozofsko i umjetničko remek-djelo. Oduvijek mi je to bio Platonov omiljeni dijalog, a primjećujem da mi se sa svakim novim čitanjem čini sve bolji i bolji, baš kao i Platon u cjelini.
Dijalog prvo kudi, zatim slavi boga Erosa, a paralelno sa tim tumači besjedničku vještinu. Meni se više dopao prvi dio napisan u velikom nadahnuću, posebno slikoviti prikaz ljudske duše kroz alegoriju sa kočijama. (jedan od najtoplijih filozofskih odlomaka!) Tu se Platon obilato služio mitologijom genijalno prikazavši stepenasto uzdizanje duše - od tjelesne žudnje, preko prijateljstva i istinske ljubavi, do ideje o praljepoti. Slično je to uspinjanje prikazano i u "Gozbi", samo što je ovdje u smislu umjetničke izražajnosti na mene ostavilo jači utisak.
U drugom dijelu se "Plećati" od bogom nadahnutog umjetnika transformiše u hladnog teoretičara. Tu on pravi oštru distinkciju između retorike kao tehničke i manipulatorske vještine, i dijalektike, jedine istinske filozofije. U skladu sa tim se daje prednost živoj riječi u odnosu na pisanu. Iako nisam pobornik sofističke retorike, ipak sam više na strani filozofiranja čekićem, tako da mi je drugi dio dijaloga malo pokvario utisak. Ipak, moram dati petaka zbog kočija!
Sve pohvale neprevaziđenom Đuriću na vrhunskim prevodima i opširnim napomenama. Ovih šest dijaloga u Deretinom izdanju su mi baš prirasli srcu, šteta samo što se, kao i većina Deretinih knjiga, brzo počinju raspadati.

I’m making my way though Plato’s collected dialogues – and there are quite a few of them. All the same, I’m surprised by how many I’ve read before. I’m going to add some comments about the individual ones as I go through them and maybe something overall on them as a collection once I’ve finished.

It would be easy to say this dialogue is about love, except that the Phaedrus isn’t actually about love alone, but also about the power of rhetoric and why we need to be aware of that power. One of the things I’ve particularly noticed in this read through of the dialogues is how attracted Socrates is to pretty young men. In one of the dialogues he even mentions how tongue-tied he starts off being while talking to a particularly beautiful young man. And sometimes it is fairly obvious that he is showing off in front of them. This presents something of a counter-theme to the stated aim of many of these dialogues, that beauty is more than just skin deep and that sexual attraction alone isn’t to be trusted.

I guess in some ways what is being discussed in relation to love is a bit like choosing someone to be your mentor, even if at least part of that relationship is also going to be sexual. The dialogue starts with Phaedrus going to tell Socrates of something he had read on the nature of love written by Lysias. Now, Socrates stops him, because he can see the speech is basically sticking out of his pocket and so he tells him to read it to him. This is interesting given what is said later about the power of memory and the negative aspects of written texts.

Lysias’ speech says that you should enter into a relationship with someone who doesn’t love you, since love comes with lots of problems – not least of which being jealousy – and so you might be better off with someone who just wants to have sex with you as they are likely to have your best interests at heart and will not try to necessarily keep you from mixing with other people. A disinterested lover is therefore likely to be a better mentor, whereas a passionate lover might ultimately do you harm.

Socrates listens to this and then says that he was so swept along by how involved Phaedrus was in his reading of the speech that it was all a bit contagious. Which is interesting for the second theme of this dialogue – on rhetoric – since it is that kind of contagion that ultimately Socrates is going to want to overcome. But he then says he could do a better speech on the same theme, but before starting he covers his head, I think basically out of shame and embarrassment since he is going to be swept along by the muses in what he is saying. In a sense this sort of thing sounds like it is Socrates being ironic and even a little sarcastic – and I’m sure it is that too – but I also started to wonder if this wasn’t a bit like watching science fiction films while knowing a little of physics. You know, like in Star Wars where people zap off at light speed across the universe, but everyone is still in the same time relative to each other. If you worry about the physics of the film, you’ll ruin your enjoyment of the film – but if you don’t worry about it, then you have to sort of pretend to remain dumber than you necessarily are. The solution being to worry about the physics after you’ve enjoyed the film, perhaps... Although, as someone who hasn’t seen a Star Wars film since the second one (which was probably numbered episode 7 or something stupid like that), the other option is, of course, to not bother watching them at all. Which I guess is ultimately Socrates’ point and one I've basically followed by default.

