FREE ESSAY ON PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM

PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM

Plato's Symposium provides us with many different views and theories about love. This
drunken discussion of Eros presents ideas which have not lost their relevance in the
millennia since. Many things have changed and there have been a lot of different views on
almost every subject known to man, but the thoughts voiced in the Symposium still hold
truth today. However being what it was, and that is many different peoples thoughts on
the subjectof Eros, there is a wide variety of theories to choose from. Which of these
speculations strikes a chord of truth in one's soul? 
Diotima speaks through Socrates (who is speaking through Plato) when she gives her
version of where love came from. She says that Love is the child of Resource and Poverty,
conceived on the day that Aphrodite was born. Poverty had come to the feast to beg and
found Resource drunk and passed out. Poverty saw an opportunity to gain more resources,
so she slept with him and became pregnant with Love. Love is a follower of Aphrodite
because He was conceived at the party following her birth, and because "He is naturally a
lover of beauty and Aphrodite is beautiful"(Gill, 203c)
Because of who His mother is Love is always poor and homeless. He is quite tough from
sleeping on the ground or in doorways and from wearing no shoes. Because of who His
mother is, He is always in need, but because of who His father is He is constantly
scheming to get good and beautiful things. He's clever, and skilled in hunting, magic and
acquiring knowledge. Neither immortal nor mortal, Love can spring to life in a day and
then die before that day is over. He can come back to life again like his father
Resource, but cannot hold onto the resources he has. 
Being between mortality and immortality, Diotima calls Love "a great spirit"(Gill,202e).
These great spirits are sort of go-betweens for the Gods and Humanity. They convey
prayers and sacrifices from us to the Gods, and commands and gifts from the Gods to us.
Because of them the universe is all interconnected and whole. The Gods never communicate
directly to Humans, but always use these spirits to convey their commands. These are what
priests, prophets and oracles speak to.
Love is also between wisdom and ignorance, since neither the gods nor the ignorant love
wisdom. The Gods already have it so the do not desire it, therefore love has no part in
it. The ignorant don't love wisdom or want it, because they are satisfied with
themselves. Since they do not think they need wisdom, they do not desire or love it.
Therefore Love lies between wisdom and ignorance. 
In fact the only ones who love wisdom are those between wisdom and ignorance, such as
Love himself. Wisdom is beautiful, and Love is a lover of beauty, ergo Love is a lover of
wisdom. Since Love is for things that Love does not yet have, this too proves that He is
not wise. Yet it would not do to call the great spirit Love completely ignorant, so we
again see that he falls between the two. The reason for this is his parents: "His father
is wise and resourceful while his mother has neither quality"(Gill,204c).
Diotima tells Socrates (and Socrates tells the Symposium) that Love is also between
beautiful and ugly, since love must be of something that it does not have and Love is of
beauty. Therefore Love cannot have beauty. But one cannot call Love ugly, so He ends up
between these two as well. Similarly Love is not good because love must be of good. But
one could hardly call love bad, and so again He falls between the two. 
I think that this is definitely a plausible account of love. People like to think of love
as being this sweet and wonderful thing, when really it can be quite tough and demanding.
However you can't say that it is a horrible and ugly thing (unless you have recently been
burned by it, and even then the sentiment fades with time). Love falls between wondrous
sweetness and the heart-wrenchingly bitter. 
When we love something it is often something we cannot obtain, and once we have it in our
possession we tend to fall out of love with it. From people to objects, Humans seem
interested only in what they do not have at the time. We are constantly seeking that
which is beautiful and good and that which we do not have. If we do get our hands on what
we have been seeking after, and do not fall out of love with it immediately, we seek to
hold on to it forever. Since nothing is permanent this is just another thing we cannot
have and therefore want to love. 
I loved the idea of Poverty and Resource being a God and Goddess. The whole Greek way of
thinking about Gods and Goddesses sits well with me because I believe that we create them
with our emotions and needs. Because of this it makes sense that the Gods and Goddesses
would be fallible, and have many of the same quirks and problems that Humans have. In
fact it makes sense that these same quirks and troubles would be amplified, seeing how
these creatures are so much more powerful than we. 
The idea of a Goddess coming to a feast to beg is an interesting one. She is the
representative of the impoverished who often come to the gates of houses in which feasts
are being held to beg for food. But being a Goddess, would she even need food, and why
could she not come by it herself? It is as if her very being is made up of necessity that
cannot be come by, even to a Goddess. 
It is almost a humorous play on words that "Poverty formed a plan of relieving her lack
of resources by having a child by Resource"(Gill,203c). Why didn't anyone think of that
before?? One would think that Resource would be quite popular indeed! However her plan
didn't seem to work so well. Though we do not hear much about her after this point in the
story, it does not seem that having a child like Love would help her situation very much:
he is as homeless and shoeless as she. 
There were a few points I thought were weak. The Olympian Gods were definitely fallible,
and did many things that seemed to mess things up for themselves and for the Human race.
Often lecherous and greedy, these were definitely not the perfect infinite God of so many
religions today. This is one of the things I like the most about them, but part of
Diotima's arguments were based on not calling the Gods bad, ugly, nor anything too
negative. This could have been out of fearful respect, but if one wishes to have a
meaningful philosophical conversation, one should not *censored*-foot around anything.
Socrates seemed all too willing to agree that the Gods could not possibly be anything but
beautiful and good. 
Another weakness in the argument is that Socrates accepts that Love cannot be ugly and
bad because he wouldn't "dare to suggest that any of the gods is not beautiful and
happy"(Gill,202c). But right after that it is decided that Love is not a God because a
God must be beautiful and happy. It was already established that Love is not beautiful
and happy because He wants things of beauty and goodness (which would bring Him
happiness). So why can't He be ugly and unhappy? He may be a great spirit, but no where
is it written that great spirits have to be beautiful and happy. 
This myth about love is somewhat unusual. I have not seen one quite like it anywhere
else, in other Greek mythology or any other religious or cultural mythology. It
accurately sums up the qualities and traits of love. It discusses the pleasant side of
love, as well as the side that can be unlikable. It provides us with an origin that makes
some logical sense and which provides explanations for all of loves traits. I think that
of all of the myths about love that I have read I like this one the best. It holds on to
its relevancy even after more than two thousand years. The feelings and thoughts
expressed in this story (and in much of the rest of the Symposium for that matter) act as
a sort of time capsule proving that while many things change, Human emotions mostly stay
the same.