That was some serious dialectic today! But I wonder whether we finished introducing everyone to the class? Poor Kate probably won't get introduced until finals week.
Reminders (and give me a reminder-reminder by email or reply post if I left something off).
-Re-read Symposium 45-77
-Read Guide 23-25
-Post your answer to ONE of Schwab's study questions in reply to this post. 2-4 complete sentences is a good guideline although some questions are more complex than others. Pick a hard one, we need more aporia. Try to stick to the section I gave to your row if you can because it will distribute the questions out more evenly.
-If you didn't submit Discovery Task #1, try the EEE dropbox again. Click on the assignment, then click on "assignment submission," then click on "upload."
-Fill out the grid handout I gave you to review Symposium 1-44. But be sure to add 3 more columns for Socrates, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden (maybe on the back of the page). Of course this means you need to watch the Vice Presidential Debate, which will air on all the news channels at 18:00 PST on Thursday. (Obviously this is the kind of assignment that you can submit handwritten; submit in pencil or pen, unless you're Ariana, in which case it has to be written on the top of a chocolate cake with icing.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Q:what does Phaedrus invoke as evidence for the greatness of eros?
A:Phaedrus states that love is a great god, who gives us the greatest goods in life. He is a highly honored god and one of the most ancient gods. He is so ancient that its parents have no place in poetry or legend. Love guides us and is very powerful in helping men gain virtue and blessedness. A man in love would rather die than have his lover see him in a shameful act; no one would die for you but a lover. That is how great eros is.
Question: Why does he [Pausanias] split "love" into two different origins?
Answer: Pausanias does this to create a form of hierarchy within the types of love. Because this symposium holds a competitive air, Pausanias aims to be superior, not only in his encomium to Eros, but in his personal love as well. He divides love into distinct bad and good forms. Appropriately, Pausanias' homosexuality engenders the positive, noble characteristics of love as heterosexuality is presented negatively along with any other form of love not mirroring Pausanias' own. In a sense, by splitting love into either common or heavenly and, by having his love fall ever so perfectly into the "good" category, Pausanias reveals a motive to essentially be heavenly. These two loves justify/satisfy his want (desire) to appear godly to the other speakers. Not to mention preserving this image in front of Agathon.
Q: What is the doubt Socrates expresses concerning Agathon's praise of love?
A: Socrates is doubting Agathon's praise towards 'Eros'. It is a good thing to praise a god, but only for the right reasons. Socrates believes Agathon is praising 'Eros' for qualities he does not actuall have.
Pausanias: How ought one to love, according to Pausanias?
Pausanias states that one ought to love through the soul, not only through the body. I found this especially interesting, because his idea of loving through the soul encompasses wisdom and virtue. Thus, it means that Pausanias defines love as love through all aspects of oneself. The younger lover is to look up to the older lover as a mentor, someone who teaches him the ways and shares his wisdom. The interesting fact is that this “Heavenly Love” may only exist between a man and a boy. No women are involved. So that poses the question: are women incapable of Heavenly Love? Does that therefore mean that women are only allowed to share in Common Love? In a sense, Pausanias ultimately expresses that one ought to love another according to their minds. Instead of beauty, it is the mind that attracts the person, similar to the attraction of Plato and Socrates.
Q:Think about functions of the framing of the main part. What does a frame do in a painting? Would the same apply here?
A:2. A painting is framed so as to contain the viewers focus on the painting. As such it prevents the viewer from judging the painting based on its surroundings, while also giving its own personal contribution to the work of art. A rather ornate frame suggests the art is either of higher quality, or simply that the owner or artist is pretentious and feels their work is of great importance. A rather simpler frame reveals that the owner or artist did not desire to draw attention away from the painting with an elaborate frame, a more objective way of looking at things. This idea does apply to the framing of the introduction, since Appolodorus clearly states that he is only relaying what information he sees fit to the reader, and as such he is drawing attention to ideologies that he believes in or finds interesting.
What is the ideal love as it appears through Phaedrus' examples?
Phaedrus defines his vision of ideal love as a bond between two people who would go so far as to sacrifice themselves to preserve the other. He gives example of heroes from legends who did this very thing. For example, he describes how Alcestis chose to be sent to Hades in place of her husband. This vision has been used frequently in story-telling, from fairy tales to modern cinema, where the protagonist will do what is necessary to rescue their romantic interest.
Kiyomi's post (from listserv)
-----------------------------
Question: Are there reasons to think that his myth articulates truths about love?
I believe that Aristophanes' speech does reveal truths about love, at
least in the sense of loving another human being rather than knowledge or things. Although his story is abstract and unrealistic, it artisticly shows that heterosexual or homosexual love is acceptable and does not make
a normative statement on which of them is correct; love is simply the
desire to be unified with our counterparts. Aristophanes also does not ignore/hide the truth about intimacy like Pausanias does, yet cleverly addresses it through his myth.
A couple of questions: According to the lecture notes, "erotic love is desire for a unity that is never achieved, but nevertheless brings about union of different kinds",
does everyone believe that unity can never be achieved and love will
always lack something?
Does Aristophanes have a underlying agenda? The reason I ask is because I don't think that he does but I might have missed it or not read carefully enough.