In Socrates’ first speech he is also arguing that you are better off with a non-lover – since being in love is a kind of madness and since a lover wants their own pleasure from the object of their love, that is unlikely to involve them worrying too much about what is bests for the young man. In fact, it is likely to have pretty bad consequences for the young man, since the lover will be moulding them into something that will best suit their own passions. A non-lover, on the other hand, is more likely to be a guide in the young man’s life and so ought to be chosen for those reasons.

Except, love is basically a god and so Socrates, in making this speech against love, has just blasphemed – the little ghost guy that tells him when he made some sort of blunder tells him this before he can leave, and so he now has to make another speech to make amends. And so, this time his focus is on the benefits of love. In this Socrates talks of how the particular beauty of the young man acts as a kind of stepping stone towards grasping the truth of the form of the beautiful – and this is realised in the movement from the particular (the beauty of the boy) to the universal (beauty per se) - or from the concrete realisation of beauty in the young boy, to the abstract (and therefore more true) nature of beauty as a form. To achieve ‘true’ love, the lover and the boy need to be swept along by desire so as to be nearly overcome by it, but to ultimately not give into that desire – that is, I guess, they show that their desire for knowledge and truth about beauty is stronger than the baser emotions involved in consuming and consummating their physical desire.

So, to recap a little – Phaedrus reads a speech by Lysias to Socrates, Socrates first tries to improve this speech, by improving upon its rhetorical form, but then has to give another version of the speech to not just fix up its form, but also the problems with its content. We then come to a discussion on the nature of rhetoric itself – or rather, of writing. Socrates sees writing as a problem, and it is important in that context to remember that he, a bit like Jesus, never wrote anything, but spent his life in discussions with people. All the same, as I said at the start, it is interesting that he demanded a reading of the first speech, rather than a recollection of it.

Socrates believed discussion was far superior to writing since if you don’t understand something said by someone you are talking to, you can ask them a question – and asking questions is certainly Socrates’ thing. But with a book it has the problem of only being able to tell you the same thing over and over again. And as I said before, we can too easily get swept along by the beauty of a speech, and miss the fact that perhaps nothing worthwhile is being said.

I noticed this particularly this week, after the Labor Party here in Australia lost the election – an election it had been decided by everyone for years it would be impossible for the ALP to lose. Anyway, one of their ex-politicians put a video online of him very passionately saying things needed to change. He didn’t say which things needed to change, how they needed to change, how those changes might make it more likely for the ALP to win the next election – none of that – just that things needed to change. He did, however, say this with remarkable force and conviction, so much so that I'm quite sure he was terribly, terribly sincere, and his little video has received 16,500 views. It is just that, despite the depth of his sincerity, I'm not sure I could tell you what he is being sincere about.

Of course, the problem with writing isn’t just that you can’t ask the written text questions – well, you can, it’s just you can’t expect answers. Rather, the real problem with written texts for Socrates is the impact they have on memory. Writing is often considered to be an ‘aid’ to memory – but for Socrates, it is likely to be the exact opposite. Whereas before writing you had to remember by-heart things you wanted to ‘take with you’, with writing you can always refer back to the text. The problem is, that having something ‘in your heart’ isn’t quite the same as having something that you can ‘look up’.

For a long time I tried to learn poetry by heart, and for pretty much the same reason Socrates is saying here. I highly recommend it, by the way – you can play with poems you know by heart in ways it is harder to play with them if you have to track them down and read over again. And that does make a difference. You understand poems more once you have committed them to memory – Part of me thinks that should sound obvious, but another part of me suspects many people might not really believe it.

This is one of the classic dialogues – perhaps one of the top ten – a couple of things I’ve read about it talk about how it is one of Plato’s homosexual dialogues – which is, of course, a bit stupid – given that homosexuality as we think of it now wasn’t really what the Ancient Greeks understood by the idea of love (or even sex) between a man and a ‘boy’. We find it impossible to understand the past other than through the lens of our present prejudices. As such, this book is a good curative for that.