Category: Symposium

Plato is regarded by many as the world’s greatest philosopher. In his dialogues, he examined everything from the nature of reality, to ethics, to beauty, to the state. The Symposium, which you can read in full here, is the summation of Plato’s ideas on love, and have proven very influential.

The main character in the dialogues is the great philosopher Socrates, who inspired Plato. Scholars have been trying to understand for centuries which of the ideas expressed in the Platonic dialogues are Plato’s and which are Socrates’.

The Symposium was named after the cultural and social practice of the same name, which was a post-banquet gathering in which men would drink, listen to music, and relax. Typically, there was a great deal of conversation and witty talk. Guests would drink too much and would say things they would never say. The events portrayed in the Symposium dialogue took place in 385 BC. In the text, there are seven speakers, all based on historical characters.

It is important to understand the characters in the dialogue in order to understand the philosophical arguments put forward by Plato.

Phaedrus was an Athenian aristocrat and a friend of Socrates. Pausanias was a legal professional and Eryximachus was a physician. The great comic playwright Aristophanes was also present at the banquet.

The host of the banquet was Agathon, a tragic playwright. Socrates is also present, as is Alcibiades, the notorious Athenian politician and general who played such a prominent role in the Peloponnesian War. They all offer different definitions of Love.

Like all the Platonic dialogues, the work, which is very literary, consists mainly of speeches. Socrates arrives at the party late because he had been lost in contemplation. Agathon invites his guests, to make a speech in praise of love.

Phaedrus goes first. He quotes some poets and argues that Love was the first of the gods and promotes excellence and goodness in people. He argued that there is also a lower sort of love, one based on desire and sexual gratification. Then there is a kind of divine love which involves a lover teaching his beloved virtue and wisdom.

Next spoke the doctor, Eryximachus, who says love is moderation and balance.

Next up is Agathon, who gave an elaborate speech arguing that love is the youngest of the gods. The object of love, according to Agathon, is nothing less than beauty.

Socrates then spoke. He disagreed with Agathon, stating that he mistook the object of love with its intrinsic nature. He then told the following story: He once met a wise woman, who called herself Diotima. Love was a spirit, Socrates learned, that helped us to attain what we desired and needed. It is a spirit or daimon and it mediates between the gods and men, reproducing itself either through the birth of new beings or new ideas.

Socrates held that the world of the senses is based on Forms which exist in an eternal realm. Thus, love is the desire or spirit which lifts the human soul to the knowledge of the Forms.

The Forms were the essence of things from which flow what we perceive as reality; they are called ‘ideas’ in some translations. One of the most important Forms was the form of beauty, and Socrates said love can guide a person to its contemplation.

He showed how love can help the human mind ascend to a higher, eternal realm, one beyond the temporal world of the senses.

At this point, the notorious Alcibiades, who is very drunk and rowdy, butted in. He interrupted everyone to tell them how he tried to seduce Socrates.

In Ancient Greece, sexual relationships between males were tolerated, and those between an older man and a younger man were considered praiseworthy. Alcibiades’ story showed that Socrates had no interest in sexual pleasure. The party becomes chaotic and disorderly. Soon everyone passed out, except the philosopher, who left and went about his business.

The Symposium is very important in the philosophical tradition. In the work, Plato rejected the idea that love is about desire and sexual gratification. However, many of the speeches make valid points about love, and each one can be seen as taking us nearer the truth.

For Socrates, love was a spirit that helps a person better understand the fundamental nature of reality, or Forms. In the dialogue, Plato, vis-a-vis Socrates, argued the highest love is the philosopher’s love of the truth, contained in the Forms.

This love of the truth is what distinguishes the philosopher. This is what is known as Platonic Love: a love that unites souls by uniting them with the truth.

The Symposium is among the most beautiful of the philosophical dialogues written by Plato, and it is very readable. It is one of the most important texts on love, and it provides insight into Plato’s philosophical system.

The possibility that eros is simply the motivator to sublimation and fulfillment is worked out further in the Phaedrus. In spite of the fact that the cozy connection between the two exchanges is commonly recognized, the Phaedrus is usually viewed as a lot later work. For in addition to the fact that it accepts the Republic’s mental teaching of a tri-partite soul, it likewise advocates the everlasting status of the spirit – principles that are obviously missing in the Symposium. Be that as it may, this distinction appears to be because of a distinction in context as opposed to a difference as a primary concern. The exchange in the Symposium is intentionally bound to the states of self-deification in this life, while the Phaedrus takes the discourse past the limits of this life. On the off chance that it shares the Republic’s teaching of a division of the spirit into three sections, it does as such for reasons of its own: The three pieces of the spirit in the Phaedrus shouldn’t legitimize the partition of individuals into three classes. They clarify, rather, the various courses taken by people as they continued looking for magnificence and their degrees of accomplishment. On the off chance that the Phaedrus goes past the Symposium, it does as such so as to demonstrate how the charm of magnificence can be joined with a component of Plato’s way of thinking that appears to be very strange to the thoughts of personal development and sublimation through the adoration for excellence. That component is suddenly recognized as persuasion, the deliberate strategy for gathering and division that is normal for Plato’s later work. From the start locate, it may appear that the exchange’s subject, Eros, is not really the correct bind to keep together the discourse’s two different parts – for example, the profoundly poetical portrayal of the charm of excellence, and Plato’s ensuing, very person on foot methodological clarifications of the presuppositions of talk. However, in spite of the fact that the lucidness of the Phaedrus can’t be contended for in full here, the thought that the Phaedrus is disconnected doesn’t do equity to the discourse’s cautious piece and in general point.

Talk, its motivation and worth, is in truth the exchange’s point directly from the beginning. The abuse of talk is exemplified by the discourse ascribed to the speaker Lysias, a to some degree thought up request to support a non-sweetheart as opposed to a darling. Socrates’ counter face-up Lysias’ presuppositions – that adoration is a sort of disorder, an unreasonable wanting for the delights of the body; that a darling attempts to rule and oppress the cherished physically, substantially and rationally, and, above all, that the sweetheart attempts to deny the dearest of reasoning. Once reestablished to his detects the sweetheart will disregard his previous dearest and break every one of his guarantees. This uneven perspective on Eros is redressed in Socrates’ subsequent discourse: Eros, appropriately comprehended, is certainly not a sick perspective, however a sort of ‘divine franticness’ (theia craziness). To clarify the idea of this frenzy, Socrates utilizes the correlation of the tripartite soul to a charioteer with a couple of winged steeds, a dutiful white one and a boisterous dark one. The significant contrast between the Phaedrus’ tripartition and that in the Republic lies in this: rather than difficult freedom through training, the Phaedrus conceives freedom through the elevating power of affection, an adoration that is – similarly for what it’s worth in the Symposium – induced by physical excellence. That is the thing that first causes the spirit to develop wings and take off in the quest for a comparing divinity, to the point where it might achieve supernatural bits of knowledge. The best-molded spirits – those where the charioteer has full authority over his ponies – get a look at genuine being, including the idea of the temperances and of the great. Contingent upon the nature of every spirit, the nature of the magnificence sought after will likewise decide the cycle of resurrections that are coming up for every spirit after death.

In contrast to Aristotle, it is hard to plot his thoughts regarding training and their applications to tutoring and educational plan in the Republic. In any case, it is conceivable to take a gander at his thoughts from four alternate points of view. As a matter of first importance, he discusses the significance of general training. He feels that training is the primary duty of the state since instruction has a critical job in giving a genuine science and craft of legislative issues. Along these lines, he discusses the reasonable, hypothetical, and impracticable class training. Instruction is a piece of Plato’s idealistic state wherein scholars should run the show. In the laws, he talks about a down to earth code of laws for a state.

