Resource and Poverty – The Origin of Eros
Socrates speech comes in the form of a dialogue between himself and Diotima, a female philosopher who educated Socrates in the nature and truth of Eros. Unlike the other speeches, Socrates’ does not eulogize Eros as a god; he presents Eros instead as an intermediary between gods and man. Diotima presents the myth of Eros’ conception, telling Socrates that Poverty (Penia) who plotted to conceive a child with someone who had what she lacked, Resource (Poros). From this combination, Eros was born with qualities, both good and bad, of both the needy Poverty and the cunning Resource. This is a seeming paradoxical combination, to be both lacking and to be able to obtain what one lacks, but is this combination
…show more content…
Before even diving in to the myth of Eros’ conception, Diotima asks Socrates "'And do you hold to the agreement that Eros out of need for the good and beautiful things desires those very things of which he is in need?'” (202 D). Socrates agrees. This shows how love is intrinsically bound to poverty, or what one feels they lack. Unlike the other speakers, he clearly presents Eros as the lover rather than the beloved. According to Diotima, love is fueled by the passion to acquire what one lacks. Once again, the circular quality of Eros is shown. Love is driven by desire, but what one truly desires is to be complete, which is impossible for man. Being mortal, humans can never obtain the perfection of the gods. So, like Eros, man is in a constant state of longing for what he does not have. In this way Eros is identifies more like a human than a god, in his imperfect yet unrelenting pursuit of what he desires. Poverty herself was motivated to conceive Eros by her of want of what Resource holds. Diotima continues, denying that “eros is summed up to be really good” (205 E). Because the lovers will only love what is good. She cites the example of lovers being willing to amputate their own limbs if they are deemed to be not good. This reinforces the status of the beloved as the good, rather than the lover. The lover seeks the good and the beautiful and …show more content…
In this dialogue, Eros is described as “far from…tender and beautiful,” but as “always poor” and “tough, squalid, shoeless and homeless” (203 C, D). This is shocking reminiscent of how Socrates himself was described within Plato’s Symposium. But through the description of Eros as the son of Poverty and Resource, he ties the relationship between the lover and the beloved to the status of the philosopher. In this speech, Diotima takes Eros beyond erotic love and givers the label of “lover” to anyone who seeks good for his or her own happiness. Just as the lover can only seek a beloved if he is aware of what he lacks, the philosopher is aware of what he lacks and actively seeks it out. In this way, he is presenting the philosopher is the best parts of Eros, for he both knows what he lacks and has the desire to seek it out. If he knew he was wise, he would lack the desire to seek wisdom. But he must also have the desire to seek wisdom. So Socrates, a great philosopher, presents the philosopher as the ultimate “lover.” Although Socrates is presented as a humble and simple man, it is quite impossible to ignore these connections. Although this could also connect back to the overarching theme that all love is fundamentally love of self, rather than just making Socrates himself look egotistical. Diotima convinces Socrates that one loves because they are lacking
Robert Bridges and Anne Stevenson both have different versions of Eros, the god of love. While Bridges depicts Eros as an inspirational icon, Stevenson shows Eros as someone who has been bruised and abused, the opposite of a typical depiction of a reverential figure. They talk about love itself through the god Eros using their diction, imagery, and rhyme.
“EΡΩΣ” by Robert Bridges has a contradictory concept of what humans view as love, thus the negative and positive comparisons are between Eros different angles in love and lust. For instance, Eros is described as both having “exuberant flesh so fair” yet “Ere from his chaste marmoreal,” thus stating he has both a sexual, savage appearance, yet a pure and smooth one also. The speaker also states, “Surely thy body is thy mind, for thy face is nought to find…” where Eros is being described as a pretty boy who beyond his looks has no brain. Both these descriptions, of a sexual appearance and having no brains, depict that ...
Plato's Phaedrus is a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus. In this conversation the young Phaedrus is overjoyed to tell Socrates of the speech that he had just heard Lysias, "The best writer living" (Plato Phaedrus 22), tell. In this speech Lysias uses his rhetorical skills to argue that physical love without emotional attachment is preferable to physical love with emotional attachment, "That is the clever thing about it; he makes out that an admirer who is not in love is to be preferred to one who is" (Plato Phaedrus 22). Socrates listens to this speech, as relayed by Phaedrus and quickly becomes aware that this speech was a ploy by Lysias to get Phaedrus into bed with him. Socrates then fashions a speech, on the spot, that argues the same points that Lysias did. Socrates? speech is going well but is interrupted by "divine sign." Socrates then has to fashion a new speech that renounces the blasphemous nature of the first. Socrates? second speech contains the famous image of love as a charioteer with two horses. He also addresses the nature of the soul and the effects that love has on it (which will be ...
In classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
The ideas presented by the patrons in Plato’s Symposium differed immensely. All pertaining to a main topic, being love, but none having the same conclusion. Two speeches in particular, those of Pausanias and Aristophanes, seemed to oppose the most. Many elements of their arguments contradicted that of the others, none more than the origin of love and the whom is the eromenos of love.
In the Symposium, a most interesting view on love and soul mates are provided by one of the characters, Aristophanes. In the speech of Aristophanes, he says that there is basically a type of love that connects people. Aristophanes begins his description of love by telling the tale of how love began. He presents the tale of three sexes: male, female, and a combination of both. These three distinct sexes represented one’s soul. These souls split in half, creating a mirror image of each one of them. Aristophanes describes love as the search for the other half of your soul in this quote: “When a man’s natural form was split in two, each half went round looking for its other half. They put their arms around one another, and embraced each other, in their desire to grow together again. Aristophanes theme is the power of Eros and how not to abuse it.
In Aristophanes’ speech, which primarily takes the form of a myth, he weaves together comical elements with undertones of sadness that serve to create a profound account of what Eros is. The speech describes humans as combined creatures who, after being separated, are filled with longing. These beings spend the remainder of their lives, in a sometimes futile attempt, combating this feeling of longing by searching for the individual that can make them one again. Aristophanes describes Eros as a remedy for this overwhelming emotion. He uses his story to make Eros an entity that acts in tandem with individuals wishing to be whole. As a result, Eros ultimately serves as a guide that allows humans to bring about their original feeling of completion,
In Plato’s work Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausania, Eryximachus, Aristophane and Agathon, each of them presents a speech to either praise or definite Love. Phaedrus first points out that Love is the primordial god; Pausanias brings the theme of “virtue” into the discussion and categorizes Love into “good” one or “bad” one; Eryximachus introduces the thought of “moderation’ and thinks that Love governs such fields as medicine and music; Aristophanes draws attention to the origin and purposes of Love; Agathon enunciates that the correct way to present an eulogy is first to praise its nature and gifts. As the last speaker, and the most important one, Socrates connects his ideas with Diotima of Mantinea’s story of Love’s origin, nature and purpose. Different from the earlier five speakers who regard Love as an object and praise different sides of it, Socrates, referring to Diotima’s idea, considers Love as a pursuit of beauty gradually from “physical beauty of people in general” (Symposium, Plato, 55) to the “true beauty” (55).
The story of Ethos was that he was a Greek god of love. In Latin, Ethos means the god of desire, affection, and erotic love. He was self-born at the beginning of time to spur procreation (theoi.com). His mother is Aphrodite and his father is Ares. He has three brothers named Deimos, Phobos, and Harmonia. Resources say that Eros is the guy who carries around a bow and arrow and he has the power to make any human fall in love with anyone they see at first sight. Another name they have for Ethos is Cupid, because of his power he has to make anyone fall in love (greekgodandgoddess.net).
I have always thought that there was only one type of love, which was that feeling of overwhelming liking to someone else. I am aware that Lust does exist and that it is separate from Love, being that the desire for someone's body rather their mind. In Plato's Symposium, Plato speaks of many different types of love, loves that can be taken as lust as well. He writes about seven different points of view on love coming from the speakers that attend the symposium in honor of Agathon. Although all these men bring up excellent points on their definitions on love, it is a woman that makes the best definition be known. I will concentrate on the difference between the theory of Common and Heavenly love brought up by Pausanias and the important role that Diotima plays in the symposium.
