Philosophy

One of the mysteries in life involves the emotion that human experienced in relationships called love. Love, with its many forms and manifestations, could lead humans to feel extreme bliss or extreme sorrow. The contradicting or opposite effects of love made it more confusing and interesting. Nonetheless, a clear definition of what it is and what is its importance remains as questions unanswered despite several attempts.

Love is usually rendered as a relative or subjective concept, which ends the inquiries without the need for further investigation. However, the fact that humans experience it at the same time, with the same effects, and with similar manifestations begs for a universal definition. This puzzle piece had captured the attention of Plato as could be reflected in his dialogues, most prominently in the Symposium. 

Symposium is a drinking party, characterized as an aristocratic past-time in ancient Greece where people discuss important matters or celebrate important occasions. In the Platonic dialogue, the Symposium was made in honor of the host Agathon, who had won a competition. The discussion  focused on the idea of love or Eros discussed in length by Socrates. Nevertheless, unlike in any of Platos writings, Socrates was not directly involved in the exchange of ideas in this dialogue. Instead, he presented the conversation that happened between him and a priestess named Diotima of Mantineia. Therefore, the ideas that Socrates conveyed in the dialogue was depicted as not his own. Nussbaum described the dialogue as something that resembles a Chinese box due to the complexity brought by the distancing from the actual source.

On its entirety, the concept of love was discussed with its correlation to philosophy. In the Symposium, love was first presented in its traditional essence, as one of the Greek gods. Afterwards, it was revealed as connection between the loved and the beloved. Then, it was assumed to be associated to a search for intelligence. Another view about love discussed in the dialogue, was its ability to transform its desires. There is also a rendition regarding love as finding the other persons half. This was based on the ancient story about Zeus chopping humans to half and people trying to find their other halves. Lastly, there was a view about love being beautiful and good. This is where Socrates relates his discussion with Diotima.

Plato used Socrates character in his dialogues to explain or represent his thoughts and ideas. In the Symposium, Socrates relay his conversation with a priestess named Diotima. The conversation was about the idea of Eros. In Greece, during the period that Symposium was written, Eros was a term used to reflect desires. Plato used the term Eros without its underlying concept of sexual love. Thus, the discussion of Eros in the Symposium denotes a study of desire and not of love per se. More particularly, as the discussion would reveal, Platos notion of Eros highly reflects a rational desire. In order to understand Platos idea of Eros, we shall look into the speech made by Socrates and the idea of Eros presented by Diotima. To avoid confusion, the word Eros would be used interchangeably with the word love to signify a desire.

Socrates initiated his speech through praising the ideas of Agathon as something that resembled his own when he first met the priestess Diotima. Diotima, according to the Symposium was the instructress of the art of love. Upon questioning the nature of love, Socrates answered Diotima that love is both good and fair. This was the notion of love during Platos time since it was associated to Gods. Nevertheless, Diotima answered that love is not something that could be categorized as good and fair.

Something good and fair is not something that is bad and unfair. This is the first implication of Diotimas proposition. However, Diotima explained that this is not necessarily true. People tended to look at things as either black and white. Most often than not, people failed that there are gray areas in between. In this part, Diotima introduced the concept of knowledge. She argued that in between being wise and being ignorant lays the capacity for the right opinion. To this end, Eros is something that is in between good and bad, fair and unfair.

Diotima further argued that Eros is not a god. To explain this, she goes back to the idea that Eros is neither good nor fair. Eros desires good and fair things make him happy. Since he desires something, this implies that it is something that he, himself, does not possess because one would not desire anymore what he already has.

Thus, in pursuing the nature of Eros, Diotima recounts that he is neither mortal nor immortalhe is a great spirit mediator between the mortal and the divine. Through incorporating Greek culture, a story regarding Eros genealogy was told by Diotima. Eros mother was Poverty, who conceived a child with Plenty when he was sleeping in the garden of Zeus during Aphrodites birthday. Eros was born and he became the follower and attendant of Aphrodite. Eros was neither wise nor poor. He resembles both his mother and father. Thus, he is alive and flourishing at one moment and dead at another momentwhich is always flowing in is always flowing out. It is during this part that Diotima acknowledged Eros as a philosopher or lover of wisdom.

In a deeper sense, Diotima asked if indeed Eros is the desire for what is beautiful, then what does he actually desire. The answer given by Socrates was That the beautiful may be his. To clarify her point, Diotima used the word good instead of beautiful. She asserted that all men desire good things. Good things are those that generate happiness. Therefore, men desire good things, but they differ in what makes them happy.

 Using this illustration, Diotima argued, one part of love is separated off and receives the name of the whole, but the other parts have other names. A further understanding of this point could be made through a discussion of creativity. Creativity implies creation or the passage from non-being into being. This is not only limited in reproduction, for ideas and arts and music are produced through the process of creation. Diotima rendered these creative actions as an act of poetry yet she also acknowledged that those who create arts such as painting, rhetoric, dances, music are not known as poets. This, she argued, was the same with love for those who loves were not called lovers per se, but they were called depending on the object of love. For instance, lover of medicine would not be called medicine lover but a doctor or a healer instead. Diotima concluded with the idea that the simple truth is, that men love the good.