The job of instruction in this state is ‘to guarantee the achievement and interminability of a state”. In Plato’s view, general instruction ought to be accommodated, two classes. ‘The individuals from base-metal class, subdivided into farmers and skilled workers, are to be taught, each for the extraordinary work for which he is best fitted. Those of the valuable metal, or running the show or on the other hand warlike class, are to be taught in every one of that invigorates and congruity to both body and soul’. As indicated by Plato, the objective of instruction is ‘to deliver grown-ups who may effectively add to the satisfaction of the entire network, which themselves appreciating bliss inside that network’. Second, he accentuates the job of dynamic sciences in instruction. Individuals ought to be prepared in dynamic sciences, numbers, geometry, and cosmology so as to force the spirit to utilize unadulterated insight in the inquiry after unadulterated wellbeing. As indicated by Williams, ‘this preparation, by continuing from the noticeable and discernible to being mentally secured, is to be preparative for arguments or reflection, which bit by bit draws and leads upwards the eye of the spirit to the accomplishment of the sublimes logical knowledge, and which Plato along these lines sets up as a defense of good preparing, and a supplement of logical instruction.

As a rule, the motivation behind the gymnastic is to get daintiness and elegance of development. Wellness also, wellbeing is important to perform numerous exercises. For instance, for gatekeepers, body quality is fundamental for the achievement. At the point when people practice gymnastic, they feel cheerful. ‘The spirit, what’s more, not body, is the essential object of ‘gymnastic’ just as of ‘music’ and claims to the reality that selective dedication to physical exercise influences the character no less extraordinary than elite commitment scholarly and stylish culture. ‘In all actuality ‘music teaches, not the spirit only, be that as it may, explicitly the ‘philosophical piece of the spirit through the vehicle of the eye and ear; while ‘gymnastic,’ through real exercise, creates substantially wellbeing and quality, yet trains the mental component of ‘sprit’. At last, Plato gives rules about the job of restriction and writing in training. McClintock points out that ‘ in the event that they (thoughts) extremely imperative to human life and character he (educator) would have held them, trusting to the kid’s brain to absorb what was significant, the later training to save or to amend its feeling of verifiable truth.’ Further he clarifies that there are writing of two kinds, genuine or false; it is with the last mentioned and that training must start, for the writing which we read to youngsters comprises of legends, and fantasies, talking, for the most part, are false however they contain components of realities as well.

Apollodorus relates to an unnamed companion a story he learned from Aristodemus about a symposium, or dinner-party, given in honor of the tragedian Agathon. Socrates arrives at the party late, as he was lost in thought on the neighboring porch. After they have finished eating, Eryximachus picks up on a suggestion of Phaedrus’, that each person should in turn make a speech in praise of the god of Love.

Phaedrus begins by saying that Love is one of the oldest of the gods, and the one that does the most to promote virtue in people. Pausanias follows Phaedrus, drawing a distinction between Common Love, which involves simple and mindless desire, and Heavenly Love, which always takes place between a man and a boy. In the case of Heavenly Love, the boy, or loved one, sexually gratifies the man, or lover, in exchange for education in wisdom and virtue. After Pausanias, Eryximachus, the doctor, speaks, suggesting that good Love promotes moderation and orderliness. Love does not restrict itself to human interaction, but can be found in music, medicine, and much else besides.

The next to speak is the comic poet Aristophanes. Aristophanes draws an engaging myth that suggests that we were once all twice the people we are now, but that our threat to the gods prompted Zeus to cut us in half. Ever since, we have wandered the earth looking for our other half in order to rejoin with it and become whole. Agathon follows up Aristophanes, and gives a rhetorically elaborate speech that identifies Love as young, beautiful, sensitive, and wise. He also sees Love as responsible for implanting all the virtues in us. Socrates questions Agathon’s speech, suggesting that Agathon has spoken about the object of Love, rather than Love itself.

In order to correct him, Socrates relates what he was once told by a wise woman named Diotima. According to Diotima, Love is not a god at all, but is rather a spirit that mediates between people and the objects of their desire. Love is neither wise nor beautiful, but is rather the desire for wisdom and beauty. Love expresses itself through pregnancy and reproduction, either through the bodily kind of sexual Love or through the sharing and reproduction of ideas. The greatest knowledge of all, she confides, is knowledge of the Form of Beauty, which we must strive to attain.

At the end of Socrates’ speech, Alcibiades bursts in, falling-down drunk, and delivers a eulogy to Socrates himself. In spite of Alcibiades’ best efforts, he has never managed to seduce Socrates as Socrates has no interest at all in physical pleasure.

Soon the party descends into chaos and drinking and Aristodemus falls asleep. He awakes the next morning to find Socrates still conversing. When everyone else has finally fallen asleep, Socrates gets up and goes about his daily business as always.

The idea and feeling of love can be a controversial part of life to many people due to the many ways of interpreting it. Throughout Plato’s Symposium, the account and nature of love and what it means differs between speakers. The speeches of Aristophanes and Socrates vary as Aristophanes focusses on human nature and takes a mythical approach to define love whereas Socrates focusses on the idea that love is bad and ugly but is then questioned by Diotima.

Aristophanes begins by explaining that at one time, there were three different types of human beings. He wants us to understand that humanity has physically changed over time as this idea is what he bases his explanation on. The three human beings were said to be male, female, and “androgynous” which means a creature made up of male and female elements (Symposium, 189e). He begins to further describe the physical appearance of the androgynous creature and explains the meaning and reason for each species. Some key physical features are 4 hands, two faces, and two sets of sexual organs. The reason why there are three kinds is because, “The male kind was originally an offspring of the sun, the female of the earth, and the one that combined both genders was an offspring of the moon, because the moon shares in both” (Symposium, 190b). In strength they developed by having double the limbs, the androgynous creatures began creating havoc so after much consideration, Zeus decided to cut them in half to minimize their strengths and increase the population which would give the gods more worship and praise. After the cut, Apollo reminded the halves that the other is missing by having them stare at the wound. Although this is cruel it’s also compelling because each half started to become determined to find their other half which in today’s version of love, is what we long for as well. There is a sadness to the idea of losing a part of our selves, similar to the feeling of the death of a loved one, since some halves might not find their other and would end up alone for eternity. In today’s way of love, our mission is to find our other half and actually fear being alone. This idea proposed the idea of connecting with our soulmates since according to Aristophanes, we technically share a soul with our other half, and we were split to find our way back to each other.

Though Aristophanes describes love as a physical separation with our other halves and our purpose is to find the other, Socrates talks about love more realistically. Socrates’ views on love begins when he questions Agathon’s speech and continues into a conversation with Diotima. He says that firstly, love is the love of something and secondly, love itself loves things that have a present need. Socrates says that love is “ugly” because it’s not considered “beautiful”, but Diotima contradicts him and says that if something isn’t beautiful, it doesn’t automatically make it ugly. She explains the middle ground between wisdom and ignorance as, “judging things correctly without being able to give a reason. […] Correct judgment, of course, has this character: it is in between understanding and ignorance.” (Symposium, 202a). She then continues, “don’t force whatever is not beautiful to be ugly, or whatever is not good to be bad. It’s the same with Love: when you agree he is neither good nor beautiful, you need not think he is ugly and bad; he could be something in between” (Symposium, 202b). After the discussion back and forth about this, it is said that the main point of love is that the desire for happiness is “the supreme and treacherous” love but it can be pursued in other ways, i.e. through money making, hobbies, and subjects. People who possess this love are not considered lovers because they aren’t ‘devoted exclusively to one special kind of love that we use these words that really belong to the whole of it: ‘love’ and ‘in love’ and ‘lovers’” (Symposium, 205d).

The speeches of love told by Aristophanes and Socrates through his dialogue with Diotima agree and disagree in various ways. The way they are similar is that when we love, our purpose is to be devoted to our loved one. In Aristophanes’ speech, he says that we we’re split from our other half and that we’re meant to find our separated half— our soulmate. This says that our overall mission in life is to find our source of love but similar to Socrates, this love is not a hobby or source of income, but who we devote ourselves to exclusively and who we can share love with and in turn, be “lovers”. The way they are different is that Aristophanes’ speech is physically unrealistic but ideologically speaking, his theory makes sense. It’s very abstract and we wouldn’t actually be cut apart from our soulmate, but it does address the idea of “what’s meant to be will find its way back” in terms of love. It also talks about the sadness felt when losing a loved one by explaining it as us losing a part of ourselves. His speech overall is very abstract but when connecting it to real life, it’s actually very understandable and compelling. This differs from Socrates’ speech because he doesn’t really address the physical parts of love, unlike Aristophanes, but instead, he argues whether or not love is good or bad, and desirable or undesirable. His ideas are more realistically however much less relatable and fascinating. Aristophanes’ ideas make us think deep about love whereas Socrates’ ideas discuss its goodness or badness and the overall meaning of love, which is something that can vary between people.

