Due Feb 25
Socrates and Greek Philosophy
Reading: Plato, Symposium, pp 1-31.
Writing: Respond to ONE of the following prompts. Keep your response short, posting as a reply under the appropriate heading in the comments section:
- The dialogue opens a “frame narrative,” in which Apollodorus responds to a friend’s request that he recount a bunch of speeches in praise of love that were spoken years earlier by Socrates and a number of other famous Athenians. Pointing to a particular detail or phrase, what does this frame tell us about followers of Socrates?
- Phaedrus’ argument about love in the military focuses on the importance of what today we call “unit cohesion”: “the social bond that gives rise to that intangible feeling which causes a man to dive on a grenade to save his buddies, or to risk his life simply because his leader tells him to.” Yet, strangely, this leads him to precisely opposite conclusion as source from which I took that quotation. Whereas Phaedrus argues that an army of lovers could not be beaten, the Heritage Foundation back in 1993 worried that allowing homosexuals to serve in the army would weaken, not strengthen, unit cohesion. Attending to Phaedrus’ language, by contrast to the words chosen by the Heritage Foundation, explain how they reach such opposite conclusions from the same starting premise.
- Eryximachus, a prominent Athenian doctor, explains love as a natural phenomenon. Point to something in his speech that surprises or puzzles you.
- We encountered Aristophanes’ story about love a week ago, in Hedwig. Reading the original, what do you find surprising or otherwise of interest?
The Significance of the Frame Narrative
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Initially Apollodouros states, “But as for all of you, I don’t just think you are failures-I know it for a fact.” It shows that he really looks down on the common folk, that common, normal business talk is a waste of time. At least his followers have a sense of wanting to talk about philosophy, but he is kind of painted as an outcast or “mad.” They are separated from the common person, they look down on the ideals and rules of normal life, like money.
I agree with you, because Apollodorus’s harsh statement shows how Socrates’s followers see philosophical discussion as far more meaningful than everyday concerns like money or status. This separates them from ordinary society and also suggests that they are perceived as outsiders or even extreme in their devotion to philosophy.
Annie, I agree with your statement that the followers of Socrates placed high importance and significance on the words of Socrates and his compatriots. The way in which the friend of Apollodorus approaches him due to his prior relations with Socrates shows that he would go out of his way to get an unadulterated account of the wisdom of Socrates. I like how Annie uses the word “devotion”, as I believe that the friend of Apollodorus, who took a keen interest in Apollodorus’ account, was truly devoted to the cause of understanding the teachings of Socrates. The consistent nagging and persistence the friend shows as he attempts to get Apollodorus to give him something, anything about the meeting proves that he was truly commited to the teachings of Socrates.
Yeah, Apollodorus looks down on the common businessman, whose main focus is money. However, it shows that he believes that money has no real value, not just that philosophy is. more important. Since Apollodouros states, ” I’m a maniac, and I’m raving” (3). I think he’s saying this ironically because people think he’s a maniac for not caring about money, but in Apollodouros reality, money has no value, which is why he looks down on them. Since he believes they are actually the misguided ones.
I agree with you that his followers value philosophical discussion over all else but I think it goes even deeper than that. The followers of Socrates value knowledge and wisdom above all else which signals a preservation of an older generation of diminishing values. Hunter-gatherer tribes similarly placed knowledge on a pedestal since it was vital to their survival as a community: they needed to know how to hunt, what to hunt, how to make the tools for hunting, where to hunt, and what to do with the animals they hunted. Knowledge was built into every little thing they did and sharing that knowledge was necessary for the upwards trajectory of future hunter-gatherer generations. However, the switch to agrarian societies removed that pedestal from underneath knowledge. In more developed agrarian cities, widespread knowledge was no longer necessary for the survival of the community- people could begin to specialize in something, have no idea how to produce food for themselves and still be fine. Thus knowledge and the sharing of ideas started to lose its value in the eyes of the people. Socrates and his followers having a desire to talk about philosophy shows that they are part of a diminishing older generation that values widespread knowledge.
I agree with Aiden, Appolodorus’s cruel/harsh words indicate that there is an importance placed on the words of Socrates and his followers, and philosophical discussions are placed at higher importance than average matters. This also indicates nobility of sorts or some kind of aristocracy, separating these people from the commonpeople.
It’s clear from the frame narrative that the followers of Socrates are akin to Andrew Tate fans in that they hate others and themselves-with the notable exception for their idol Andrew Tate. This is made evident in page two where Apollodorus’s friend responds to Apollodorus with the following “I do believe you think everybody-yourself first of all-is totally worthless, except, of course, Socrates.” With this, it’s understood that a follower of Socrates hold, above all, reverse Socrates as that most notable and accomplished figure. So much so that all others are deemed failures. Frankly, if this group were to be reanimated in the modern day we would attest them to be toxic and self destructive.
