Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Plato, Symposium & Phaedrus
>
Phaedrus: Preliminaries and the First Speech of Socrates
date
newest »
newest »
Is this intended as a joke, or is Socrates criticizing the custom of bestowing favors on young lovers by suggesting there are better criteria for bestowing favors?PHAEDRUS:. . .Lysias argues that it is better to give your favors to someone who does not love you than to someone who does.
SOCRATES: What a wonderful man! I wish he would write that you should [d] give your favors to a poor rather than to a rich man, to an older rather than to a younger one—that is, to someone like me and most other people: then his speeches would be really sophisticated, and they’d contribute to the public good besides!
David wrote: "Is this intended as a joke, or is Socrates criticizing the custom of bestowing favors on young lovers by suggesting there are better criteria for bestowing favors?PHAEDRUS:. . .Lysias argues tha..."
I took it to be the young man who was bestowing his favors, i.e. submitting to the sexual desires of the older.
Roger wrote: " took it to be the young man who was bestowing his favors, i.e. submitting to the sexual desires of the older."Sexual favors might be included, but do not seem consistent with the other beneficiaries that Socrates lists. Granting sexual favors to someone like me [Socrates]", who was apparently only into platonic relationships does not seem to work. Also, Phaedrus would have to start running a brothel in order to, contribute to the public good, in sexual way. I think in this case, Socrates is referring to the reading of speeches to others or just intellectually stimulating companionship.
David wrote: "Is this intended as a joke, or is Socrates criticizing the custom of bestowing favors on young lovers by suggesting there are better criteria for bestowing favors?PHAEDRUS:. . .Lysias argues tha..."
I think it is a joke, and the favors in question are probably sensual in this context, but I think the point of the joke is that the beloved is giving it away for nothing. There is a tacit assumption that the beloved is getting something from the lover in return for gratifying him: money because the lover is rich, or pleasure because the lover is young and beautiful, wisdom because the lover is wise. Socrates is ugly, old, and thinks himself ignorant, so he includes himself among those who have no incentives to offer.
Thomas wrote: "Is there a problem with the definition of love that Socrates proposes?"After reading Symposium, the definition given for love here as, passion with out reason, seems pretty narrow, one sided, and insufficient.
The unreasoning desire that overpowers a person’s considered impulse to do right and is driven to take pleasure in beauty, [c] its force reinforced by its kindred desires for beauty in human bodies—this desire, all-conquering in its forceful drive, takes its name from the word for force (rhōmē) and is called erōs.”This seems to lend itself only to what Pausanias described as the vulgar side of love. All of the complexity and higher, heavenly, spiritual, and transcendent sides of love identified in Symposium are missing.
Thomas wrote: "They seem to be arguing the same point but in different ways. Does this improve the argument or is there a problem with the thesis to begin with? "Lsyias' speech seems to be a top-down deductive one. Starting with the assumption that a non-lover is best, he proceeds with a one-sided list of all supporting reasons without mention of any contradictory reasons in order to persuade making me think it is sophist rhetoric. Socrates even notes that Lysias repeats himself making his argument appear larger and more imposing.
Socrates' speech seems to be inductive bottom up argument, starting with the observation of his deficient hypothetical definition of love and then identifies patterns that are biased toward that definition. I suspect is going to lead to a false, or incomplete theory.
It should be noted that Socrates does do what he sets out to do,
The fact, my dear friend, that my breast is full and I feel I can make a different speech, even better than Lysias’.However, both have flaws. Lysias begs the question and only presents only one side in in favor of the non-lover; Socrates seems to draw accurate observations to conclude in favor of the non-lover, but from a deficient hypothetical starting point. Lysias starts with the conclusion and offers only supporting evidence, but Socrates starts with what love is and arrives at the same conclusion in a more convincing way, IF you buy into that definition of love.
It is interesting to look at how these arguments differ. I feel like I'm missing a lot, but it sounds like Lysias praises the non-lover and outlines all of the benefits of avoiding the disease of love, while Socrates condemns the lover and attempts to expose him. Both arguments have the same premise, that passionate love is an illness to be avoided. Where they differ is in their rhetorical focus: Lysias is pro non-lover, while Socrates is anti-lover. They seem to be opposite sides of the same coin.
