Philosophy discussion

count me in

I will give it a try. Keep me posted.

Patrice wrote: "FANTASTIC! I'LL GET BACK TO YOU AS SOON AS I READ IT!" That's great. I'll read it too. What made you choose the The Symposium

Patrice wrote: "I'm taking a course in the Western Canon and we have to read The Symposium and The Peloponesian War at the same time. It was also suggested that we re-read The Apology before The Symposium. I thi..."

Yes, I'm on my way to an Mphil (I hope). But, it's really in the social sciences and modern political science. I am really interested in that stuff around citizenship and identity. I've quite familiar with the The Republic but not so familiar with the The Symposium. So, I'll be learning along with you. Anyway we are all novices. I think it was Socrates who said "that he was wise because he knew he knew nothing"

Patrice wrote: "I'm taking a course in the Western Canon and we have to read The Symposium and The Peloponesian War at the same time. It was also suggested that we re-read The Apology before The Symposium. I thi..."

I found these videos on http://www.academicearth.org/courses/... . They seem really good on Plato and other early philosophers. By the way, Where are you studying?

The "lover" is the older man and the "beloved" is the young boy. The Symposium is an exploration in the concept of Platonic Love. This is usually seen as simply "love without sex", but if you penetrate The Symposium deeper (no pun intended), you will find the definition of Platonic Love is a lot more sophisticated than the bumper sticker response of "love without sex". It is nothing less than the search for the Platonic Form of Beauty.

Basically "symposium" can be the very first way western man has ask "what is love". I hope guys we can fine a good argument to discuss this dialogue.

"THERE SEEMED TO BE NOTHING PLATONIC ABOUT THEIR LOVE."
- That's correct. The Symposium has a number of speakers and each in turn gives their eulogy (in the classic Greek sense) on the topic of Love. Many will talk about the relationship between lover and beloved and often discuss how it makes sense for it to also include a physical component. The dialogue will climax (again...no pun intended) with Socrates/Diotima where he will argue against a physical relationship - not out of any prudery but as part of his philosophical argument for the search and attainment of the true Form.

I think the key to applying the arguments of The Symposium to our modern lifestyle is to interpret Greek pederasty and its lover-beloved as a teacher-student relationship--which is the foundation of the lover-beloved relationship anyway. There is certainly no end of examples of professors/teachers having a physical relationship with their students. If one can free oneself (for the sake of argument) from condemning such relationships by definition and to explore why a teacher-student relationship (which could be male-female, female-male, male-male, female-female) could turn physical, then The Symposium is of great insight.

thanks chris. one thing i remember about that dialogue was the tension between alciabedes and socrates at the end of the dialogue. This can be a practical application of what love can do. how love can drive us out to do things that will hurt the other people that we love.

If anyone would like to add The Symposium to the library, I can make sure it appears on our "currenly reading" list at top.

"it's hard for me to accept the Greek mind-set as modern ideas of love assume a level of equality between lovers"
- I dunno...I think "equality" is not that realistic, perhaps an ideal, but I don't think it is attainable. I think every modern relationship has a power struggle - not always for the worst, oftentimes it is a give and take in that power struggle - but a struggle nonetheless. You may call the "give and take" equal in that both partners are willing to give and take, but that may be a weak definition of equality.

"When a teacher, employer, older person, is drawn to the student, employee, youngster, don't we see that as an abuse of power?"
- Actually, so did the Greeks. I believe it is somewhere in The Symposium that they say there are three reasons for avoiding a teacher: if they are looking for money, fame, or sex. The physical relationship that they are referring to is one that rises naturally between teacher-student due to the theory of reciprocity. I believe it is Pausanius who argues that it's alright for the beloved to physically gratify a "good" lover rather than a self-indulgent one. The "good" lover is one who is legitimately dedicated to the rational and ethical development of the beloved. That may sound like an oxymoron, but that is his argument.

"It seems that the Greek relationships are with young boys, just into adolescence. Perhaps at that time women were seen as chattel."
- Women were designated under Common Love. That is, love for pleasure as well as perhaps offspring. The Greek philosophers saw pederasty as Heavenly Love and was seen as "higher" than Common Love because it was a love that grew out of ethical and rational education.