In my opinion, Aristophanes’ speech and perspective offers the best account of the nature and being of love due to its imagery and meaning. As mentioned earlier, he makes us deep think about our overall purpose and the happiness we find when finding our soulmate or the sadness we feel when losing our other half. It describes love as not only an emotional connection to our soulmates, but also a physical connection which is why feelings of love are stronger than other feelings. It makes sense of the idea of how we hurt when our loved one hurts and that we share pain because we once were an androgynous being. His concept is extremely fascinating and helps us makes sense of certain feelings of love.

The speeches of Aristophanes’ and Socrates’ take different approaches when discussing the account and nature of love and what it means. Aristophanes uses a mythical and abstract approach while Socrates uses a realistic and simpler approach. Ideas and the meanings of love can be quite a controversial topic as it can be interpreted in many ways.

References

1. Plato, Symposium, 172-223d, pgs. 458-505

In the modern world, Ancient Greece is viewed as the paradigm of artistic and architectural achievement and expression. Along with being popular for its majestic temples and elegant sculptures, it is also well known for its vast and complex mythology and pantheon, with the creatures and deities that many associate with the Classical and Hellenistic periods finding their origins much earlier in the Bronze Age Aegean cultures. One such creature is the satyr. Often associated with the wine god Dionysos, satyrs generally represented drunkenness and debauchery in ancient times. They are often seen participating in various activities on both black-figure and red-figure painted pottery, including drinking, reveling, and attempting to seduce any living thing within close range. As half man and half horse, these wild creatures epitomize the ancient Greek ideal of barbarianism; not fully human, grotesque in appearance, uncivilized, uneducated, and unable to control their carnal desires, the latter of which was notoriously emphasized by satyrs being depicted as comically ithyphallic.

The abundance of negative traits exhibited by satyrs provided a number of ways for the Greeks to utilize them in painted pottery, many of which rely on the satyr as a comedic and joking element. The level of difficulty that accompanies the interpretation of these vessels varies from item to item, as some present clearly defined characters and events, while others lack inscriptions or are more unusual than the more easily recognizable ones. One such vessel is a fifth century red-figure kylix attributed by Beazley to the Codrus painter, housed in the Fitzwilliam Museum collection and described by Beazley as theatrical (fig. 1).

Figure 1: Fitzwilliam kylix, front and back.

On the sides of this kylix, a parade of satyrs follows behind a youth, who faces away from them and towards a different satyr in a confrontational manner. All of the figures depicted are draped, and the satyrs are each carrying various small items, including a stork, aryballoi, oinochoai, and staffs. In the tondo of the kylix, an Amazon is depicted on horseback. Aside from the initial strangeness of the images presented, the kylix also lacks an inscription that would normally provide some insight to inform the viewer of who the youth represents, or at least what is happening in this scene. However, by comparing this vessel to various other vessels and the ways satyrs are depicted, one can use the recurring themes and motifs to identify and decipher what is most likely to be occurring.

In order to interpret painted pottery that includes satyrs, one must first become familiar with the different uses that satyrs filled, as well as the recurring themes depicted on satyr pottery. Among the popular uses of the satyr is the parody of mythical characters, both gods and heroes. In cases like these, satyrs can be seen replacing the hero normally depicted in a specific scene and adding items or characters that emphasize the change in scenario. An example of this is a red-figure column krater depicting a satyr dressed as Jason stealing the golden fleece, with Dionysos watching from behind (fig. 2).

Figure 2: Red-figure column krater.

Other depictions include satyrs pestering and mocking the main hero of the scene, such as stealing weapons and clothing from Herakles while he is holding up the sky, or being cowardly and unhelpful to Odysseus as he and his men attempt to blind the Cyclops. Another typical way of depicting satyrs is as participants in Dionysiac ritual festivities, seen reveling with human dancers and wine vessels such as the kantharos and kylix and, according to Isler-Kerényi, representing the transition of a symposiast from human to satyr due to overindulgence in wine and dance. Satyrs cannot control their impulses; thus, these vessels remind symposiasts of their civic duty to remain level-headed citizens despite drinking too much at the symposium. A third category of depictions portrays satyrs as participants of a theatrical chorus, the members of a satyr play that interact with the main plotline as characters rather than provide narration and asides like a normal theatrical chorus. In the traditional Greek satyr play, the human chorus was replaced by a chorus dressed as satyrs, explicitly recognizable as actors on painted pottery due to the specific costumes and masks that they wore. An excellent example would be the Pronomos vase, which shows a vast array of both satyrs and satyr players dancing around Dionysus, each on opposite sides (fig. 3).

Figure 3: Pronomos vase.

Many pieces of pottery contain satyr motifs that are described as theatrical, but Walsh reminds us that it is important to differentiate between actual depictions of the stage and paintings that are only influenced by theatrical scenes or themes. The final use for satyrs in painted pottery to be discussed here is their role in the parody of stock scenes from everyday life. There are several variations of this type of vase. On many of these vessels, satyrs are seen dressed in human attire and participating in normal human activities that one would see every day in the city. These replicate popular scenes; an Attic red-figure pelike shows a draped satyr accidentally exposing himself to the seated satyr while giving a speech (fig. 4). The seated satyr listens attentively, and these actions appear as humorous and contradictory to such wild and raucous creatures.

Figure 4: Red-figure pelike

Steiner tells us that the effectiveness of the parody image depends on how often the normal scene has been repeated on other vessels; the elements of comedy and irony are increased when more repetitions are seen, and in some cases this is emphasized by presenting the stock scene on one side of a vessel and the parody version on the other. In a sense, the presence of a satyr in a comical setting was the ancient Greek equivalent to modern memes. Overall, a wide variety of images on Greek pottery reflect different themes that fall under each of these categories.

For each category presented, there are a number of key elements that may be used to attribute a satyr vase to them, and thus one must identify these elements in the piece that is to be interpreted. The first category is mythical parody. Often on vessels decorated with these types of scenes, the main characters of the story, whether they be heroes or gods, are made clearly visible and discernible to the audience based on their physical characteristics, clothing, props, or even an inscription labeling the characters; an example of this mentioned by Walsh is the aforementioned column krater showing a satyr dressed as Jason; one can identify this figure as Jason because of the fleece hanging from the tree. Generally speaking, when a satyr masquerades as a hero, the emphasis is not only on the humorous aspects of the image, but also on the contradictory nature of the image; the heroic disposition of characters like Jason or Herakles juxtaposed with the grotesque and mischievous nature of a satyr. It is difficult, then, to attribute the Fitzwilliam kylix to the category of mythical parody. Although the youth is surrounded by satyrs, it is unclear whom he could represent and whether or not the scene is from a specific myth. With no mythological icons and no inscription, the boy could represent anyone, and the satyrs could be elements of any unknown story. Even the Amazon on the interior provides little context, aside from being seen as barbaric and wild women similar to the wild satyrs. While the probability of the kylix depicting a mythical parody cannot be completely discredited due to its ambiguity, it is very difficult to see it as such because of the lack of clarity in identifying the figures as mythical.

The next category to eliminate is the category of Dionysiac processional and ritual portrayals. As mentioned previously, Isler-Kerényi identifies the various objects and themes associated with Dionysiac activity, including the kantharos, groups of dancers, musical instruments, and the presence of Dionysos. It was also common for maenads, the female participants in such activities, to be included in these scenes. A prime example of this is an Athenian red-figure kylix decorated with reveling satyrs riding a phallic bird and playing pipes, dancing youths with amphorai and a ladle, and a satyr on the interior holding a kantharos (fig. 5).