I agree with you, Alexis, that the followers of Socrates appear to put down themselves and all others barring Socrates himself. However, I think the reasons they do this are more nuanced. Many of them are indebted to Socrates because he gave them purpose. Apollodorus says: “…it’s been less than three that I’ve been Socrates’ companion and made it my job to know exactly what he says and does each day. Before that, I simply drifted aimlessly” (1). Socrates may have developed this cult of personality because to these people, he is a savior. He’s rescued them from aimless wandering and given them something meaningful to do with their lives.
“…since I became acquainted with Socrates, and have made it my daily business to know all that he says and does. There was a time when I was running about the world, fancying myself to be well employed, but I was really a most wretched being, no better than you are now. I thought that I ought to do anything rather than be a philosopher.”
In the few lines of Plato’s Symposium, there is this narrative set up of how devoted some men were to Socrates and how life-changing they found his words. Apollodorus says that he was lost and foolish without the teachings of Socrates, and continues to say that he and others try not to lose any words that Socrates said. The followers of Socrates treated him like a King and his words as gospel. They were devoted and loyal to him and took his words and actions with the utmost seriousness. For them, it was an honor to be in his space as it encouraged them to think as he did.
The significance of the frame narrative shows just how devoted followers of Socrates are to their specific “master”. They are shown to be deeply devoted to preserving his words with the line from Apollodorus’ companion when he seeks him out “Socrates is your friend—who has a better right than you to report his conversation”. This phrase shows that Socrates’ followers are seen as completely reliable for spreading his words and teachings and this is a fact that they understand and are proud of. They belive that Socrates’ word is not only important to be remembered but it something sacred that must be told in its exact form without any kind of mistakes.
I think you are spot on with the characterization of the followers. To point to another example to supplement your point, Apollodorus admits that he “made it his care each day to know what [Socrates] says or does (112 Online Vers.)”. This highlights that this devotion isn’t about only remembering isolated quotes or specific speeches, but rather extends to being a complete commitment into tracking everything Socrates says and does. I agree with Jonah’s point that the followers aren’t just friends, but living archives of his work.
In the very beginning, on page 2, Apollodorus states, “Naturally, I checked part of his story with Socrates, and Socrates agreed with his account.” This frame tells us that the followers of Socrates weren’t just supporters but also, in a way, recorders of Socrates since Apollodorus uses the word naturally indicating that it was basic instinct to double check something being said also Socrate was viewed as a trusted source by his followers and this quote reveals the significance of proving that details were accurate inside the circle of followers of Socrates.
The Army of Lovers a Threat to “Unit Cohesion”?
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Phaedrus and the Heritage Foundation assume that love between men has opposite effects on unit cohesion. Phaedrus assumes that love makes a man more selfless, and more willing to die for his comrade if his comrade is his lover, saying “For a man in love would never allow his loved one, of all people, to see him leaving ranks or dropping weapons. He’d rather die a thousand deaths!” (Plato 10). Meanwhile the Heritage Foundation assumes love between men makes them more selfish, or at least creates the perception of selfishness among the unit, saying, “(S)exual emotions are rooted strongly in self-interest,” (Luddy 1). It is important to note that the Heritage Foundation never characterizes the relationship between two men as love, only defining it in sexual terms. Meanwhile Phaedrus speaks of the bond between two men exclusively in terms of love. These different perceptions of homosexuality seem to influence why one sees it as a motivation for selflessness while the other sees it as a motivator for selfishness. These radically different perceptions are due to significant cultural differences. Phaedrus comes from an era and culture where very fearsome and effective armies actually used the tactic of combat “marriages” successfully (the sacred band of Thebes comes to mind). The Heritage Foundation comes from an era of modern Christian fundamentalism that is foundationally homophobic.
I agree with you that Phaedrus and the Heritage Foundation came to different conclusions on the influence of homosexuality in unit cohesion because of cultural differences. To add on to that, homosexuality was much more normalized and accepted in Ancient Greek culture than it is in our society, but in a different way. While we have gotten much better at inclusivity regarding homosexuality, there is still uncertainty and discrimination towards the topic. In contrast to our view of homosexuality as sexual orientation and personal identity, in Ancient Greek culture, homosexuality was a pederastic socially accepted practice that valued mentorship relationships, and also for military strength like how you mentioned the Sacred Band of Thebes. This is how the other speakers also viewed and talked about homosexual relationships, like when Pausanias says, “when the lover is able to help the young man become wiser and better, and the young man is eager to be taught and improvised by his lover–then…is it ever honorable for a young man to accept a lover” (Plato, 18). The Heritage Foundation is a conservative, Christian institution, as we can see through their homophobic views.
Love as a Phenomenon of the Natural World
⤹Click the reply button just below.
Eryximachus says, “the love manifested in health is fundamentally distinct from love manifested in disease”. This confuses me because we don’t generally think about love as manifesting in disease. It certainly is interesting to hear about this from a different point of view.