"I can't accept the justification of this kind of behavior, which seems to be what some of this dialogue is presenting."
- Well, what you have to remember is that the dialogue is set up to actually refute many (if not all) of these arguments. When Socrates/Diotima speaks, then everyone is more or less put in their places. But probably the most important (and fascinating) concept The Symposium offers us to consider is the erotic potential of education. This is something that is simply not discussed today, and which, I feel, is very legitimate. It is easy to say a teacher/professor/older person is simply abusing their power if and when they get involved with a younger person. And I have no doubt that there have been and are those who prey on inexperienced learners or novices for self-indulgent purposes - either money, fame, or sex. But I also feel that when a student in a certain discipline is stimulated by that field of study--and is stimulated and inspired by a teacher who is him/herself stimulated by that discipline, there is the potential for the shared passion to manifest itself physically. This is no different than other shared passions between people. Of course the teacher-student relationship complicates matters, but what is worse is the automatic social reflex that there is an abuse of power by default. This social reflex silences discussion on the potential erotic nature of learning.

I don't think greek 'paederasty' could be compared to modern forms of paedophilia, first of all the older guy (erastes)had to court the younger, send him various gifts etc, until he finally gave in. So he did give his consent eventually. Also it concerns sexually mature young boys, from around 14-15 til 21-24, which is about the age of consent in many countries.

Those who are interested in the subject should read K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality, it's really instructive, and a good read too.

Anywa

Sorry that I've been quiet. I decided to take this weekend off. Just started reading the symposium properly last night and hope to finish it tonight. will report back tomorrow. In the meantime, I found these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXBQRu... on You tube and thought that you might find them interesting.

Vikz wrote: "I think it was Socrates who said "that he was wise because he knew he knew nothing" "

Which, of course, was total nonsense, and he knew it.

Patrice wrote: "I'm also having a little trouble getting into the differences between lovers and beloved. I know that the Greeks believed that an older, wiser man kind of "educated" young boys through homosexual relationships. There seems to be an understanding about these relationships and how they work and it's a little difficult for me to wrap my mind around it."

I wrote a lengthy post last evening about the issue of homosexuality/homoeroticism in Greece, because I think it’s important to understand the issue to read this dialogue. But when I tried to post it, goodreads told me they were down for maintenance, and I couldn’t recover it. Gone. Somewhere in the ether.

I don’t have time to reproduce it all. I will try to summarize my main points, with apologies for not being more comprehensive in providing detailed support for my points.

The main point is that modern western homosexuality and ancient Greek homoeroticism are two very, very different things, and to read the Symposium while thinking in terms of our modern understanding of homosexuality is to significantly misread the dialogue.

As the Oxford Classical Dictionary (probably the most valuable single volume reference for serious students of the classical world) puts it: “No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term homosexuality and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less wee they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes....It is therefore impossible to speak in general terms about ancient attitudes to ‘homosexuality’, or about the degree of its acceptance or toleration by particular communities... particular caution must be exercised in order not to import modern, western sexual categories and ideologies into the interpretation of the ancient evidence....the application of ‘homosexuality’ in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression on classical antiquity is not advised.”

There is much more in the entry. Those interested can probably find this reference in any good, particularly any academic, library.

In order not to lose another lengthy post, I’ll submit this much as one post and go on in a further post.

A continuation of my previous post:

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that during the later 20th century, post-Oscar Wilde, there was (and continues to be) a concerted effort to change the western attitude toward homosexuality from one of a criminal behavior or mental illness to a socially legitimate alternate lifestyle. One element of this effort was to claim respectability for homosexuality by contending that it was a normal behavior for one of the most advanced civilizations in the Western experience, thus invoking the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, or “appeal to authority.” The argument was made that there was a direct parallel between Greek homoeroticism and modern western homosexuality, whereas in fact they are very different relationships with very different social purposes.

There are several aspects of Greek culture at work which should be considered.

One is the different role of women and of male-female relationships then as now. Patrice wrote: “Perhaps at that time women were seen as chattel. They were so uneducated and isolated that "real" relationships, on an equal footing, could only exist between men. “

While I’m not sure I would agree with the term chattel, women – at least upper class citizens (remember that Greece was a slave owning culture) were largely isolated in their homes, while boys were trained in male-only schools and then in military training. So that during the years of sexual development, boys were almost exclusively in the presence other males.

But the most important issue to understand, I think, is that sex was primarily viewed in Greek (I should note that I am talking primarily about Greece excluding Sparta, which had a somewhat different approach to male sexuality) culture in terms of power. Sexual relations were not relations of equals, but were hierarchical. The penetrator exerted power over the penetrated. In heterosexual relations, this was the man exerting authority and power over the woman through sex. In homoerotic relations, it was always the more powerful exerting power over the less powerful through penetration.