The arguments presented by Socrates did not end with this. Diotima further pursued the manner of love or desire. She asked whether the love of the possession of good is everlasting. Socrates assent, thus the final definition of love would be an everlasting desire for the possession of good. In order for the good to be possessed, it has to be created and this is done through procreation in the body or in the soul known as begetting upon the beautiful.

 Conception, according to Diotimas account was the immortal principle in human creature, which cannot be harmonious or compatible with deformity.  Diotima further added that Eros love is not merely the love of the beautiful but also of generation because it is necessary for men to desire immortality along with the good. It is through generations that something could be left behind. For example, humans, animals, plants andor all living creatures could continue its existence by leaving behind offspring.

The discussion entailed that humans loved their offspring for the sake of immortality. This could be the reason why Vlastos noted Platos idea of love as something impersonal. Vlastos argued that Platos theory is not about personal love for persons. Vlastos argued that in Platonic love, love is only present because B could provide something that.

A further understanding of how Plato used the term immortality could be made through a review of his concept of the forms and true knowledge, which he discussed in Phaedo. Plato believes that true knowledge could only be attained through an engagement with the Forms or ideas. In the Republic, Plato explained that the Forms exist in the world of ideas, which could only be realized through the reflection of the things in the material world because these things are imitations of Forms. While the physical body is a component of the material world, the human soul is connected to the world of forms.

 In the practice of philosophizing, the person gained wisdom and therefore understand that the body limits the soul. Death releases the soul from the bodily shackles and gives it the ability to become one with the forms. The soul, in the Platonic concept is immortal, it undergoes transmigration or rebirth. In Phaedo, Plato argued that true virtues could be attained through wisdom.

Connecting these to the discussion of Eros in Symposium, Diotima believes that creation and therefore, love is not something that is limited to the body. She argued that love could also be conceived through the soul through the conceptions of wisdom and virtue in general. The impregnation of the soul is achieved through the pursuit of the beauty of the forms. Proper pursuit would lead the person to see the beautiful in due order and succession, when he comes toward the end, will suddenly perceive a nature of wondrous beauty.

In The Fragility of Goodness, Martha Nussbaum highlighted the fact that the speech made by Diotima presents the connection between love and philosophy. This reveals an ethical side of love in contrast to the common notions regarding love as some kind of personal expression and emotions. In this regards, Gill argued that in modern thinking, love refers to the relationship between persons in which each responds to the other as an individual that is as the bearer of a unique personality of identity. The beloved is therefore, treated not merely as an object of desire but as a companion in the ascent towards the recognition of beauty.

Vlastos defined Platonic Love as a peculiar mix of sensuality, sentiment, and intellecta companionship bonded by erotic attraction less than by intellectual give-and-take. Vlastos further claimed that the love that Socrates described paralleled the idea of the utility-love described by Aristole. It denotes that the lover would only look at the beloved because of the benefits that he may bring. For instance, the sick man loves his doctor for the sake of health. This, according to Vlastos, is an egoistic type of love since it did not give further instruction as to how else a person could be loved, unless he is of some use to another. Nussbaum argued that it is a common for people to find Plato treating a person as a seat of valuable properties and describing love as directed at those repeatable properties, rather than the whole person. However, it is only because one has not really understood his whole philosophy, which is fragmented in his other works.  This interpretation denotes that Platonic Love is not romantic love. Romantic love involves an idealization to actualize the lovers fantasies.  A.W. Price noted that it should not be forgotten that Platonic Love seeks immortality not just the joys of self-creation. Therefore, Platonic Love is not merely an intellectual give-and-take nor is it a romantic type of love. Rather, it is the desire to attain an everlasting possession of good.

Platonic Love, commonly perceived as brotherly love in todays world, is something that goes beyond worldly desires. The desire it entails incorporates the understanding or knowledge of the beautiful or good which underlies happiness. Milton and Hall argued that the lesser mysteries of love could be enjoyed by the undisciplined soul while the higher mysteries could be attained through careful disciplining and proving oneself worthy. Diotima, in her speech, described an assent from these lower mysteries involving personal loveto the higher mysteries of the love of the beautiful.  Platonic love is concerned about immortality, which is achieved through the creation not just of the body but also of the soul.

In the Platonic dialogue entitled Symposium, Socrates relayed his conversations with Diotima to explain the concept of love. The conversation revealed that love is something that seeks to eternally possess the beautiful. Platonic love according to the critics, do not take into account the other persons individuality or uniqueness and treats the beloved because of its utility. Love, in todays setting, is portrayed as something romantic, underlying the consideration for the other persons as an individual and not as a possessor of certain qualities. Platonic love is different  from romantic love. Romantic love belongs to the lesser mysteries of love while Platonic love is concerned with the higher  mysteries which could only be achieved through the process of creation yielding to the immortal possession of beauty.