Later he liked to two kinds of love to medicine saying its the role of physicians to “distinguish love that is noble from love that is ugly and disgraceful”(Plato 21). To me Eryximachus is saying that some love is a noble cause to pursue whilst others are not as they are destructive and damaging to those involved. I think an example of unhealthy love would be Apollo and Daphne whose story we looked at a couple of weeks ago and how it altered both of their lives for the worse. This is love from diseases that could be described as “disgraceful” as it caused Apollo, a god, to cause eternally after a mortal who did not reciprocate her feelings causing mental strife for the both of them.
I agree with you, and I think its also confusing as he points out love as a fundamental force. He presents love as a natural law governing both the human body and the universe, like when he talks about love, “like the harmony of the taut bow or the lyre” where love operates even in things like music.
What shocked me about Eyrximachus’ concept of love being a natural phenomenon is how confidently he described love as a scientific maneuver rather than one of the heart or soul. He at one point describes how love governs the “organization of the body” and that physical health often depends on it, shaping love to be a harmonious balancing force that orders all things. This was puzzling because it almost seemed satirical and like a criticism on doctors or medicine.
I agree, this did shock me as well. I puzzled with his claim, “Medicine is simply the science of the effect of Love on repletion and depletion of the body” (Plato 21). This to me reaffirms the belief that love controls the human body’s health, which I think is true in modern life, but not to the extent that Eryximachus believes. His idea of love encompassed much more control over the body and was really important to their culture.
I think the way in which Eryximachus simplifies the nature of love to explain most phenomenons like human health, music, justice, etc. was pretty surprising to me. He almost makes love seem mechanical, and it is puzzling because as a doctor he seems to agree with the idea of two types of love, a good one and a bad one, which kind of undercuts his wisdom to me in a way. He discusses the need to be careful to not cross the boundaries between these two loves and says it is a “strict parallel to [his] own field,” and likens it to “regulating the appetite,” (Plato, 22). This almost feels like he’s making love seem like an everyday, common idea. He is removing the special nature of love that is spoken about in this day and age and comparing it to digestion? He keeps repeating the phrase that “love is the effect on,” for different things. I find that interesting because he is saying that most actions can be explained by love in a way.
Aristophanes and Hedwig
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In Aristophanes’ story of love, I was confused by the idea that there were three kinds of human beings. He says there were males, females, and a combination of the two, called androgynous. To my understanding, after being severed by Zeus, the androgynes would desperately search for their other half. What does that mean for the other kinds of humans that were just themselves and not half of an incomplete whole? Are there some people without soulmates, destined for a life without love?
I was also quite confused when reading this part at first, but I do think that he is saying everyone has a soulmate that completes themself. The three genders that Aristophanes was talking about don’t exist anymore; they were female, male, and androgynous. Each of those genders was made up of two people: the female gender was two females together, the male gender was two males together, and androgynous was a female and a male together. All of the humans were getting too strong, so Zeus not only split the androgynous gender apart, but he also split males and females apart. Now, only the two genders of male and female exist, in which everyone has another half that they need to find to make themselves whole again. If you were originally of the male gender, you seek a male partner, if you were of the female gender, you seek a female partner, and if you were of the androgenous gender, you seek a partner of the opposite sex. This is what I interpreted Aristophanes as saying.
It is a good point. Actually, I would say Aristophanes says nobody is alone. In his story, everyone is a “half” looking for their match (p. 27). He said there were three original “ball” humans. When Zeus cut them, it created different types of love. For the all-male ball became two men, and the all-female ball became two women. So, if you are from the male ball, you look for a man. If you are from the female ball, you look for a woman, they are finding the exact other half. Nobody is “without a soulmate”, and we are all just looking for the specific “piece” that we lost.
What I find very interesting in the original piece is that, even though humans were separated by Zeus for rioting as a punishment, we are still drawn together to find our “other half” from which we were separated, through love. Aristophanes describes that, if offered the chance, two people who share a deep love for one another would choose to reunite into a single being to enter our “natural state” and therefore be able to spend the rest of eternity together in the living world and in heaven. Aristophanes describes finding our other half as a lifelong journey that we constantly seek, and this deep connection is able to happen through the God of Love, which allows us to reverse the separation of our bodies and reunite into our natural state. I found this particularly interesting because the initial punishment for humans became a way we express our love for one another.
Yes, I completely agree, and to add onto that point the longing to find your “other half” is the punishment from Zeus, exemplifying how love is both beauty and desire, but also hurt and pain. To bring up another interesting point, I found it intriguing how this explanation for love or “soulmates” justifies acts of homosexuality, as it was not treated as other, but simply innate and natural in the way that heterosexual love is. This is shown when Aristophane’s says that not only do women that split from men chase men, and men that split from women chase women, but, “women who are split from a woman…pay no attention at all to men; they’re more oriented towards women…people who are split from a male are male-oriented.” So, overall this story or explanation for love is quite interesting as it highlights numerous aspects of how love can present, what some drawbacks or heartaches come about with love.