To step back from the content of the speeches for a moment, it’s important to recognize the two layers of meaning throughout this section: the sexual and the rhetorical. The dialogue is most obviously about the speeches of Lysias and Socrates, and Socrates refers to himself on several occasions as “a lover of discourse,” and “a man sick with passion for hearing speeches.” There’s double entendre to much of the contextual conversation. First there’s the setting, with two men, an older Socrates and a younger Phaedrus, out in the countryside, lying together in the shade of some lone trees. In their early conversation Socrates says, “…you must first of all show what you have in your left hand under your cloak, for that roll, as I suspect, is the actual discourse” — I’ve seen this joke in sit-coms and I have no doubt it’s as old as human language. Later Phaedrus accuses Socrates of playing hard to get and rhetorically wrestling with him. Of course the theme of the speeches links the two layers of meaning. The double meaning isn’t comedic, rather, there’s something deeply synonymous between the love of rhetoric and sexual passion. The first two speeches suggest that sexual passion is irrational, and so by analogy what would they say about the love of rhetoric?
Thomas wrote: "Lysias is pro non-lover, while Socrates is anti-lover. "I attempted to count the arguments for and against lovers and non-lovers in Lysias' speech and the imbalance becomes a little more clear. First there are two glaring omissions:
Arguments against the non-lover - No arguments
Arguments for the man in love - No arguments
The rest are mostly balanced complimentary black and white arguments that exclude other possibilities.
Arguments against the man in love about 14 arguments
A man in love will wish he had not done you any favors once his desire dies down
A lover keeps a balance sheet
If he is not honest, he will treat a new beloved at the expense of the old beloved. (note: he does not speculate on when a non-lover is dishonest)
Will admit love sickness and poor self control and abandon the beloved when he is better
Men in love with you are a small group to choose a beneficiary from
Will out you public.
The beloved's loss will be greater in a breakup
Will isolate the beloved from others out of possessive jealousy
Love you predominately due to your body/physical attraction.
Will over-praise beyond what is best for you.
Are needy with desire your love
Will share with you while you are young and stop sharing when you are older
Will boast loudly about the relationship in the beginning
Will look for excuses to quarrel when the desire has passed
Arguments for the non lover about the same, 13.
The time will never come for a man who’s not in love to change his mind.
Does not keep a balance sheet.
Are a much larger group to choose a beneficiary from
Will not out you and the relationship will be/appear more acceptable.
Will encourage other friendships
Does not love based on physical attraction
Will be honest with you and not over-praise.
Will give his time with no thought of immediate pleasure instead plans for benefits to come
Is not in love and master of himself
Problems will not bother the non-lover as much.
Present as trusted friendship as strong a parent-child bonds
Are not needy but deserving of your friendship
Steady friends who will prove their worth when you are older
Jacob wrote: "Of course the theme of the speeches links the two layers of meaning. The double meaning isn’t comedic, rather, there’s something deeply synonymous between the love of rhetoric and sexual passion. The first two speeches suggest that sexual passion is irrational, and so by analogy what would they say about the love of rhetoric? "At this point I'm having trouble linking the eros of sexual passion and the eros of rhetoric; they seem like very different things. Joe may love Jane, and Joe may also love key lime pie, but that doesn't establish a relationship between Jane and key lime pie. There's plenty to come on the subject of rhetoric, so maybe this will become clearer in a bit?
David wrote: "I attempted to count the arguments for and against lovers and non-lovers in Lysias' speech and the imbalance becomes a little more clear. First there are two glaring omissions:Arguments against the non-lover - No arguments
Arguments for the man in love - No arguments."
It seems like Lysias' argument is simply positive and doesn't consider any negative qualities of the non-lover, and Socrates' is simply negative and doesn't consider any positive qualities of the man in love. Your outline breaks it down really well. How do we describe that sort of exchange? Or is it an exchange at all?
Socrates' arguments are more similar to Lysias' speech than I previously thought.1. Arguments against the non-lover - None (same as Lysias)
2. Arguments for the lover - None (same as Lysias)
3. Arguments against the lover
The lover hypothesizes only the intellectual, physical, family and social harms of a "kept" beloved in an unequal relationship.
4. Arguments for the non-lover (equal in number to the arguments against the lover)
in a word, that every shortcoming for which we blamed the lover has its contrary advantage, and the non-lover possesses it. Why make a long speech of it? That’s enough about them both.
Thomas wrote: "How do we describe that sort of exchange?"Biased. Lysias' speech and Socrates' story are both examples of sophistry.
Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that this is not a speech by Socrates, but a story about a speech given to a beloved by a lover. Phadrus underscores this when he says,
PHAEDRUS: This is certainly an unusual flow of words for you, Socrates.Secondly, The lover's argument is a lie to his beloved.
