In the final dialogue of Symposium, a drunken man awakens to find that“ Socrates was trying to prove . . . that authors should be able to write both comedy and tragedy” (223D). No details of his argument are explained. Comedy is, classically, a coming together, and that's exactly what happens in Symposium. A few Greeks come together and resolve what love is once and for all, but the result is both comic and tragic. Each one of them gives different views, which in many ways contradict each other. For example, Alcibides is eager to get into bed with Socrates, who then refuses him (218E). Earlier on, Aristophanes praised homosexuals for being the best and that they are “bold and brave” (192A). Why would Socrates ever turn down what is surely worthwhile, according to Aristophanes? Symposium illustrates a discordant view of love; many well thought out views attempt to explain love, all seem valid, but none of them seem to come together. So perhaps this book is the argument that we do not hear.
Perhaps Platos seduces us into reading more and discussing his works by making us ask questions like "why would Socrates ever turn down what is surely worthwhile, according to Aristophanes." This questions sets up a discussion on what love is worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way I think the works by James and Pierce require the reader to question the ideas that they bring up. Just as much as Plato wanted philosophy to be a discussion James and Pierce see that to grow discussion needs to be had.