Figure 5: Red-figure kylix

Despite the processional appearance of the satyrs on the Fitzwilliam kylix, it is quite unlikely that they represent a festival procession or event. Rather than appearing naked to emphasize their primitivity, as in the normal fashion of Dionysiac revelers as well as satyrs in general, the satyrs here are shown fully clothed, as well as the youth that stands among them. Instead of kraters or kantharoi, the satyrs wield oinochoai and aryballoi, and while the former is indeed a signature element of the symposium used to serve wine to the symposiasts, it provides a significantly weak link to festival and processional activity as it is the only item depicted that is specifically linked to wine. Despite this scene being depicted on a symposium drinking vessel, it ironically does not depict a drinking celebration.

Similarly, it is difficult to attribute the Fitzwilliam kylix to the theatrical category of depictions. In the world of Greek theater, specifically satyr drama, satyrs are primarily depicted nude because of their ignorance of societal standards and conventions. This raises doubts in the interpretation of the kylix. If satyrs are wild creatures and their stage presence emphasizes this, it would not make sense to show them fully clothed the way a civilized and respectable citizen would be. It is not uncommon to interpret a scene as theatrical based on unusual or comic subject matter, and in some cases scenes from or inspired by the theater are strongly assumed to be presented. Walsh draws attention to a red-figure kalyx krater illustrating Odysseus and his men preparing to blind the cyclops Polyphemus with satyrs on the sidelines watching the events unfold, and suggests that the scene could be inspired by the only satyr play to have survived in its entirety, called Cyclops and written by Euripides; due to the artistic license held by each individual painter, the inclusion of satyrs could just be an additional decorative element. Because of the lack of complete satyr play scripts and the fragmentary status of few others, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not any scene representing satyrs is inspired by the theater, and Mitchell reminds us that not all depictions of satyrs with heroes reference literary sources; he also describes the typical attire of a satyr player in Greek theater as specific satyr trunks and satyr masks. The Pronomos vase mentioned earlier clearly displays this costume being worn by actors, but the Fitzwilliam kylix does not. This distinction helps to indicate with certainty that the literal stage is not depicted, but whether or not it is a scene influenced by the theater is more ambiguous because of the lack of literary material needed to associate the theater to the painting.

The last category to compare with is that of the parody of everyday scenes and events. Based on the various details and elements displayed, it could be that the Fitzwilliam kylix falls into this category. The first element to be examined, and the element to disprove the other categories, is the absence of nudity depicted, particularly the absence of satyr nudity. As mentioned previously, satyrs are normally depicted as nude to emphasize their primitive, barbaric, and half-animal character, and to contrast them with the nude Greek athlete who was seen as the paragon of heroism, youthful beauty, and peak physicality. Therefore, to see one clothed implies the existence of a certain significance held by the scene. On some earlier vases, satyrs are depicted in a somewhat civilized manner, participating in procession. Isler-Kerényi argues that this participation in domestic Greek activities marks a transformation to humanity from bestial primitivity. This idea goes hand in hand with the idea that draped or clothed satyrs are meant to represent a parody of everyday life. One might remember the red-figure pelike showing a satyr orator, draped in the typical fashion of a Greek citizen. It could be possible, then, that the satyrs depicted on the Fitzwilliam kylix are draped because they are attempting to appear civilized in the presence of a youth. The presence of the youth must also be viewed in relation to the draped satyrs. Anything from daily life could be the victim of parody, and courtship scenes of all kinds were no exception. Mitchell draws attention to a pair of vases that show similar courtship scenes: on one, a draped man leans on a staff and presents a hare to a seated youth (fig. 6). On the other, a draped satyr takes the same pose and offers the same gift to another seated youth (fig. 7). The important relationship between the older erastes and younger eromenos was a popular theme in Greek art, and to find a parody of this theme is not surprising. It could be that the Fitzwilliam kylix illustrates satyrs who are attempting to court the youth standing before them.

Figure 6: Red-figure neck-amphora Figure 7: Red-figure pelike

In order to further support this idea, one must also take into account the various items that the satyrs carry. The first is the staff held by each satyr. As seen on the amphora and pelike, the older member of each of the couples leans on such a staff. It could be argued that a wooden staff such as these functions as a symbol of the erastes. Another item held by one of the satyrs is a bird identified as a stork. In the context of courtship, it was not uncommon for the older male to present the younger object of his affections with gifts, mainly animals, including hares, dogs, and roosters. The rooster was well known as a symbol of male sexuality. The replacement of such a popular symbol of fertility with an ordinary stork can be viewed as comical and fitting for a courtship scene involving satyrs. The aryballos held by a different satyr could represent another gift. Aryballoi were used to hold oil and were carried to the gymnasium and palaestra by the young athletes. The youth depicted on the Fitzwilliam kylix appears to wear a headband, and calls to mind the Diadoumenos, the statue by Polykleitos of a victorious athlete tying a diadem around his head. One could assume that the headband worn by the youth on the kylix is a prize diadem, and that the satyr is offering an aryballos as a gift to the young athlete. Another satyr holds an oinochoe, a vessel used for serving wine. The close association with wine symbolizes the connection of the satyr with Dionysos, as well as with the symposium. With an important element of the symposium being the courtship of men and youths, one might interpret the oinochoe as a gift from a satyr hoping to indulge in wine and courtship at the symposium. Similarly, the satyr bearing a lyre, often seen as both a symbol of Apollo and of, could instead be interpreted as a satyr preparing for a night spent hopefully at the symposium with the youth he plans to court. All of the satyrs appear in a line behind the boy, with the exception of one that stands face to face with him. One might interpret this as the satyrs each taking turns to try their luck.

A well-known element of satyr lore is that despite the various advances they make towards women, youths, and other creatures, they are always shooed away or ignored. This makes the scene on the Fitzwilliam kylix even more comical: in order to be more successful in their sexually charged endeavors, the satyrs have dressed themselves as citizens to seem more appealing to the youth. However, despite all the effort they have spent to appear civilized and to procure gifts for him, the youth seems quite uninterested in the satyrs and their gifts. This strengthens the idea that the scene is a parody of real life. In reality, suitors have little trouble courting their young counterparts because of their social status and role in the polis. Satyrs, on the other hand, are perpetually unable to achieve their goals. No matter what they try, rejection always follows. Dressing up as a man has no effect on their success because both the viewer and the youth standing among them knows that it is not a real man propositioning them, but a satyr in disguise; no costume can disguise their barbaric nature, and the youth is more interested in being involved with a wealthy and prominent member of society than with a barbaric satyr. Humanity is what yields success, and the comically obvious bestiality of the satyrs is the catalyst of their failure.

Interpretation of Greek painted pottery proves to be a difficult task, particularly when there is no specific literary material to attribute or compare it to. It is not uncommon for the first option that one turns to in order to decipher the meaning or story behind an unusual painted scene is scouring the ancient mythological and theatrical writings in search of a reference point, but Mitchell argues that this is unnecessary; rather than taking this approach, one must first examine the visual aspects of the piece that are being interpreted. Often the costume, props, inscription, and positioning of the figures on the pottery can provide insight into the meaning of the images based on the typical attributions and connotations that they hold, and when there is no inscription one must rely completely on the symbolic value of the items that are presented. Not everything is able to be clearly interpreted in terms of myth, but in the case of the Fitzwilliam kylix, the figural representations are inspired by elements of life and culture, and by studying these elements, one is able to find a potential meaning in the painting.

Bibliography

1. DiMarco, M. 2017. “What is the Function of Satyr Play?” Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 34: 432-448.
2. Ferrari, G. “Myth and Genre on Athenian Vases,” Classical Antiquity 22: 37-54.
3. Isler Kerényi, C. and Watson, W. G. E. 2014. Dionysos in Archaic Greece: An Understanding Through Images. Leiden: Brill.
4. Mitchell, A. G. 2004. “Humour in Greek Vase-Painting,” Revue Archeologique 37: 3-32.
5. Michell, A. G. 2009. Greek Vase-Painting and the Origins of Visual Humour. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Sansone, D. 2018. “Socrates, Satyrs, and Satyr-Play in Plato’s Symposium,” Illinois Classical Studies 43: 58-87.
7. Shapiro, H. A. 1981. “Courtship Scenes in Attic Vase-Painting,” American Journal of Archaeology 85: 133-143.
8. Steiner, A. 2010. Reading Greek Vases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Topper, K. 2012. The Imagery of the Athenian Symposium. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Walsh, D. 2009. Distorted Ideals in Greek Vase-Painting: The World of the Mythological Burlesque. New York: Cambridge University Press.