The accepted form of homoeroticism was of an adult male and a youth (not yet bearded). It was considered a mark of subservience, almost of disgrace, for an adult male to allow another adult male to use him sexually. Boys would form relationships with men in part in order to gain their influence and the benefit of what they could do to advance the boy’s career. Patrice’s likening this to a mentor system is very apt. It is much like a starlet in Hollywood advancing her career on the casting couch, except that the process was totally open and societally acceptable.

This power relationship is evident, for example, in looking at the sexual interactions of gods and humans. Gods are the more powerful; humans the less powerful. Thus, virtually every god-human interaction is of a male god using a human female. There are very few instances of female goddesses allowing themselves to be sexually used by human males, because this was an inversion of the power relationship and a disgrace to the goddess. In the rare instances where it happens, the outcome is usually disastrous.

There’s much more that could be said, but this will do for now. The main point to understand is that to view the relationships and forms of love discussed in the Symposium as in any way analogous to western homosexual relationships is not only error but will make understanding the dialogue difficult if not impossible.

Patrice wrote: "According to my prof, penetration was not acceptable in the lover/beloved relationship. "

Interesting -- that's not a view I had heard before, and conflicts with what I have understood from other sources. I would be interested in his authority for it.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary, under the entry for homosexuality, says "Greek and Roman men (whose sexual subjectivity receives vastly greater attention in the extant sources than does women's) generally understood sex to be defined in terms of sexual penetration and phallic pleasure, whether the sexual partners were two males, two females, or one male and one female." And a bit later "Any sexual relation that involved the penetration of a social inferior (whether inferior in age, gender, or status) qualified as sexually normal for a male, irrespective of the penetrated person's anatomical sex, whereas to be sexually penetrated was always was always potentially shaming..."

However, after all that the OCD does go on to say that "In classical Athens...free boys could be openly courted, but a series of elaborate protocols served to shield them from the shame associated with bodily penetration, thereby enabling them to gratify their male suitors without compromising their future status as adult males."

I'm not really sure how to reconcile all this. If sex is defined as penetration, but to be penetrated by an adult male was shameful, and a male lover could not penetrate a free boy, it's not clear just what males the adult could penetrate. Slaves? Non-citizens? And just how did free boys gratify their male suitors without allowing penetration? And are we getting a bit more graphic here than we are really comfortable with??

And more to the point here, how is all this to be taken into account as we interpret the various views expressed in the Symposium?

Patrice wrote: "Also, what seems to separate Greek ethics from Judeo-Christian ethics is the very point you bring up eman, power. It seems to me that what we consider to be unethical about Greek culture, ie slaveery, infant exposure, pederasty and subjugation of women, are all united by a common theme, might makes right. The strong can use the weak for their own purposes.
The Judeo-Christian ethic is the opposite, the strong must care for the weak...."

Excellent observation. The Greeks were much closer to nature, where the fittest survive and the weakest perish. When you think about it, you realize that Christianity is quite anti-evolutionary.

Patrice wrote: "As all of this was rolling (or roiling) around in my brain it occurred to me that this is exactly the point. How do we know anything? The entire dialogue is set up with third and fourth hand information."

Plato does nothing by accident. Every thought, every progression, every element is carefully thought out. Nothing is mere filler.

There is a reason, then, why Plato presents the dialogue in such a roundabout, third or fourth hand way. But what is the reason? (Or reasons?)

Plato goes to extremes to present the circumstances as vividly and as realistically as possible -- for example, the discussion of whether or not they will get drunk is very realistic; at Greek drinking parties, there was a presiding person (not always the host) would determine how much the participants would drink and how drunk they would get. In this case, the participants decide that this will not be a drunken party, but that they will only drink for refreshment.

Does Plato include these details in order to persuade the reader how accurately the details of the party were remembered and recounted? Greek culture was, at the time, still largely an oral society; plays were performed for the whole city and generally not written down to be read as we read them today. Socrates, famously, never wrote, as far as we know, a single thing, but his entire teaching was oral. Aristotle didn't write for the purpose of his works being generally read; what we have of his is usually considered either to be lecture notes or the report of students listening to his lectures and recording them. So we are dealing with an oral culture where much, perhaps most, knowledge was transmitted orally and not in writing. Is the multi-layered aspect of the dialogue intended to emphasize to us how important this discussion was that so many recalled it so well?

Or is it rather intended to separate us from the immediacy of the dialogue, to make us wonder how accurately in fact the conversation is passing on to us?

