Plato: White And Non-white Love - COnnecting REpositories

3y ago
32 Views
2 Downloads
192.22 KB
24 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Mya Leung
Transcription

KRITIKE VOLUME THREE NUMBER ONE (JUNE 2009) 78-93ArticlePlato: White and Non-white LoveAmo SulaimanPlato’s dialogues, the Symposium, and Phaedrus, provide a reasonableexplanation of love. G. Vlastos and M. Nussbaum do not share such anopinion. The former contends that Plato’s view of love is about lovingonly a person’s beauty, but not the entire person; thus, it falls short of anappropriate explanation of love. The latter holds that a theory of love shouldbe complete, and that Plato’s one is incomplete on the grounds that it does notaccount for personal love. These criticisms will be re-evaluated in light of theduality of love (the white and non-white horses—in Phaedrus) as well asparticipants’ views in the Symposium; a re-assessment will weaken the mentionedobjections. This paper contends that from the Symposium and Phaedrus, onecan have a fruitful understanding of being in love, being out of love, falling inlove, loving for its own sake and being erotically in love. In order to accountfor these related issues of love it is important to consider Plato’s works interms of his “official” and “unofficial” views. The former is construed as thedoctrine of the lover or loving for its own sake: this is associates withDiotima’s views which are repeated by Socrates. With reference to the latter, itis possible to explain what personal love or being in love, being out of love,falling in love, and being erotically in love involve. Erotic love will beinterpreted as an extension of our philosophical conception of love, related toviews of love that are mentioned in the Symposium other than Socrates’ reportof Diotima’s conceptions. This paper is divided into two parts: the first onewill show views of love in the Symposium. That is, being in love, being out oflove, falling in love and loving for its own sake will be discussed. In addition,the forementioned criticisms will be re-evaluated. In the second section, wewill show that Aristophanes’ speech expresses erotic love, and then Kant’sobjections will be explained and discussed.Part One: Unofficial notion of love and the concept of beingin loveIn the Symposium, Agathon invited Socrates and others to his banquet.Including the host, there were eleven of them, and the twelfth being drunkentered when the banquet was nearly finished. On that particular occasion, 2009 Amo Sulaimanhttp://www.kritike.org/journal/issue 5/sulaiman june2009.pdfISSN 1908-7330

A. SULAIMAN79each participant speaks about what love is. Sitting in a circle and speakingfrom left to right, the first speaker is Phaedrus.1Phaedrus presents an explanation of being in love in accordance withthe origin of love: there was chaos and then the first god, Eros - the first-light,was born.2 Eros (lust, love and sex) organizes everything in the universeaccording to his own nature. Phaedrus’ notion of love suggests a conqueror ofchaos, and that love is something good and honorable. If there were no loveamong human beings, we would live in a state of chaos. Harmony is insuredby love among people which naturally lead to procreation. While it is not anecessary condition of love per se, Phaedrus’ inclusion of procreation leads to acontextual import of sexual intercourse or carnal pleasure in the discourse.Meanwhile, interpreting love in terms of being in love follows the discussion ofaffection, friendship, cooperation, and mutual respect as contingents topersonal love. As it is appropriate to hold that Phaedrus’ view of love, being acornerstone in our pursuit and life, involves the agreeable and passionate lifewith others; love then for Phaedrus is considered as personal and passionate –an intimate bond between lovers.In proving that love is “the greatest good, Phaedrus proceeds byshowing how lovers act in certain situations. Love inspires lovers to doexceptional things that are considered to be honorable and heroic: “Besides, noone will die for you but a lover, and a lover will do this even if she’s awoman.”4 Being in love for Phaedrus is like being in an inspired state ofmadness; this is positive in terms of what a lover can do for his beloved. Headds: “If only there were a way to start a city or an army made up of lovers andthe boys they love(,) (t)heirs would be the best possible system of society, forthey would hold back from all that is shameful, and seek honor in each others’eyes(.) Even a few of them, in battle side by side, would conquer all the world,I’d say.”5 A lover is willing to sacrifice his own life for his beloved; lovers arethe best people for protecting one another. All this does not only indicate anintense and intimate relationship between lovers, but it also shows that theirrelationship and affection toward one another are mutual. For instance, inShakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, both the lover and the beloved commitsuicide because they are prevented from living their lives passionately andsexually together – sharing themselves equally.6 Provisionally, our discussionof being in love between lovers involves mutual attraction, affection, sexualintercourse, sensibility, and intellectual responses: all these sorts of sharing weusually consider as personal love. Although Phaedrus shows us what lovers1 Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. by W.H.D. Rouse and ed. by Eric H. Warmington andPhilip G. Rouse (New York: A Mentor Book, 1956), 73.2 Plato, Symposium, trans. by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff (Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Co., 1989), 178B. Other references will be abbreviated as Symposium,followed by paragraphs numbers.4 Ibid., 179B.5 Ibid., 178E-179A.6 W. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, ed. by B.A Mowat and P. Werstine (New York: AWashington Square Press, 1992).