When contemplating the opposing perceptions of two prominent Greek thinkers; Sappho and her descriptions of Eros are regarded as an overwhelming, intense, emotional response felt throughout her entire physical body, a feeling worth dropping anything for to be felt in all of its wholeness that can lead to dropping anything in the present moment for what one truly loves. Additionally, we confront Plato’s effects of Eros – wherein he assigns the use of a narrator known as Apollodorus to begin the series of speeches to pass on to Glaucon – where he inadvertently assesses Eros as a tool to appreciate both the pursuit of wisdom and the experience of a known and naturally felt beauty – one that consists of a neverending aspiration or inclination to pursue what one wishes to know. Although the two interpret Eros in a way that suits their own individual human endeavors, the elucidations of Eros throughout both texts confirms that Eros is a known phenomenon experienced and conceptualized by humans. Eros in these contexts offers readers a fascination to evaluate Eros as a connection to meditate on this human aliveness as well as a potential for knowledge gaining that allows a conscious being, the reader to be introduced to this form of desire that is internal and intuitive.

In one of Greek’s most prominent female poet Sappho’s remaining pieces of writing, specifically 16 (L-P,) she measures the most shared and understood objects of desire in comparison to a masculine set of desirable pursuits from her own perspective. Likewise, she simply does not relate to these ideas as a woman that wishes to desire women. She writes, “Some say a squadron of horse, some, infantry, some, ships, are the loveliest thing on the black earth. But I say it’s what you desire” (Sappho, 74). She begins this passage with a desire that is commonly deemed erotic to men by describing masculine leisurely interests and then quickly states that desiring material objects with heavy weight, physically and metaphorically, is not the form of desire she relates to. From her perspective, desire should be experienced and felt due to the person being the object of desire. Sappho continues, “And it’s easy enough to get everyone to grasp this. For the woman who far surpassed all women in beauty, Helen, left behind the very best of husbands” (Sappho, 74). In this next line, Sappho provides evidentiary support by noting that even the most beautiful of women – Helen of Troy – values a human desire for love as an alternative of a craving that is associated with men at war. Eros in this perspective is in due part to more than man-made notions of conditional desire. What Sappho encourages is a love and desire felt for another person so deeply. Here, it is Helen’s desire for Paris and Sappho does not blame Helen; instead, she valorizes her as a woman capable of such desire that amounts to more than desires of associations deemed as masculine pursuits with a means to an end. For these reasons, desire to these women is unconditional and goes beyond the material world.

In Plato’s Symposium, Eros is discussed as to mean many different things to different characters, although they all share the underlying notion of Eros as the God of love and to experience this love consists of a quest to pursue enlightenment in the form of truth with hints of desire to guide this truth. More specifically, I will be focusing on Phaedrus’ speech and his interpretation of Eros. Further, Eryximachus asks everyone at the banquet to begin praising Eros as Eros offers those to have honor, loyalty, and goodness. Phaedrus is quoted as he asks, “Isn’t it awful, Eryximachus, that humans and paeans have been made by the poets for other gods, but for Eros, who is so great and important a god, not one of the many poets there have been has ever made even a eulogy?” (Plato, 265). Moreover, Phaedrus emphasizes that many other Gods receive recognition for their divine associations but not enough credit is given to Eros as it should be. In a pederastic framework, a lover that is pursuing a boy, he who wants to avoid dishonor, therefore, he will do everything he can to be a good person: eros makes people good, and people don’t want to be dishonored in their quests to love other people. For example, when a younger boy loves an older man, this is seen as more divinely inspired as this power imbalance embedded here is not explored at great lengths in Phaedres’ dialogue, but one can infer that Eros varies accordingly to the position, subjectivity, or placement of the couple regarding the dynamics of their relations.

Furthermore, because Phaedrus’ dialogue is a point of departure to explore Eros and considerably short within the Symposium, I will continue to note differing conclusions of Eros in Pausanias’ speech who interestingly enough considers Phaedres’ interpretation and argument for Eros to be unnoble as he claims, “It is not the noble the way the argument has been proposed to us–commanding us to eulogize Eros in unqualified fashion” (Plato, 269). Here, Pausanias appears to sound almost insulted by Phaedrus’ encouragement of Eros to be known in the way he understands it as an individual, noble concept of a love that offers one virtuosity, though Pausanias continues to say that Phaedrus’ simply lacks the qualifications to enlighten others on the subject of Eros as he writes that, “For were Eros one, it would be noble, but as it is, it is not noble, for he is not one; and as he is not one, it is more correct that it be declared beforehand which Eros is to be praised” (Plato, 269). Consequently, Pausanias shares his regard for Eros as an ambiguous objective as he distinguishes between two different kinds of loves: a heavenly Eros and a common Eros. Likewise, regarding common Eros, there is a notion of common Aphrodite, the mother of Eros, Goddess of love. This common love is noted simply as a love that is felt and expressed for another human being. Here Pausanias states that, “Those who are of the same sort as this Eros are, first of all, no less in love with women than with boys; secondly, they are in love with their bodies rather than their souls; and thirdly they are in love with the stupidest there can be, for they have an eye only to the act and are unconcerned with whether it is noble or not (Plato, 270). Here Pausanias’ describes the common love that is agreeable upon today’s standards in that people may love the outer-appearance of another and not so much as a heavenly love that consists of a love and admiration for another person’s soul. Whereas this Heavenly love or Eros, is a love for what is considered to be divine. This divine essence is the love that Socrates wishes to achieve and learn more about as we continue to explore the text, however, focusing back to Pausanias’ wish to tackle Eros since he is aware that Eros can mean anything to anyone from the position of their own life experience. He wishes to be specific when discussing Eros and continues to share what he deems unique about a pursuit of a Heavenly Eros which is a love that brings and inspires a pursuit of goodness in people. This goodness however, is what is lacking in the notion of common Eros. Although, this goodness is not unachievable in common love of course, let’s say if a lover and a boy wishes to be good and the younger boy seeks wisdom from the older man, this is a praisable form of Eros. He continues to share that in his experience, the Eros we should praise is the one in which where it encourages people to love in the right way, this way meaning it is to be directed toward being a good person.

When referring back to Eros in Sappho’s written poetry, we can still agree that Eros in her own personal experience is unique as a woman writing about desiring other women. Eros to Sappho appears to overlay a love that is easily prioritized over the common masculine-deemed forms of “erotic” amusement. She writes further about Helen’s willingness to leave behind her husband Paris, as she “Gave no thought at all to child or loving parents, but . . . . led her astray. . . “ (Sappho, 74). In this piece of text, once again we see that this love can lead those who understand it to abandon their customary lives for erotic pursuits to continue to explore all that is left for those who wish to challenge what is expected of them. The next three lines of this poem are missing according to the series of intervals, however, Sappho continues to share that these pursuits, “reminded me now of Anaktoria who is elsewhere” (Sappho, 75). Further, one can infer here that Anaktoria who she speaks of must be a past lover of some kind as she describes Anaktoria’s physicality but emphasizing the value and preference of her mere presence in the next series of lines beginning with, “I’d rather see her comely step, the shining luster of her face” (Sappho, 75). Once again, this love that Sappho is describing here is presumably either a Heavenly Eros or even a Common Eros as described in Symposium. One can infer here that she could value a Heavenly Eros – although this is mostly assigned to pederastic relationships, younger male and older adult male citizens. Though, these dynamics aside, this underlying feeling of love is described to be more than a physical attraction as a common love would be. However, what suspects this to be a common love could be that her explicitly stating so is lacking and she could just value this assumed previous lover for nothing more than a physical attraction. This is not to say that it is either one or the other but could be assigned both in this circumstance. More importantly in this text is Sappho’s value of people over the “Lydians’ chariots and infantry in armor” (Sappho, 75). Moreover, because most men valorize and eroticize these groups and activities, she emphasizes that her desire for women, or people, rather, is what is truly valuable and desirable. What is desirable and loving to Sappho are her embodied notions of love she feels because of another soul that she encounters. These encounters allow her to self reflect on the collective values for war tactics that she cannot relate to. In the same way, this is why her poems appear to written accounts of her own experiences as she shares her perspective in comparison to what the majority of people are deeming as erotic and desirable when in reality they are quite the contrary because what is loving about the impacts of war?