Or is there some other reason why Plato introduces the dialogue in this roundabout way? Certainly it does show, doesn't it, that there was great interest in talking and knowing about what went on in the symposium, how seriously the Athenians took their conversations and how they recounted them over and over.

What is Plato really telling us / doing here?

BTW, we really should be reading Phaedrus in connection with the Symposium. That's Plato's other great dialogue on love. I'm a bit surprised, Patrice, that your instructor hasn't recommended or required this, if indeed he hasn't.

Hi Everyman --

I've also lost a post or two, and it happened when I hit "post." I now copy the posts while I'm working on them, but it really annoys me when I lose one.

Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such ...

In modern society we have men who self-identify as straight, but whose sex drive often has other men as its object. Straight men who hire transvestites is one example. Researchers puzzle over this "discordance" -- http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/ful... --
and people commonly deny such a thing is possible.

I don't know how such an attraction works, but the phenomenon is an observed fact. Yet we have no modern category into which that fact fits, and that's where the so-called discordance comes from. We cannot precisely categorize even modern sexuality, let alone that of ancient Greece. On top of that, we have modern relationships which are quasi-sexual without being overtly so. What category is there for them?

I also agree that something beyond sex is involved in these ancient Greek practices. As you pointed out, it's useful to look at how power itself was distributed among the Greeks. I don't know how much that will explain. But your point, that it's deceptive to project modern categories onto an ancient culture, is important. We have to depend primarily upon whatever we can learn about a bygone civilization to make sense of their discussion.

I'll get my copy of "symposium" and re-read it again. last time i read it was in my college years

Patrice wrote: "Alcibiades says

"I'd be far more ashamed of what sensible people would think if I failed to gratify someone like you than of what ordinary, foolish people would think if I did."

Any ideas? Is he saying that ordinary people would judge him harshly? "

I read him as saying that the opinions of sensible people are what count, and those of ordinary, foolish people don't.

Did anyone else find Socrates' monologue the least inspiring? After reading the symposium and some of Plato's other books I find myself getting frustrated with Socrates. His dialectic seems to try to force truth out by merely pushing others into a verbal corner. It is always along the lines of "it is either this or that, and do you agree with this? no, well how about that?" The either or situations that Socrates is always forcing on his opponents seems too black and white. I find myself identifying more with Aristophanes who hints at truth through metaphor and fiction than through dialectic.

Hans, I agree with you to a point, but if I remember correctly, Diotima refuted Socrates' argument of the black and white when Socrates tried to say that since love is neither fair nor good, it must be evil and foul.

I think people get too caught up in the one-sidedness of Socrates' method and so his message gets lost in our frustration. So the question should be do you disagree with Socrates' speech, or just his manner of speaking? What about Aristophanes' speech did you find truthful?

I suppose the part that I find irritating is how forced Socrates attempts at describing truth are. I don't have a problem with him refuting or questioning other ideas, it is more how the nature of his dialogues feel so constraining. I myself would be unable to describe it since it is forcing it into words that is the problem in the first place. Words can cheapen what they are trying to describe. Like Arete, before Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, it was not something you could describe it was something only recognized. After they came along then the meaning was constrained upon it limiting it to a narrow descriptive attribute thus losing its original stature among the Greeks.

Venturing to force something as complex and multi-faceted as love into words just seems like trying to describe color to a blind person. Yet this is what the dialectics feel like, an attempt to capture the illusive in words. It is no doubt admirable, but ultimately leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Aristophanes doesn't feign to control it through using descriptive words but tries to hint at truth through fiction or metaphor. It is a form of lying that is more honest because at least we know it is just a made up story meant to describe something that cannot be described. Whereas Socrates attempts to somehow contain it in words

Huh, I wonder if in this group we couldn't have our own "Symposium"? I'm curious how people today would define Love, be it by metaphor, logic, or otherwise.

Chris wrote: "Huh, I wonder if in this group we couldn't have our own "Symposium"? I'm curious how people today would define Love, be it by metaphor, logic, or otherwise."


I'm not sure I could pay homage to love the way they did in Symposium, but a maybe a good metaphor is the best approach to a tribute.

To look at it logically, Sartre described love as an attitude we adopt toward other people which can never quite hit its mark.

That sounds a little like what the sophists might have said -- was Thrasymachus one of the speakers at the symposium?

Yes, they were an item at one time. It really must have been quite an affair -- but was it love?

I've just found this discussion and it's a shame it appeared to end a long time ago. I think "The Speech of Aristophanes" in The Symposium is critically important. I've referenced parts of it several times in my own book, "Goodbye, Mr. Descartes."