80WHITE AND NON-WHITE LOVEand beloved can do for each other in the Symposium, in the dialogue Phaedrus,he informs us about the consequences when the opposite occurs.Phaedrus presents Lysias’ concept of being out oflovePhaedrus, which is about making speech, Plato reports the dialoguebetween Socrates and Phaedrus. Phaedrus accepts the content of the writtenspeech from Lysias, the son of Cephalus, and reads it to Socrates. The scriptprovides an eloquent analysis of the experiences of being out of love, of whichinterpretation provides us with Plato’s unofficial view.Lysias’ letter, which can be summarized in three sentences, reveals thatbeing in love does not always lead to a permanent commitment between lovers;there are negative consequences in being in love, and we should interpret themas leading up to a transition from being in love to being out of love. To saythat being in love is in a transitional state is to also affirm that a loversuppresses his emotional, sensual, and sexual attraction from the beloved, andthis kind of stagnated period can continue until a separation occurs betweenthem – being out of love. Being out of love can occur in any of the followingways:1. a dependable relation between people without carnal pleasure,2. sexual intercourse without any emotional attachment, and3. the absence of emotional and sexual relationship.First, it generally refers to a person’s relationship to beautiful things,people, as well as interpersonal relationships, friendship, the upholding ofresponsibilities, feeling duty bound, a tendency to be altruistic, etc. All theseare considered as dependency relations without sex. Generally, a mutual desireof sexual intercourse is absent, acknowledging that one partner may desirecarnal pleasure while the other does not. The first point does not exclude thefollowing situation: one lover falls out while the beloved still loves the lover;this is considered as being out of love. In addition, dependency relations orsecondary ones can be mutual, and they are about a lover’s commitment andagreement to the beloved; they can be about formal or informal contracts oragreements between individuals. There can also be a unilateral decision andaction from a particular partner to still desire the other without actually beingin love with that person; in this case, the sexual component is not missing.Second, though personal love involves attraction, sensuality, and cognitive andsexual responses toward each other as reciprocal, it shows that sexualintercourse and causal sex without other components of personal love. Thelast point should be construed as another instance of being out of love, and itoccurs if both lovers agree on a psychophysical separation from one another.With being out of love, we do not deny that lovers can occasionallyrevamp their relationship to the level of being in love, but this depends on theparticipants themselves. With respect to the distinction between a lover and a

A. SULAIMAN81non-lover, Lysias writes: “You should know that a lover regrets the favours hedoes once his desire comes to an end, whereas it stands to reason that there isnever a time when a non-lover will change his mind. For if he exerts himselfto do a favour, he does so willingly (.)” 7 Though there can be an abrupt orgradual transition from being in love to being out of love, Lysias writes thatbeing passionately in love seems to be a temporary commitment, and he addsthat when people are in love, they neglect their friends, families, properties, etc.They often try very hard to please one another, and while a lover realizes howlittle his world has become, his sensibility toward the beloved has drasticallydeclined; hate, quarrel, jealousy, and anger surge up and undermine being inlove. Accordingly, a lover might prefer someone else. Though this is the case,one may consider Phaedrus’ view as insufficient; within this context, Lysias’contention should be seen as a development of Phaedrus’ one. In support ofthe concept of being out of love, Kierkegaard agrees that one cannot be in lovewith more than one person at a time because being in love involves an equallyreciprocal participation between lovers.8 Lysias also points out that manyyoung individuals fall in love without knowing their own characters very well,and some of them eventually fall out of love – being out of love.9With respect to being out of love, Gass writes: “Love wears out like asuit of clothes. Love comes and goes like the cloud. Love is the lie of thelover and the belief of the beloved.”10 Today it is much easier to share one’slife with another without raising the issue of love between partners. Gassagrees with Phaedrus on ‘genuine’ lovers are rare; it is important to specify thatGass is referring to being in love which transforms to being out of love andcontingent or dependent relations hold partners together; he also affirmsLysias’ view of temporary love. Generally, Gass and Lysias show us thatPhaedrus’ conception of love is incomplete. We will look at other relatedviews of love in the Symposium.After Phaedrus’ explanation of personal love as an intense activity ofbeing in love in the Symposium, the next speaker, Pausanias, expresses his viewof love in terms of heavenly and common love.Pausanias contributes to our understanding of love by expounding itsduality and refining Phaedrus’ view. He is arguing for heavenly love andcommon love (being in love), which is spiritual and about the intellectualpursuit of justice, fairness, knowledge, companionship, beauty, societal health,and others. He furthers that one can love justice, beauty and health, but onecannot be in love with health or justice.Phaedrus, trans. by Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 231a.This position by Soren Kierkeggard can be found in both o6f his books Either/Or,Vol. 1, trans. by D. Swenson and L. Swenson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959) andWorks of Love, trans. by H. Hong and E. Hong (New York: Harper and Row, 1952).9 Phaedrus, 231d.10 W. Gass, “Throw the Emptiness out of Your Arms,” in The Philosophy of Erotic Love, ed.by Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins (Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1991),453.78