Referring back to Plato’s Symposium, Phaedrus’ ideas of Eros are quite indeterminate in that although he acknowledges the benefits of Eros making one wish to do good deeds in the world, his interpretation still lacks a deeper meaning that we are able to interrogate further when piecing together Pausanias’ notions of Eros that require much more examination. Pausanias’ experience in grasping Eros has resulted in his concluding to the two branches of Eros that I mentioned earlier: Heavenly Eros and Common Eros. Moreover, because these two ideas of Eros have varying origins, they will inevitably have opposing meanings in the end. Accordingly, those who value a Heavenly Eros, wherein often younger boys look up to older men for inspiration to pursue wisdom and knowledge in their lives, however, still acknowledging physical attraction is to be taken into consideration: “the other Eros is of Uranian Aphrodite, [who] does not partake of female but only of male (and this is the love of boys); and second, is the elder and has no part in outrage” (Plato, 270). When looking to Common Eros or “Eros Pandemus,” we see that sexual fulfillment is in large part due to an underlying factor, which is why Heavenly love is more desirable and has to do with aspects that are due to divine nature.

Furthermore, because Sappho is a woman pursuing women, it might not be appropriate to reference her ideas of Eros within this framework, especially since there is no proof given here that exemplifies her relations offering a path of enlightenment and wisdom, not to mention, there is a balance between two women and both are seemingly benefiting from the relationship with power imbalances aside. Equally important is Sappho’s longing for her lovers wherein she is not wishing to pursue anything more or less than a love that consists simply of desiring another human being. Again, as seen in Plato’s work, the love that these characters write about in the philosophical text require deep thought whereas Sappho simply wishes to love in the present moment while remaining to feel what happens corporeally.

Finally, after comparing the two texts and their varying and shared ideas of Eros, we see in Sappho’s experience a present, conscious interpretation is vital – and this love that is felt is shared creatively and more comprehensively. Whereas in Plato’s Symposium, Eros is shared to mean something differently to the knower and the experiencer. Phaedrus’ account of Eros is brief and concrete in the sense that it offers one a love that will reward one with honor if it is done well. Moreover, Pausanias’ speech gives a much more abstract account of Eros where it takes a lot of intellectual unpacking. Further, what is understood as a Heavenly Eros consists of a sexual love that is easily understood in a pederastic framework: when boys look to wise men on their journey to pursue their own subjective truths – and eventually those boys will be men in time to reciprocate the truth they too wish to pass on to their young lovers. Similarly, as we looked at a Common Eros, which is associated with the human instinctive, physiological sexual attraction that can be nothing more than such and does not have a divine purpose, nor does it lead to anything that can serve one a lifelong pursuit of love and commitment.

Love is one of the most convoluted and misunderstood concepts that still remains as a very prominent part in many individuals’ lives. Regardless of the fact that the majority of people cannot explain or fully understand the concept of love, many claim that love plays an integral part in their lives as they think they know what it entails and believe what they are feeling with another individual is true love. Since people believe they know what love is they never strive to understand the true meaning of it. However, Diotima takes many steps to understand the concept through the “ladder of love”, which contains several levels that all lead to the stage of comprehending the form of beauty itself. Through the speakers in Plato’s Symposium, “the ladder of love” is proven to be identical to the stages people go through when experiencing love in their own lives. Alcibiades, Pausanias, Socrates, Eryximachus, Aristophanes and Agathon all contribute towards showing that the stages in the “ladder of love” are possible for anyone to experience. Concepts are always changing as society develops as we gain a larger understanding of the information at hand, but the general stages of the “ladder of love” can always be applied to modern situations in a very accurate manner. As a result, the general stages of love outlined through Plato’s Symposium are still relevant to this day which provides credibility to the concept overall.

The first stage in the ladder is the love of beautiful things, which on the surface can seem very general, it is a large factor as to why people are passionate or interested in certain things. In Plato’s Symposium, Agathon talks about Apollo’s accomplishments and the positive nature of love as he states, “Even he, therefore, would be a pupil of Love, and so would the Muses in music, Hephaestus in bronze work, Athena in weaving, and Zeus in ‘the governance of God and men’” (197B). Anytime someone decides to take it upon themselves to focus on their own interests or something they are passionate about it becomes a beautiful thing. When someone develops a love for something the act of practicing until perfection comes with ease. This stage is one of the first stages because the idea of ‘beautiful things’ are experienced in an early stage of someone’s life and therefore is one of the first forms of beauty to be acknowledged. One example of this form of love is when children are passionate for sports. Regardless of them being young, if a child has a love for sports it means that the concept of sports itself is a beautiful thing which can later result in that child continue to act on that love and pursue something greater. Establishing the love for something is just the beginning as it the initial recognition of the beauty of something which later connects to the other stages of love.

The second stage in the ladder of love is the love of the beautiful body. Although the concept is self explanatory, it is the act of loving someone. In Plato’s Symposium, Aristophanes is talking about the process of finding one’s soulmate where he states, “…when a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, whether it’s to young men or not, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don’t want to be separated from one another, not even for a moment” (192C). In his description of the story of human nature, he mentions the story of Zeus and how he decided to split each human into two halves for punishment and this separation from their other half created a journey to try and find that other half. He also mentions how it did not matter who the other half was, it could literally be anyone but when found, there is an unspoken bond that allows the two of them to just connect as one again. This relates to the stages of love of someone as it directly refers to the process of loving and finding one single person as their soulmate rather than multiple people. A situation similar to this is when someone is in a relationship with someone else but they always find eachother fighting or arguing over indifferences causing them to feel the other person is not the right fit for them. However, there is no clear outline that the soulmate everyone is looking for is going to fit the role perfectly and result in no arguing or indifferences. This stage is lower in the ladder because younger people are more oblivious to the fact of true love and are found guilty of giving them false hope towards the first relationship they experience. Anytime a younger person gets into a relationship they find themselves saying “I think I found the one” or “this is going to be my only relationship” without fully understanding the concept of love which causes them to believe no one else could be a better fit for them as their only focus is on that one particular individual. This is similar to Aristophanes soulmate concept as he believed once they believed to have found that person, they do not consider any other options even though it could be possible that there is a better match for them out there.

The third stage in the ladder of love is the love of the beautiful bodies. This stage is similar to the second stage, however it is direct progression as its focus is on the plural form of the word body. The main concept of the third stage is that all bodies are the same which would render it useless to focus your attention on one person as it could be branched out to different individuals. When Pausanias is giving a description of the difference between common and heavenly love, he describes common love by saying, “This, of course, is the love felt by the vulgar, who are attached to women no less than to boys, to the body more than to the soul, and to the least intelligent partners, since all they care about it completing the sexual act” (181B). In this quote Pausanias implies common love is not as good as heavenly love, however it still incorporates a person’s ability to recognize that attraction can be felt even if it only includes fulfilling a sexual act. The general concept this stage focuses on is that there are multiple people capable of fulfilling someone’s emotional and sexual needs and focusing on the first person that is able to fulfill those needs is not very smart. As previously mentioned in the last stage, Aristophanes soulmate concept believed the first person someone ends up with is all they need. However, by properly understanding this stage people can acknowledge that there are multiple people that would be a good fit as a significant other. Being able to fully comprehend the difference between loving the first person you meet and realizing there are lots of people that could satisfy both emotional and sexual needs, helps a person understand the true meaning of love.

