Bear in mind that the background reality against which they contrast this ideal is the standard pederastic relationship that was common in classical Greece between an adult man and an adolescent boy, which Plato correctly surmises (quite consonantly with how we would view such relationships today) potentially contains an element of predacity that could be damaging to the development of the boy, ie. For Socrates, to love someone Platonically is to want to help them become the best person they can possibly be and to truly have their best interests at heart. Basically, Platonic Love is very much tied to some kind of process of becoming, much like the Socratic inquiry into definitions itself, love has a conclusion (my edition of the book has a quote from the text on the cover - Our human race can only acheive happiness once love has reached its conclusion). He reasons that one cannot love something that is, love, if there is such a thing, is of something that could be – Love is a wish that cannot be articulated as Socrates says (such beautiful prose in this dialogue! and the Aristophanes story is one of the most dazzlingly creative passages in all of literature). Socrates' ideal of love is very much an aspirational one. Physical desire is perfectly compatible with and maybe even necessary for Platonic love, but sexual union cannot be the end-goal, the beneficial development of the other person is, you're not just using them for sex (sort of anticipates a certain categorical imperative of a certain German Enlightenment quasi-idealist, the one about treating people as ends in themselves). Socrates then disputes this, not because he objects to a sense of attraction or lust, he just says that what's actually being lusted after is not the body, but actually some higher idealized idea inspired by the other person.Įxactly, though there is a physical/bodily component, but Socrates reasons that it is not primarily about sex, as lovers can still long for each other into old age when their physical desires have ceased. You're 100% correct, it's a very misused term.
It seems a lot more complicated than the neutered formulation most people seem to be trying to invoke when they talk about "Platonic Love." The Symposium is my reading material for tonight (along with Rousseau's Social Contract), so it's fresh in my mind. I'm not saying its a simple as physical lust, but it seems a lot more complicated than the neutered formulation most people seem to be trying to invoke when they talk about "Platonic Love." What do you guys think? So, I guess I'm asking, just because Socrates doesn't consummate his relationship with Alcibiades physically, and suggests that true love actually exists on a higher idealized plane, does that mean that its fair to characterize Platonic love as completely non-romantic and non-physical? Alcibiades attraction to Socrates looks very physical to me, its just not inspired by Socrates' looks, but by another aspect of his character.
After that point, Alcibiades behaves very much like a typical jealous lover, chasing him around, getting angry when he talks to other guys, etc. Then Alcibiades stumbles in drunkenly and tells his own story of Socrates who he falls in love with for his wisdom, but this culminates in a scene where Alcibiades tries to physically seduce Socrates and Socrates rejects this. I won't claim to be one-hundred percent sure how this works, but it seems to me there's still attraction, but its because of what the person "represents" not actually how he looks. I don't remember how it starts, but I remember that about halfway through the conversation Aristophanes suggests that love is really just a physical craving two people inexplicably have for each other, based on a myth he composes about our "lost other halves," similiar to the modern conception of a "soul mate." Socrates then disputes this, not because he objects to a sense of attraction or lust, he just says that what's actually being lusted after is not the body, but actually some higher idealized idea inspired by the other person. I see people all the time refer to "Platonic" relationships as deep friendships where there is no sexual component or attraction, but last time I read the Symposium, it didn't seem to me like Plato was denying that attraction is a part of idealized love, he just said it wasn't the most important part.
0 kommentar(er)