82WHITE AND NON-WHITE LOVEPausanias argues that bodily love suggests a temporal duration sincethe human body undergoes overt changes, and that it is that being pursued bythe common people.11 He is also concerned with humans’ exploitation of andin love – with lovers taking advantage of the beloved as older men sexuallyabuse young boys, etc. (it is not possible to discuss pederasty in this paper).Pausanias holds that there should be laws in society to deter unjustrelationships. He states: “As a matter of fact, there should be law forbiddingaffairs with young boys Good men, of course, are willing to make a law likethis for themselves, but those lovers, the vulgar ones, need external restraint.These vulgar lovers are the people who have given love such a badreputation(.)”12 Some old men do not only take young boys to educate themabout society laws and politics, but they also make them their lovers; Pausaniasforcefully objects to coercive sexual practices. Nonetheless, common lovebetween people is beautiful when both parties benefit, and when the reward isnot of mutual advantages, it is considered as ugly. Furthermore, Pausaniasindicates that the sentiments that love produces in a person are themselvesnoble. Thus, personal love is said to be noble.Falling in LovePausanias emphasizes the duality of love without showing how theyare related, and the next speaker in the Symposium, is Eryximachos. Though hisview is unofficial, we will examine this perspective in terms of falling in love.Eryximachos argues for a balance between heavenly (spiritual) loveand common (physical) love. He states: “Such is the power of love—so variedand great that in all cases it might be called absolute. Yet even so it is forgreater when love is directed, in temperance and justice, toward the good,whether in heaven or on earth: happiness and good fortune, the bonds ofhuman society, concord with the gods above—all these are among his gifts.”13Though Phaedrus shows us the pratical aspect of love, Eryximachos developsthe mentioned point and further states that health is beautiful and that diseasesare ugly,

1 Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. by W.H.D. Rouse and ed. by Eric H. Warmington and Philip G. Rouse (New York: A Mentor Book, 1956), 73. 2 Plato, Symposium, trans. by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1989), 178B. Other references will be abbreviated as Symposium, followed by paragraphs numbers. 4 Ibid .

Related Documents:

4. CICERO & PLATO'S CELESTIAL X Cicero not only mimicks the gates of heaven found in Plato's Republic (614c) in his On The Republic, he translates a specific section of Timaeus (according to Sedley, 2013, p. 187), zooming in on the part that deals with cosmogony and features Plato's cosmic X (27c-47b). Here Plato describes

Plato's Philosophy of the Human Person: According to Plato, man is body and soul. However, body and soul are separate entities whereby the soul is man's most valuable possession. Man's chief concern must therefore be the good of the soul. Plato's psychology is dualistic. The soul is the initiator of motion. It has pre-eminence over the .

A preliminary note – Socrates, Crito, Plato and the reader In order to decipher Plato’s intent in each dialogue one has to concentrate only on the characters of the dialogue, and as we all know Plato does not appear as an actor in any of his dialogues.

Phaedo by Plato Phaedo by Plato This etext was prepared by Sue Asscher PHAEDO by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett INTRODUCTION. After an interval of some months or years, and at Phlius, a town of Peloponnesus, the tale of the last hours of Socrates is narrated to Echecrates and other Phliasians by Phaedo the 'beloved disciple.' The

Plato, Precursor of Freud By Sarah Kofman I N THE INTERPRETATION Freud and OF DREAMS, Plato FREUD CITES PLAT0 ON two occasions. In the chapter "The Moral Sense in Dreams," reviewing the various authors who have expressed opinions on the subject, he writes, "Plato. . thought that the best men are those \\.ho only dream what others do

Full Text Archive https://www.fulltextarchive.com Plato's Republic THE REPUBLIC by Plato (360 B.C.) translated by Benjamin Jowett THE INTRODUCTION THE Republic of Plato is the longest of his works with the exception of the Laws, and is certainly the greatest of them. There are nearer approaches to modern metaphysics in the Philebus and

My Interpretation:Plato’s arguments in Meno and Phaedo are best interpreted as concluding that we have innate concepts. See [Cohen, 2007]. 5 / 39 Plato’s Theory of Recollection. Plato’s Rationalism Meno’s Paradox Theory of Recollection Up Next Reference

only unworthy of Plato, and in several passages plagiarized from him, but flagrantly at variance with historical fact. It will be seen also that I do not agree with Mr. Grote’s views about the Sophists; nor with the low estimate which he has formed of Plato’s Laws; nor with his opinion respecting Plato’s doctrine of the rotation of the earth.