The fourth stage in the ladder of love is the love of beautiful customs and laws. Although this stage does not have a direct relation to the act of loving someone or a personal in general it is still a very important stage in helping someone fully comprehend the meaning of love. The fourth stage focuses on customs and laws that allow people to appreciate their beauty altogether and do not have to worry about barriers set in place by a set of rules. When Pausanias is stating his appreciation for the customs he is familiar with, he states, “Our own customs, which, as I have already said, are much more difficult to understand, are also far superior” (182D). In this quote Pausanias is comparing the customs of love from places like Boeotia and Ionia to Athens which is where he lives. Since he is from Athens, he likes the customs he is familiar with more than those of other locations. This love for laws can also be seen in today’s society as many countries take pride in the rules and laws they enforce that other countries may not. For example, since Canada is a very diverse country it has a lot of rules and laws set in place to accommodate for other cultures to help protect them and provide a safe environment, whereas other countries such as the United States do not protect people of other cultures as much.

The fifth stage in the ladder of love is the love of beautiful knowledge. This stage refers to the love of wanting to learn new things and looking at a situation more deeply before being too quickly to judge or focus on physical appearance. The concept of love of beautiful knowledge can be seen seen through Alcibiades’ love for Socrates when he says, “I couldn’t help admiring his natural character, his moderation, his fortitude – here was a man whose strength and wisdom went beyond my wildest dreams!” (219E). In this quote Alcibiades is focusing on the the love of beautiful knowledge rather than physical appearance. Also, Alcibiades brings up the fact that he wanted to be his lover so that he could possess his knowledge. This further shows how Alcibiades was not focused on Socrates’ physical appearance but was more mesmerized by his knowledge. In addition, in Pausanias’ speech he says, “A lover who loves goodness of character is constant for life” (182C). In this quote Pausanias is reinforcing the idea of knowledge or personality being a more important trait than physical appearance. The quote essentially implies that by loving someone for the goodness of their character they have truly found someone they genuinely love. By the fourth stage physical attraction is no longer the main quality being focused on, but instead knowledge. This ties in with the idea that personality is more important than how a person physically looks. There can be a girl who is extremely attractive but it does not necessarily mean that their personality is good and that they would be a good fit for their partner or someone who may be interested in them. Nowadays more people are focusing on the concept of personality because an individual relates and connects with a personality, not a physical appearance. The stage happens to be one of the higher ones because although knowledge and personality are worth more people often focus on someone’s physical attraction and does not give them the light of day because they do not meet their physical standards. This stage also focuses on the fact that external features are not more important than internal features as someone’s knowledge and personality can be one of the more attractive qualities out of them all.

The sixth stage of the ladder of love is love of the form of beauty. This stage focuses on the love of beauty itself rather than everything it entails. In Plato’s Symposium Socrates is being taught about beauty where he then says, “That’s why I say that every man must honor Love, why I honor the rites of Love myself and practice them with special diligence, and why I commend them to others. Now and always I praise the power and courage of love so far as I am able” (212C). Before being taught the concept of love by Diotima, Socrates never really knew what he was talking about when it came to love and everything it entailed. However, after Diotima was able to point out all the flaws in what Socrates thought about the concept of love and he was able to acknowledge that he will now do whatever he can to honour and praise love. Obviously not everyone is at the final stage of the ladder because if they were it would alter the view of beauty itself and would allow everyone to reach a sense of enlightenment. When Eryximachus is saying his speech he mentions “It’s hardly going too far to say that love is present in everything that exists” (185C). Although everyone might not reach the final stage in the ladder of love they all experience love in some way shape or form. Whether they are only experiencing the first stage or are stuck on one of the later stages. The main reason people often find themselves stuck on other stages of the ladder of love is because they are struggling to accept the concept related to the stage which can hinder them from reaching the final stage of enlightenment and the true concept of love.

Regardless of the ladder of love having six stages that all encompass different concepts and ideas it is still relevant and can be applied in many scenarios. Throughout Plato’s Symposium, the concepts mentioned in each stage are all found through the speakers and their thoughts towards love. Since the ladder of love can easily be connected to modern society, even though Plato’s Symposium dates back so many years it is still prevalent in today’s society and proves that Diotima talked about the true concept of love.

Exploring the Multifaceted Concept of Love in Plato’s Symposium

One can gauge the seriousness of Plato’s Symposium from the title itself: which means ‘drinking party.’ Naturally, like all drinking parties, absurdity is bound to be mixed with philosophy— but the overall mood is light and the celebratory atmosphere. Far from these reasons, it is appropriate that the Symposium’s theme is love, for if there is one subject that captures the ethereal, it is love. Or, in other words: Plato uses his characters as instruments to offer many love accounts and show their true meaning as a quest for enlightenment and self-improvement. (Dialog is a mechanism and the true meaning of love is reflected in the way characters give many accounts of what love is— a quest for enlightenment), what kinds of love are worthy of praise and the purpose of love? Loving is Mortal and Immortal and between wisdom and ignorance. To achieve this, it is necessary to complete the ‘Ladder of Love’ of Diotima, to achieve its purpose of giving birth to true virtue, having seen Beauty. Not everyone does this, but reproduction in the body or soul also achieves Love’s purpose. Interpersonal relationships are also significant in the discussion of marriage, that of the lover and beloved. Plato’s symposium is not just telling that beauty is in the soul and its imperishable, he instead is suggesting that everybody’s definition of love is different, but each is connected as part of the total ‘love’ chimera: each idea: just like every voice, it flows into each other; and Socrates sums it up best — love is a concert.

Plato prevents his readers to settle for one definition of love by distancing the reader from the philosophical ideas, to reduce the authority of the speakers using a frame narrative (Aristodemus told Apollodorus who told a friend…). This prevents the reader from settling with the conclusion of one particular speaker. It also emphasizes how serious philosophy can be lighthearted, making it more accessible. The layer separating the reader from Diotima also serves to imply that this speech has Plato’s views on love, not Socrates’. To explain that love (in man) follows love (in the abstract), let’s take the example we began with. Socrates is on his way to a banquet (Agathon— a fine man, as Socrates describes him— for which reason, as Aristodemus observes, Socrates himself is finely dressed). Socrates, Plato’s beloved, is on his way to dining with one who is loved by himself— and on his way, he meets another who is loved and beloved and is then invited to join. On arrival: Agathon immediately welcomes Aristodemus (although not personally invited, Agathon tells Aristodemus that he went out to try him to extend the invitation). So, we see how love, represented by Agathon: draws love — or we might say love follows love (represented by Socrates) as represented by Aristodemus. Like knows like in either case and love follows love just as good follows good— implicit in the opening proverb of Socrates. We see a literal portrayal of our thesis here.

However, the very structure of the Symposium extends the idea that love follows love: each guest gives a series of speeches about the nature of love. Love is the theme of the evening: and in speech after speech love follows love.

The Philosophical Underpinnings of Love: From Phaedrus to Pausanias

However, to understand the nature of the idea that love (in man) follows love (in the abstract), we must examine how each of the men at the symposium represents love by examining their beliefs, we will make our thesis clearer: in the discourse of Phaedrus, we will learn that love is, in fact, the eldest of the gods,’ a point that signifies love as a seed — or as a font from which all things are filled. He introduces the complex layers by focusing on the virtue of bravery in love. (He narrates stories of Achilles exemplifying his bravery of love). Pausanias follows his speech with a self-righteous tone. He bifurcates love into two- Common love and heavenly love, associating the latter to homosexual relationships. He appreciates this love and discusses the role of law, justice, and equality. Phaedrus, who talks about bravery, states that in front of the person they love, people feel the most remorse. If they were in a war, they would never do anything humiliating, such as lowering ranks or losing arms in front of their beloved just keeping on, trying to be a hero. “If only there were a way to start a city or an army made up of lovers and the boys they love. Theirs would be the best possible system of society, for they would hold back from all that is shameful, and seek honor in each other’s eyes.” (Phaedrus, 10). This underlies the undercurrent of honor in the speeches. Only Diotima explicates that a person seeks glory and honor in their quest for immortality.

The importance of virtue as an end in seeking love is introduced by Pausanias. “Our customs, then, provide for only one honorable way of taking a man as a lover. In addition to recognizing that the lover’s total and willing subjugation to his beloved’s wishes is neither servile nor reprehensible, we allow that there is one–and only one– further reason for willingly subjecting oneself to another which is equally above reproach: that is subjection for the sake of virtue.”(Pausanias, 18) This will prove an important point in Diotima’s “Ladder of Love.” Pausanias, who in his speech reflects on tradition and policy, explains the practice of mentor-student partnerships in Athens. They help to stave off common love, as complex as they are. The actions serve to make such partnerships seem disgraceful, even if welcomed. Moreover, when looking for goodness, even if the other party is disgusting, the one who submits cannot be ashamed of the honorable thing.

