Firstly, we must realize that the dialogue is the only form Plato used, and though we could discuss why this is, we need not discuss why he chose this form for his piece on love. The question is: why the symposium, rather than his standard form of Socrates duking it out one-on-one with interlocutors? One function of the symposium form is that it enabled Plato to present a multitude of perspectives on love without having to discredit any of them. Even after Socrates weighs in, the perspectives of the other speakers are not necessarily invalidated. Aristophanes’ concept that we are searching for our other half and Eryximachus’ idea of finding love in other pursuits and art forms (poetry, for example) both hold validity even after the great Socrates puts in his two cents.
Perhaps by offering a variety of different viewpoints and modes of deliver (story, myth, speech), Plato means to provide something that everyone can appreciate. Even those who are unwilling to follow in Socrates’ footsteps and let go of mundane, corporeal desires will be able to relate to one of the other views presented in the Symposium. The Socrates’ story is one where he is educated by a woman could surely have served to inspire other Greek women, and indicate the potential for women to have wisdom in a society so dominated by men.
Part of me wonders whether Plato even put very much deliberate thought into the forms he selected. (I know that you think he did, Professor Cohen.) The Symposium seems to somewhat randomly wander from speech to dialogue, dialogue to narration, and I would argue that classics scholars have a tendency to read much farther into things than the original authors would have
Through this melding of dialogue and monologue forms seen throughout Symposium, it seems that it would be necessary in order to present a multifaceted view of love. What is unclear to me though (seeing as I have yet to read Symposium)is what account is Plato actually expressing his view through? Seeing that Socrates is his commonly assumed mouthpiece then he would be the most likely guess, but since these stories and monologues sound for the most part uncontested then one could indeed infer it to be a random assortment of rambling ideas intended to lend some unified explanation to the reader. I feel like this would be a bit irresponsible of Plato though, to express an assortment of ideas that are not contested or examined, as it would then leave the decision to the reader to extrapolate their own understanding of this notion of love from the multitude of views that he is portraying. Seeing as my previous experiences with Plato have led me to believe that he is a big fan of control I really don't feel that he would do that, but who knows perhaps that was all part of his philosophical agenda by employing this form.
ReplyDelete