plato1

     Love is a philosophical subject because no other way of thinking has the ability to
ponder its nature. Science and medicine can describe the physical, tangible effects of what
is thought to be love, but it cannot make conjectures as to what causes these effects.
Politics or law can restrict a person's physical abilities, but it cannot do well in making
hypotheses as to why a person acts as they do in emotional situations. Plato creates(or
recounts, I'm not sure which) the conversation and speeches of these six men who use
philosophy as the material with which to mold an image of love because he can find no
other way to describe, or perhaps even imagine, that image.
      Phaedrus states that love is the greatest and oldest of the gods, and that it is a
source of virtue and goodness in people. "If only there were a way to start a city or an
army made of lovers and the boys they love!(178E)" he exclaims before going on to
explain the impressive power he feels such a group would have. They would, he believes,
act with unusual pride, courage, and dedication because they would dread looking poorly
to their lovers. In this, he describes love as a simple desire to impress the object of desire.
     Pausanias describes a distintion between two types of love. "And although, of
course, all gods must be praised, we must still make an effort keep these two gods
apart.(180E)" The first, he says, is of the Common Aphrodite. He describes it as love of
the body, but not of the soul and looks down upon it as vulgar and disgraceful. The
second is that of the Heavenly Aphrodite, which is a permenant love of the soul. Its goals,
according to Pausanias, are to enrich and teach the object of your love - to make them a
better person. But, he also says that it is an entirely homosexual love.
     I believe, although he doesn't exactly say it, Pausanias is actually making a
distinction between sex and love. He is asserting that love(the Heavenly Aphrodite) is a
state of mind, or being, more so than an action, which is made up of virtuous intent, not
measurable activity. <He is a futher asserting that since he and his companions feel love
for other males, all love must be homosexual. "This goddess, whose descent is purely
male(hence this love is for boys)181C">
      Eryximachus was, in my opinion, the most difficult to understand. I did take out of
his speech, though, that he says love is absolute. He seems to say that love, whether as a
state of being or an action, I'm not sure, brings happiness and good fortune, bonds of
human society, and good faith from the gods.
      Aristophones gave the most fantastic of the speeches by indulging in a story that
was apparently tailored for just this occassion. He describes a mythical time when there
were three types of human. Males and females, and "and the one that combined both
genders (that) was an offspring of the moon.(190B)" This third kind essentially had two
bodies, attached to each other. This gave them great strength. They were punished by
Zues for trying to use this strength to the detriment of the gods. In punishment he cut the
two bodies apart to live seperately, but to always desire to be one with another again, as
they were. For this reason, this kind always tries to put it self together with other people at
the stomach, without discrimination as to whether that person is male or female. Love,
according to Aristophones, would be the desire to return to the physical oneness from
which they came.
      It would seem to me that all four of the insights given by these men on the nature
of love, that it is a simple desire to appear well in the eyes of the desired, that it is a result
of virtuous intent for another man, that it is an absolute to bring positive ends, or that it is
a desire to return to a mythical physical state are subjects of philosophy because that is the
only realm under which each of these ideas can be adressed and discussed. It is not a
choice or preference to make it philosophical. It is the only possibility.

Back to Philosophy page

Ryan's Writings main page