Eryximachus’s Expansion of Love Beyond the Interpersonal

Eryximachus follows this speech, validating our thesis when he refers to ‘the course of the seasons’ and the harmonious love of one another and how all things ‘mix intemperance and harmony’ (20). Here we see love as a principle underlying the whole world and uniting all things in one harmonious semblance. Love follows love just as the seasons go by, just as there is a kind of harm to each other. He also extends the idea of love beyond interpersonal relationships, claiming love is found in the coexistence of opposites and the harmony of nature. He states that almost everything can have love and has vital importance. Eryximachus says love is harmony between opposites in nature and people. It is much more than just interpersonal relationships. “Love does not occur only in the human soul; it is not simply the attraction we feel toward human beauty: it is a significantly broader phenomenon. It certainly occurs within the animal kingdom, and even in the world of plants. It occurs everywhere in the universe.” (Eryximachus, 20) This is important since he is the only one of the first five speeches to branch out beyond individual human actions and relationships in discussing love, making it something different altogether.

Aristophanes’s Comedic Yet Insightful Take on Love

Aristophanes, of course, arrives at our study from a deferent angle that he ends his discourse by mocking Eryximachus’s speech on harmony-for Aristophanes is of a disposition that is fine-tuned to perceive the human tendency towards disharmony (as his earlier hiccups shows) Aristophanes starts by saying that no one has ever grasped Love-and here he is perfectly true. While we say passion serves life, it’s a rough and intense way of speaking which suits more tightly with the first three serious speakers It says calling the humorous side of existence that is partly made up of bile. Aristophanes, the great comedic playwright, relieves his heaviness symposium by maintaining that Love is a drama in a way and a spectacular version. He does not refute our argument, but rather strengthens it by broadening our view of love and man’s interest of man. Not (as Aristophanes reveals in his account of the separation between man and woman) and therefore he must strive to find his wholeness in love (In the abstract) love accompanies love. The end of the desire of love is finding the person who constitutes our other half, to heal the wound created by Zeus. “Love is simply the name for the desire and pursuit of the whole.” (Aristophanes, 29) This end is denied by Diotima, who asserts that we will only look for our other halves’ if that person is good. She also denies the idea that the end of this desire is only finding the person since that is only the beginning of the purpose in the pursuit of love.

Socrates and Diotima: Elevating the Discourse on Love

This satire is described in a conversation that follows immediately between Agathon and Socrates Agathon. Love Is the motivation for all good deeds and is the purpose and justification of good deeds Love creates love. Socrates builds on the philosophy of Agathon by asking Agathon about the nature of love. Socrates admits it cannot be explained as easily as Agathon implies-but Socrates does not in any way cause us to modify our study. The discourse of Agathon serves as a springboard for Socrates: Socrates follows Agathon, and his understanding of love builds on Agathon’s-just as each speech built on the one before him. Socrates criticizes Agathon’s speech by questioning him, and they arrive at this point, which allows them to refute Agathon’s assertions of Love being beautiful and good. Rather, Socrates proves, Love is not good or beautiful since he desires these things. “So, such a man or anyone else who has a desire desires what is not at hand and not present, what he does not have, and what he is not, and that of which he is in need; for such are the objects of desire and love.” (Socrates. 42) Their conceptions of love should have been based more on the image of the lover than on the image of the beloved they had been incorrectly using. This shifts from the previous speeches, setting up Diotima’s arguments.

Socrates deconstructs his Agathon’s speech. He conveys his thoughts on Love through Diotima’s point of view. They establish that Love is between Beauty and ugliness, between Mortal and Immortal, and between wisdom and ignorance. She believes that love means more than just the love between two people. The purpose is not to find the other half, but to give birth in beauty. Everyone pursues love differently, whether through making money, sports, or philosophy; but according to Diotima, only passionate, exclusive love between people is truly called love. “It’s only when people are devoted exclusively to one special kind of love that we use these words that belong to the whole of it; ‘love’ and ‘in love and ‘lovers.’”(Diotima, 51). Diotima argues that love is outside of solely individual relationships, but then she also only grants the term love to one path: “the rites of Love leading to philosophy”. The idea of procreation delivered by her is not just pregnancy but giving birth from the soul too. Reproduction is the mortal’s eternal way of being immortal and will only occur in the presence of beauty. The purpose of love is to give birth in beauty, whether in the body or soul. Reproduction only happens out of beauty and is the tool for mortals to have any type of immortality, whether through childbirth or ideas. “Reproduction and birth in beauty.” (Diotima, 53). This answers the question set up by Phaedrus as to what the purpose of love is, which he and the other speeches had not fully addressed. She also strongly believes that giving birth from the soul is a purer form of immortality and only males can be pregnant of the soul (e.g.: poets, writers, artists).

Her famous idea of love is the “Ladder of Love”, which describes each stage. First, a person loves one body. Secondly, the person finds beauty in all the bodies. Thirdly, the person appreciates the beauty of all souls over bodies. Lastly, the person(lover) will see the beauty in its purest form and gives birth to true virtue. She says that being pregnant in the soul allows a person to see the true Form of Beauty, something people pregnant in the body cannot achieve. These people have learned all the rungs on the ladder of love, becoming lovers of wisdom, so they can see the Form of Beauty. “That in that life alone, when he looks at Beauty in the only way that Beauty can be seen–only then will it become possible for him to give birth, not to images or virtue, but true virtue.” (Diotima, 59-60). Having been pregnant in the soul through the process, this sight of actual Beauty, as opposed to a mere image of it, allows the person to give birth to true virtue. The “Ladder of Love” has multiple steps. First, a person loves one body, and then he finds beauty in all bodies. After this, he must appreciate the beauty of souls over that of bodies. This leads to the love of activities and laws, or customs, leading to the love of certain types of knowledge. It ends in the pursuit of knowledge, or the love of wisdom, which is philosophy. Upon reaching this, the lover will see Beauty in its pure form, and give birth, not to an image of virtue, but true virtue.

Alcibiades’s Speech: Personifying Socrates as the Embodiment of Love

The introduction of Alcibiades combines the book’s comedic elements with its most serious moment— the expression of Diotima. His speech connects Socrates with Eros, identifying Socrates as Eros was portrayed by Diotima. The statement by Diotima reconciles all the inconsistencies contained in the five prior speeches. The deals of Alcibiades on a different topic: to honor Socrates. Everything depends on Love and its values, however. In his speech, Alcibiades compares Socrates to Eros. “But once I caught him when he was open like Silenus’ statues, and I had a glimpse of the figures he keeps hidden within: they were so godlike — so bright and beautiful, so utterly amazing that I no longer had a choice, I just had to do whatever he told me”(216-17). Alcibiades has seen more of the true Socrates than the others, allowing him to make his claims with authority. His speech shows that Socrates is the perfect image of love. There are several similarities in parallel: being between mortal and immortal, beauty and ugliness, and wisdom and ignorance. The description of Aristodemus on his way to Agathon also has similarities with the description of love by Diotima.

The Vulgate’s atmosphere and the theme were dynamic throughout the Symposium. We encounter different perspectives on love from 6 men but also learn that after the climb of the “Ladder of love”, which is Diotima’s point of view, we each the absolute beauty, which is eternal. She gives a positive definition of love and a negative for beauty. (she is not, what it is). We also learn that the purest form of love is the one who gives birth from the soul and beauty is in the soul and is imperishable. Though their definition of love was different, their ideology is connected as part of the total ‘love’ chimera. This was praised and accepted by all the men that night following a change in the atmosphere. Subsequently, Alcibiades praises Socrates instead of Eros. Though it all looked like Plato was pushing the beauty of the soul, Rather, he implies that the definition of love for all people is different — but everyone is linked in the full ‘heart’ chimera: every thought: it flows like every voice, into one another.