Okay, but hear me out:
A modern day, lesbian rewrite of Symposium???

On the Symposium:
First things first, the reason I found this translation so smooth and entertaining is the language, this is by far the easiest English book I've read.
In the Symposium, Agathon holds a supper with his friends (writers and philosophers) and they all decide to make their devotions and praises to the god Eros/Cupid (god of love). Phaedrus (an idealist) states that an army made up entirely of lovers would be the ultimate force against a state's foes, because a lover wouldn't dare to abandon his boyfriend in battle or even dare to show cowardliness, lest being unworthy of the love. Pausanias (a realist) says that there are two Aphrodites, heavenly and common. The one Heavenly is associated with the love of the soul and the common, the love of the body. He also adds that there "isn't one single form of love" and that "love is neither right not wrong in itself" and "It is wrong if you satisfy the wrong person". He defines the wrong person as the one who loves what isn't lasting, the body, rather than the mind. According to Pausanias, the right kind of love is to love the goodness in your lover in order to learn from him and his wisdom. Socrates defines Eros as the love of something you desire and obviously what you desire, you lack and that a wise man can't desire to be wise, since he is wise already and a foolish man can't desire what he doesn't value. So, it must be one of the intermediate class who desires something, because he is neither ignorant nor in possession of what he wants. He also says that man is capable of producing physical and mental offsprings. Physical offspring is ordinary children. Mental offspring is our achievements in life, and both are produced in pursuit of immortality. This was just a quick review of what happened on that splendid supper and I would happily read the Symposium again in the future.

On the Phaedrus:
A conversation between Socrates and his friend Phaedrus on love, speech-making, the soul, reincarnation and writing. Socrates despises desire as a form of excess and that it brings ruin to men in different aspects of life including love and food. Socrates' picture of the soul is a winged form in the heavens with a chariot and two horses following whatever a god it prefers, and that whenever a soul descends to the earth and posses a body it begins to imitate the god it has followed before its earthly birth. On the writing matter, Socrates doesn't approve of whatever is written because in his mind, writing produces forgetfulness and "disuse of memory" and that people would rely on what is written to acquire knowledge rather than experiencing things themselves. Finally, the scientific way of speaking or writing according to Socrates is to know the truth of what you say, to be able to define everything you say and to know whom to address this speech to.
I really find the Symposium to be more entertaining. The Phaedrus is just so rich with different topics and I guess I will have to read it again to ensure my full understanding.

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.

good to have both in one tiny book

RTC?

4* cho Symposium: có 3 cặp diễn từ về Eros và mình thích cặp của Aristophanes và Socrates nhất, bảo sao bao nhiêu nhà văn nhà thơ lấy dùng nó để ca ngợi tình yêu trong các tác phẩm của mình. Một người cho rằng tình yêu là tên gọi và phương thức chỉ ước muốn và khát vọng theo đuổi tình trạng toàn vẹn nguyên thuỷ. Mình người coi Eros là anh linh đưa đến tiến trình học hỏi để hướng tới cái Đẹp, cái Tốt. Mình hơi lấn cấn vì tình yêu đích thực thời đó không có phụ nữ.
3* cho Phaedrus: mình thích phần nói về linh hồn và phần diễn từ cuối về nghệ thuật hùng biện.
Cả 2 đều siêu khó đọc, khó thẩm và đặc biệt là liên hệ cực nhiều đến thần thoại Hy Lạp.
Phần chú thích của quyển này siêu chi tiết

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.

This book, containing 2 dialogues, is fundamental for understanding one of the most predominant western traditions concerning love and beauty. These books influenced the Neoplatonic views on ascension to the divine, on beauty, and on love; and, through the neoplatonists, the early and medieval christian theologians.

Plato's Phaedrus is a consequential to symposium in the nature of Eros as the master creative energy that surpasses rationality and transfigures the lover to a poet that sees the essence beyond the world of Shadows.
Socrates starts from love's negation in order to create a thesis that in a cunning way he himself shall disprove and he shall bring the notion to clarity , that the lover is a divine creature that is only restricted to reach the world of ideas only by his double-self counterpart that is immersed to the world of matter and vulgarity.
Socrates in a convincing manner builds bridges toward understanding that the equal quality is applied in all the arts ,thus inclination begets artists who dwelling in the oceanic sense of love become histors and creators likewise.
Plato appears as sifting all phenomena and in a dialectic way stands above all discourse to forge the path of theory in any issue
Book is a delight while it does retain an unmoved structure that strikes the reader with its argumentative force

What is love? Well, it usually doesn't involve women, that's for sure.

Too much time has passed for this to be a text that can be evaluated in and of itself. It has acquired too much weight, too much seriousness.
I strongly suspect that Plato may have been going for that seriousness, even if Socrates himself was just enjoying himself with some conversation.
In this case, it's not perspective that's needed; it's a return to the original context.

Like mid-career Eddie Murphy, Socrates lived to provoke. Unlike late-career Eddie Murphy, he died for it, too.