What do you think?
Rate this book
Lovers
"The Rival Lovers (Greek: Ἐρασταί) is a Socratic dialogue included in the traditional corpus of Plato's works, though its authenticity has been doubted.
The Greek title Erastai is the plural form of the term erastēs, which refers to the older partner in a pederastic relationship. Since in Classical Greek terms such a relationship consists of an erastēs and an erōmenos, the title Lovers, sometimes used for this dialogue, makes sense only if understood in the technical sense of "lover" versus "beloved" but is misleading if taken to refer to two people in a love relationship. An ancient variant of the title, possibly original, was Anterastai (Ἀντερασταί), which specifically means "Rival erastai." This term, used in the dialogue itself (132c5, 133b3), in Plato's Republic (521b5), and in earlier Greek literature (Aristophanes, Knights 733), is mentioned as the dialogue's title (together with a subtitle, On Philosophy) in Diogenes Laertius' listing of the Thrasyllan tetralogies (3.59). The Latin translations Amatores and Rivales have also been used as the dialogue's title.
The rival erastai of the title are a devotee of wrestling and athletics, who disparages philosophy as shameful nonsense, and a young man who cultivates mousikē (a term embracing music, poetry, and philosophy). As the dialogue opens, they are quarrelling, at a grammarian's school in the presence of the boy they love and of other boys and young men, over the question whether philosophizing is noble and admirable (kalon).
The entire story of the discussion is told in the first person by Socrates, without any interruption or indication what audience he addresses. At just over seven Stephanus pages, Rival Lovers is one of the shortest dialogues in the Thrasyllan canon of Plato's works (about the same length as Hipparchus, with only Clitophon being shorter)."
Wikipedia
The Greek title Erastai is the plural form of the term erastēs, which refers to the older partner in a pederastic relationship. Since in Classical Greek terms such a relationship consists of an erastēs and an erōmenos, the title Lovers, sometimes used for this dialogue, makes sense only if understood in the technical sense of "lover" versus "beloved" but is misleading if taken to refer to two people in a love relationship. An ancient variant of the title, possibly original, was Anterastai (Ἀντερασταί), which specifically means "Rival erastai." This term, used in the dialogue itself (132c5, 133b3), in Plato's Republic (521b5), and in earlier Greek literature (Aristophanes, Knights 733), is mentioned as the dialogue's title (together with a subtitle, On Philosophy) in Diogenes Laertius' listing of the Thrasyllan tetralogies (3.59). The Latin translations Amatores and Rivales have also been used as the dialogue's title.
The rival erastai of the title are a devotee of wrestling and athletics, who disparages philosophy as shameful nonsense, and a young man who cultivates mousikē (a term embracing music, poetry, and philosophy). As the dialogue opens, they are quarrelling, at a grammarian's school in the presence of the boy they love and of other boys and young men, over the question whether philosophizing is noble and admirable (kalon).
The entire story of the discussion is told in the first person by Socrates, without any interruption or indication what audience he addresses. At just over seven Stephanus pages, Rival Lovers is one of the shortest dialogues in the Thrasyllan canon of Plato's works (about the same length as Hipparchus, with only Clitophon being shorter)."
Wikipedia
23 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 28, 2015
1 person is currently reading
49 people want to read
About the author
Plato
5,282 books8,769 followersPlato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
September 7, 2021
Alternately titled “Rival Lovers,” “The Lovers,” or, simply, “Lovers,” this is one of the Socratic dialogues whose authorship by Plato is in doubt. While it follows the general approach of Plato’s dialogues, it does present a few anomalies, and so some experts include it while others do not.
In the dialogue, Socrates questions two youths, one athlete and one scholar, on the nature of philosophy, whether it is honorable, good, useful, and of what its study should optimally consist. The dialogue opens with Socrates questioning the athlete about what two other young men are discussing, when the athlete suggests that it’s just navel-gazing, Socrates asks the athlete whether he believes philosophizing to be a shameful endeavor. He does, and Socrates ends up spending most of his time questioning the scholar, who has a more flattering view of philosophy.
The scholar proposes that philosophy is learning, and that the philosopher should learn about all subjects – being the intellectual equivalent of the all-around athlete from athletics. Socrates challenges this by suggesting that the philosopher cannot be both useful and a generalist as the scholar claims because then the philosopher will always be of secondary value to the expert. Socrates seems to be setting up that there must be some expertise of philosophy about which the philosopher would be the first-tier expert. In other words, if philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor, there must be some reason that people would seek out a philosopher, rather than someone else. The dialogue ends abruptly, and does not engage in this question. (The ending is one of the reasons why authorship is in question, but it’s not the only Socratic dialogue to set out food-for-thought and leave it on the plate.)
Despite the unclear authorship, I found this dialogue to be worth a read.
In the dialogue, Socrates questions two youths, one athlete and one scholar, on the nature of philosophy, whether it is honorable, good, useful, and of what its study should optimally consist. The dialogue opens with Socrates questioning the athlete about what two other young men are discussing, when the athlete suggests that it’s just navel-gazing, Socrates asks the athlete whether he believes philosophizing to be a shameful endeavor. He does, and Socrates ends up spending most of his time questioning the scholar, who has a more flattering view of philosophy.