What is Eryximachis out to show about the role of love in the art of medicine?
Eryximachis is out to show that love, like medicine, has to be practiced. When practiced, harmony is its result. The good-love and bad-love are two opposites. And Eryximachis is out to show that opposites as a principle (love) regulates everything.
If Socrates is right, what does that mean for Agathon’s praise of love?
Agathon's praise of love becomes entirely fluff and just a lot of bs. He states that the god of love is beautiful and delicate; however, Socrates then explains that this is a sort of ignorance is normal. We usually desire something we do not already have; why would we still want something when we are already content. If that is the case, how can love want all those good things when it already is that wonderful. Socrates somehow points out that Agathon's empty praise is purely void.
QUESTION: What are Aristophanes’ ideas about the bond between lovers?
ANSWER: Aristophanes states that the bond between lovers is based on the idea that each person has another half. Throughout one's life, he seeks his other half, and wants to be one with him (or her), as they were one before the gods separated them.
Q: What is Aristophanes’ leading idea about love and its desires?
A: Love is the unity of the two halves, whether it is man to man, woman to woman, or man to woman. Both halves roam the world to try and discover its other half and to be one again. Thus love is wanting to find the person who is the perfect fit for you, meaning he or she completes the other part of you.
Do you think 'Eros' is what Agathon says he is?
I think that Eros is what Agathon explains him to be, but I also feel that he may overexaggerate his qualities. He describes love as the happiest of gods, the most beautiful, delicate, softest of all things, basically every praise he can think of and applies it to eros. Yes, love can be great and happy, but i also think that its not as perfect as Agathon makes him out to be. Sometimes with love comes hardships and pain, just as Alcibiades feels towards Socrates. He loves him so much that it hurts.
Do you discover elements of love in your understanding that are missing from Eryximachus’ account?
The elements of Love that Eryximachus describes are completely different from the common definition of Love. Some perceive Love as a deep connection, a sexual desire, or something along the lines of these things, but Eryximachus does not mention these at all. He says that Love, though depending on the kind of Love he is referring to, binds or unbinds, and through these things one can eventually see balance. These can also be used to refer to love, but to us, his response does not seem like an adequate answer to predispositions many of us have received about Love.
Q: Do you discover elements of love in your understanding that are missing from Eryximachus’ account?
A: The elements of Love that Eryximachus describes are completely different from the common definition of Love. Some perceive Love as a deep connection, a sexual desire, or something along the lines of these things, but Eryximachus does not mention these at all. He says that Love, though depending on the kind of Love he is referring to, binds or unbinds, and through these things one can eventually see balance. These can also be used to refer to love, but to us, his response does not seem like an adequate answer to predispositions many of us have received about Love.
Q: What are Aristophanes' ideas about the bond between lovers?
Aristophanes believes there were three types of sexes (male-male), (female-female), and (male-female), he believes these joined beings were planning to assault the gods and Zeus punished them by separating them in half. These beings are forever trying to find their other half, and they are constantly trying to co-join with their other half whether it's 2 men, 2 women, or a man and a woman. Zeus put their genitals in the front and made it possible for intercourse further helping the people connect. Originally intercourse was introduced to try to join as one again, but because sex was pleasurable, it became "erotic".
Q: Note the steps in Socrates argument: How does Socrates show that love is
neither beautiful nor good? (201E.8) Do you find problems in the argument?
What are they?
A: Socrates takes the idea of the qualities of love from the beginning of Agathon's speech and finds it weaknesses. He does this by asking Agathon a progressive series of questions, each one going more in depth on the concept of love. By questioning Agathon, Socrates is able to create aporia, leading Agathon to admit his own speech was a whole lot of nothing.
Socrates' argument really isn't in the true form of an argument, because Agathon is agreeing with him during the whole process. However, he does prove his point that love is neither beautiful nor good by proving that Agathon's speech was not as knowledgeable as it had sounded.
My problem with Socrates' argument is that I got lost in whether or not there was actual truth in his words was or how he actually proved that love is neither beautiful nor good. My understanding is that he paved the way for building up a better concept of love by creating aporia.
Well this is in response to the question I posed the question was "In "Symposium does the underlying comic element add to the philosophical points or does it not have a purpose?"
My answer, though it has taken me awhile, is this.
I've come to realize that the comic element which has confused me is actually only really concentrated in one section and that is in the speech of Aristophanes. He is the known comic of the group but his speech really isn't meant in a comic way. He makes his speech in such a way as keeping comedy the underlyiing foundation for a truly sincere speech. His purpose in weaving humor into his speech is to make the audience (the other philosophers) listen, its made to grasp their attention and maintain a firm hold. His speech is completely different than all others from the model of love used and the way it is presented. And we must all admit that his speech is the most entertaining of the bunch. In my opinion Aristophanes' speech is the most memorable. With comedy he has acheived what all others have failed to do, his speech is in one word interesting and in turn we can grasp the philosophical points better.
Shae... I disagree, insofar as I find comic elements in the speeches of Socrates, Agathon, and Alcibiades. But I agree with you about the purpose of the humor and the way that it doesn't seem to really clash with the "seriousness" of the philosophy.
Post a Comment