There once was a boy, a youth rather, and he was very beautiful, and had very many lovers. One of them was wily and had persuaded him that he was not in love, though he loved the lad no less than the others.Therefore, the lover in the story seems to be living up to his own hypothesis and lying to his beloved to keep posession of him. I wonder if Socrates is raising the possibility that Lysias of doing the same and lying to Phaedrus?
Thirdly, since we know the lover in Socrates' story is lying, the definition of love and the conclusion of the argument are questionable.
Fourthly, while the arguments in each speech are one-sided, each one is believable, and each argument adds to the coherance of the whole argument, leading the audience to accept each one making them more likely to agree with you. Dale Carnegie calls this the "yes ladder", or the "yes-yes" technique. It is a trick of rhetoric.
Finally, we are tipped off to withhold our assent to the speech since we know the lover in Socrates' story lying to his beloved its conclusion is suspect. While the speeches do need to be judged separately, due to the similar one-sided nature and conclusions of both speeches, Lysias' similar conclusion is questionable by association.
David wrote: "Secondly, The lover's argument is a lie to his beloved."There once was a boy, a youth rather, and he was very beautiful, and had very many lovers. One of them was wily and had persuaded him that he was not in love, though he loved the lad no less than the others.."
This sounds like a "love bomb" in reverse (as I understand it from Susanna's comment.) It sounds like simple absurdity. A love bomb makes some sense, and Socrates addresses this in different places as flattery, but this makes no sense unless the beloved is especially attracted to those who don't want him, which is at least logically perverse.
What strikes me most about the two speeches is that they don't speak to each other. Sophistry is most simply defined as "making the weaker argument defeat the stronger." I'm not sure that is what is going on here, because one argument argues for the negative (non-lover) and the other argues against the positive (the lover). The conclusion is the same. They agree that love is an illness, but the arguments talk past each other. There is no disagreement about the premise (love is a disease) or at the conclusion (lovers are bad news) so it's hard to say that one argument defeats the other. It's very clever of Socrates to argue this way, though he is ashamed to do so. He says nothing new, but he does it in a different way.
Beyond the fact both stories are flawed by logical fallacies, I think in the end, Socrates' story makes a better argument than Lysias' speech through stronger rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos.Lysias pretty much only provides a list of situations with the associated cons of the lover and pros of the non-lover making it bloated wordy and repetitious, which Socrates points out. There is not much logos or pathos, and the only ethos is Lysias himself who is asking to be taken at his word when he makes all of his, "I statement", promises at the end,
“If my argument wins you over, I will, first of all, give you my time with no thought of immediate pleasure; I will plan instead for the benefits [c] that are to come, since I am master of myself and have not been overwhelmed by love. Small problems will not make me very hostile, and big ones will make me only gradually, and only a little, angry. I will forgive you for unintentional errors and do my best to keep you from going wrong intentionally.Socrates' story is superior because it is more organized and appeals to the definition of love as a source of both authority (ethos) and as a reason (logos) for the harms (pathos) to the beloved will follow. Of course those harms sound more harmful (more pathos) piled on one after the other. At the end, the beloved is given the easy way out of harm when Socrates dismissively declares the non-lover offers every contrary advantage.
Phaedrus reads Socrates a speech by the orator Lysias which argues that it is "better to grant the favors of one who is not in love with you than one who is." Socrates is then coerced to deliver his own speech on the same theme. He covers his head in shame. How does Socrates' speech differ from Lysias', in form or content? They seem to be arguing the same point but in different ways. Does this improve the argument or is there a problem with the thesis to begin with?
Socrates gives us a definition of love which is essentially "passion without reason." This is a passion that the lover is unable to control, like Alcibiades' love for Socrates, or Achilles' love for Patroclus, or any case in which passion triumphs over moderation. Love in this sense appears to be a kind of madness. But is this definition correct? What does passionless love look like? What is the difference between a moderate, controlled, thoughtful kind of love and the love that drives people to sacrifice themselves for another? It is hard for me to think of Achilles dying for a Platonic ideal; it seems to me to be a different thing to fight and die for love.
Is there a problem with the definition of love that Socrates proposes? Is it an accurate description of the love that the lover feels for the beloved?
The speeches of Lysias and Socrates appear to argue the same point, that a cool-headed, disinterested and passionless love is wiser than a passionate love, but they argue in different ways. Does using a different kind of rhetoric change the argument?