The scholar proposes that philosophy is learning, and that the philosopher should learn about all subjects – being the intellectual equivalent of the all-around athlete from athletics. Socrates challenges this by suggesting that the philosopher cannot be both useful and a generalist as the scholar claims because then the philosopher will always be of secondary value to the expert. Socrates seems to be setting up that there must be some expertise of philosophy about which the philosopher would be the first-tier expert. In other words, if philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor, there must be some reason that people would seek out a philosopher, rather than someone else. The dialogue ends abruptly, and does not engage in this question. (The ending is one of the reasons why authorship is in question, but it’s not the only Socratic dialogue to set out food-for-thought and leave it on the plate.)
Despite the unclear authorship, I found this dialogue to be worth a read.
August 31, 2021
For me this is one of the better (probably) spurious Platonic dialogues and would serve as a great introduction to newcomers to Socratic reasoning. It’s pretty straightforward and easy to digest and usefully frames the importance of the philosopher in daily life quite well.
August 12, 2023
It's been more than 10 years now since I first read Plato, and thought that dipping into the dialogues I missed a good idea.
Rival Lovers is a short introduction into Plato's perception of what a philosopher is, and would make a nice intro to philosophy in an academic context, if it wasn't situated as an argument between homosexual paedophiles.
I mean, Rival Lovers. Putting aside contemporary concerns on the dreaded age gap and other problems of how consensual the classical Greek romantic relationship was constructed, this is a witty comment on masculinity and eros.
Socrates' interlocutor is an eternal figure. He wants to assert his superiority (before his beloved) over an athlete, a man of action and few words. He boasts of his knowledge and intellectual ability, and tries to play down the importance of athletics in 'the good man'. He's a bit of a pretentious nerd, who thinks he knows about philosophy because of all the YouTube videos he's watched. In conversation, Socrates shows him that his very conception of the philosopher as an intellectual of alltrades is self-defeating and useless according to his own values.
Learning tidbits about this and that and everything is of little use without discernment. It doesn't matter if you know what lupus is from watching TV -- you are not a doctor. No one is interested in hearing from you on subjects so dimly dabbled in. Thanks to the Internet, we've never been more in danger of falling victim to the Nerd Lover's shallow intellectualism, knowing without understanding, or even knowing.
Socrates thus defines the philosopher as the authority on Authority -- having discernment, virtue, self-knowledge and self-discipline, and the ability to teach. Most modern philosophers are unlikely to fit the bill, but I'm reminded of Rick Roderick, who seemed to bring that sensibility into the fractal narratives and paradoxes of the late 20th century. Much to think about too, as I myself am a teacher, and how to comport myself in and out of the classroom.
As well as being a firm rebuke on what makes a philosopher, this dialogue serves as Plato's foray into the construction of masculinity. The Nerd Lover is shown to be thoroughly the inferior to the Chad Lover, who, not able to explicate any ideas of his own, is the lesser man to Socrates, the philosopher. If this were written today I'm sure it would've ended with Socrates leaving the school with two boys in tow. Probably for the best it is not so explicit.
Rival Lovers is a short introduction into Plato's perception of what a philosopher is, and would make a nice intro to philosophy in an academic context, if it wasn't situated as an argument between homosexual paedophiles.
I mean, Rival Lovers. Putting aside contemporary concerns on the dreaded age gap and other problems of how consensual the classical Greek romantic relationship was constructed, this is a witty comment on masculinity and eros.
Socrates' interlocutor is an eternal figure. He wants to assert his superiority (before his beloved) over an athlete, a man of action and few words. He boasts of his knowledge and intellectual ability, and tries to play down the importance of athletics in 'the good man'. He's a bit of a pretentious nerd, who thinks he knows about philosophy because of all the YouTube videos he's watched. In conversation, Socrates shows him that his very conception of the philosopher as an intellectual of alltrades is self-defeating and useless according to his own values.
Learning tidbits about this and that and everything is of little use without discernment. It doesn't matter if you know what lupus is from watching TV -- you are not a doctor. No one is interested in hearing from you on subjects so dimly dabbled in. Thanks to the Internet, we've never been more in danger of falling victim to the Nerd Lover's shallow intellectualism, knowing without understanding, or even knowing.
Socrates thus defines the philosopher as the authority on Authority -- having discernment, virtue, self-knowledge and self-discipline, and the ability to teach. Most modern philosophers are unlikely to fit the bill, but I'm reminded of Rick Roderick, who seemed to bring that sensibility into the fractal narratives and paradoxes of the late 20th century. Much to think about too, as I myself am a teacher, and how to comport myself in and out of the classroom.
As well as being a firm rebuke on what makes a philosopher, this dialogue serves as Plato's foray into the construction of masculinity. The Nerd Lover is shown to be thoroughly the inferior to the Chad Lover, who, not able to explicate any ideas of his own, is the lesser man to Socrates, the philosopher. If this were written today I'm sure it would've ended with Socrates leaving the school with two boys in tow. Probably for the best it is not so explicit.