In the Aeneid, love is depicted as an uncontrollable emotion. Venus and Juno promote the romance between Dido and Aeneas. Dido, the queen of Carthage, begins to fall in love with Aeneas, even though she has vowed to her late husband that she would set her “face against marriage” (Virgil 975). Aeneas falls in love with Dido and remains with her in Carthage, even though he knows that he must continue his travel to Rome. Love is a passion which consumes the soul in spite of its will. It is an “inward fire” (Virgil 976). Juno arranges it so that Dido and Aeneas consummate their love in a cave during a storm. Again, mortals have little or no control over their loves. The gods are the ones who cause people to fall in love.
The meaning of love is as intricate and unique as the purpose that it serves. It seems that the nature of love is found in the mind, the body and the soul. In Plato’s Symposium each member of the drinking party gives their own interpretation of love. As each speaker engages in their discourse, the concept of love is evaluated from different angles. According to Phaedrus, homoerotic love is the highest form of love and that sacrificing oneself for love will result in a multitude of rewards from the gods, while Pausanias believes that there are two forms of love: Commonly and Heavenly. As a physician, Eryximachus claims that love appears in every part of the universe, including plants and animals and that protection results from love. Before starting his speech, Aristophanes tells the group that his discussion about love may seem completely absurd, as he explains that in the beginning one body had two people who were eventually split in half by Zeus. This is meant to explain why people are constantly looking for their “other half”. Moreover Agathon, the poet the symposium is celebrating, critiques the previous speakers by stating that they failed to praise the god of love. He claims that love rejects feebleness and embraces youthfulness while also implying that love creates justice, courage and wisdom.
Socrates friend from youth, Chairephon, ventured to the land of Delphi to ask the Oracle that presided there if there was a man that contained more wisdom than Socrates. The Oracle responded that there was no man wiser than he. This caught Socrates off guard because he never thought of himself as being wise at all. He ventured out to test the oracle's statement to see if what was said was in fact the truth. He approached a man that was known by the public to be very wise. He then proceeded to question the man to see if he was a wise as he thought himself to be. Socrates found that the man didn't take to what Socrates asked of him and became angry. Socrates tried this on another man who was said to be even wiser than the man before. The same thing happened. He tried this with many people and found that every ones wisdom including his own was little or worthless. I believe that Socrates is trying to convey the fact that no man possesses more wisdom than the other. If Socrates were said to be the wisest man then surely people would not react in the way they did. If he is the wisest man than he would be able to tell the man that they are not as wise as they think. Surely the wisest man can make anyone aware of this.
Some people believe that there is no such thing as “true love” they believe that love is nothing but an illusion designed by social expectations. These people believe that love ultimately turns into pain and despair. This idea in some ways is true. Love is not eternal it will come to an end one way or another, but the aspect that separates true love from illusion, is the way love ends. “True Love” is much too powerful to be destroyed by Human imperfection; it may only be destroyed by a force equal to the power of love. Diotima believed that “Love is wanting to posses the good forever” In other words love is the desire to be immortal and the only way that we are able to obtain immortality is through reproduction, and since the act of reproduction is a form of sexual love, then sexual love is in fact a vital part of “True love”. Sexual love is not eternal. This lust for pleasure will soon fade, but the part of love that is immortal, is a plutonic love. You can relate this theory to the birth of love that Diotima talks about. She says that love was born by a mortal mother and immortal father. The mother represents the sexual love, the lust for pleasure. The father represents the plutonic love that is immortal. Plutonic love is defined as a true friendship, the purest of all relationships. A true plutonic love will never die; it transcends time, space, and even death.
Plato’s Symposium is a dialogue of speeches given by different orators on the topic of love. These discourses allow several views of philosophy to be expressed. These philosophical views relate and compliment the speaker’s view of love. Pausanias introduces two kinds of love: heavenly and common. In contrast to Eryximachus’ speech where “the love manifested in health (heavenly) is fundamentally different from the love manifested in disease (common/vulgar)” (Plato: 186B). Pausanias holds that “love is, like everything else, complex: considered simply in itself, it is neither honorable nor a disgrace – its character depends entirely on the behavior it gives rise to” (Plato: 183D). Pausanias views love as good and bad by what it brings. He sees that love with women and with little boys is of the vulgar kind, but love between older men, however, can have a powerful force in the community and therefore be honorable and heavenly. Therefore, in Pausanias’ eyes, love can be a valuable force within the community if implemented correctly. “Love’s value to the city as a whole and to the citizens is immeasurable, for he compels the lover and his loved one alike to make virtue their cen...