November 26, 2020
Vad denna bok framförallt är, är en kritik av renässansmannaidealet -gentlemannen som kan tillräckligt mycket för att förstå allt, men inte tillräckligt för att genomföra det själv. Platons Sokrates menar att en sådan person är värdelös, eftersom hanverkare och experter alltid kommer att vara existerande, och menar istället att humaniora (eller det vi skulle kalla för humaniora) syftar till att bättre kontrollera människor, genom att förstå hur man värderar det de gör som gott eller dåligt, och disciplinera dem att göra mer gott.
Rent emotionellt känns tesen vulgär. Förmågan att förstå och påverka människors motivation kan mycket väl vara konsekvensen av humaniorastudier, men att göra den till dess mål, är att reducera mänsklig interaktion till aktiv kontakt mellan personer, och därmed isolera bort alla de passiva kontakter och det informationsutbyte som sker av hur människor rör sig, och vad de ser. Jag försvarar snarare renässansmannaidealet - förmågan att översätta kunskap mellan sfärer, är en förmåga i sig själv, och det är vad Sokrates offer i dialogen hävdar är humanioras mål. Att fungera som ett slags tolk mellan kunskaper, och skörda välstånd och ära genom detta.
Utifrån detta argument, förmörkas min bild av Platon igen: detta är en kontrollnörds synvinkel, som misstror människors förmåga och välvilja.
Skulle jag rekommendera boken? Ja,som vaccin för de som behöver det, mot infekterade kulturdebatter. I och av sig själv ger den inte så särskilt mycket.
Rent emotionellt känns tesen vulgär. Förmågan att förstå och påverka människors motivation kan mycket väl vara konsekvensen av humaniorastudier, men att göra den till dess mål, är att reducera mänsklig interaktion till aktiv kontakt mellan personer, och därmed isolera bort alla de passiva kontakter och det informationsutbyte som sker av hur människor rör sig, och vad de ser. Jag försvarar snarare renässansmannaidealet - förmågan att översätta kunskap mellan sfärer, är en förmåga i sig själv, och det är vad Sokrates offer i dialogen hävdar är humanioras mål. Att fungera som ett slags tolk mellan kunskaper, och skörda välstånd och ära genom detta.
Utifrån detta argument, förmörkas min bild av Platon igen: detta är en kontrollnörds synvinkel, som misstror människors förmåga och välvilja.
Skulle jag rekommendera boken? Ja,som vaccin för de som behöver det, mot infekterade kulturdebatter. I och av sig själv ger den inte så särskilt mycket.
December 15, 2025
Another Plato fanfic in which Socrates OWNS a foolish young man. Weirdly, the dialogue is narrated in a YA-sounding first person: "Now, I don't know what their lovers were feeling, but I was struck senseless---as always happens to me when I'm around beautiful young men" (620). A little scene-setting: two men are arguing about... math? Astronomy? Who knows? Socrates somehow weasels himself into an argument with the "smarter" lover about what philosophy is, while the dumb jock just sits there and watches (and, presumably, looks pretty). Poor sot says that it's dabbling in just enough knowledge of a bunch of subjects so that one can appear to be intelligent when speaking on them, at which point Socrates picks him jaw up off the floor: "Like... a pentathlete?" Eventually he pushes the young man into a corner where he has to agree that, by his definition, philosophers are useless---and, thus, bad---people, at which point Socrates offers a terrible definition of a philosopher as one who knows how best to discipline, improve, and govern humans beings, in addition to being able to distinguish between the good and the bad. The dialogue ends with Socrates positively salivating while rubbing himself in the young man's shameful admission that he was wrong about philosophy. This is by far the worst dialogue I've encountered in this book; I'd give it one star except for the novelty of having my "philosophy" voiced by Bella from Twilight.
Read
September 24, 2025IMO clearly spurious. It is straightforwardly didactic and of much lower literary quality than the authentic dialogues.
The introduction notes that it might be a rebuke from someone at the Academy towards Aristotle, who famously wrote about almost all subjects. The argument here is that a generalist like Aristotle will always be second best at everything unlike the true philosopher.
The introduction notes that it might be a rebuke from someone at the Academy towards Aristotle, who famously wrote about almost all subjects. The argument here is that a generalist like Aristotle will always be second best at everything unlike the true philosopher.
July 21, 2019
Been wanting to read it for a while since it was referenced in Foucault’s History of Sexuality, but the basic gist was the importance of everything in moderation. It is yet another Platonic dialogue of questionable authenticity.
September 17, 2019
Defends the role of the philosopher as one who is able to better himself and others through by attaining self-knowledge.
September 24, 2023
Aquí se describe lo que es la filosofía: un saber de segundo grado.
April 13, 2024
Es un diálogo espurio bastante guay, que habla sobre qué es la filosofía, para no ser de Platón está bastante bien y puede servir como protréptico o invitación a la filosofía.
June 20, 2022
Loooool, the age-old question: are philosophers useful?
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews