There is a connection between the philosophical content of Diotima’s conversation with Socrates and Phaedrus’s dialogues with Socrates in the Symposium on the matter of Eros. Diotima of Mantinea initiated the mysteries of the Eros, engaging Socrates at a young age, and later instigating the conversation in the Symposium with Phaedrus. Philosophers often focused on answering the question as to why Phaedrus was fixated on Diotima. So far, there have been three main conclusions: the first was that she understood the concept of philosophy and taught Socrates. The second conclusion was that she was symbolic of the school of thought of most philosophers on matters of love both to the audience and the readers of the book.
Diatoma’s Lesson on Love
The topic instigated a conversation that, in turn, invoked different motives; first, it enabled Socrates to hide his ironic ignorance and remain calm as he debated with Agathon, his host. Second, it invested the different aspects of the theory with authority and prestige. Third, it proved that Phaedrus was liberated from Socrates’ thoughts. Fourth, given Diotima’s gender and role in religion, the dialogue correlates philosophy to a religious model of inspiration or the female example of child-bearing. The third conclusion is a comparison made by Socrates between the accomplished sophists and the priestess, noting that her behavior and numerous points from her theory confirm her role as philosopher and priestess (Lesher, 2016). Other than that, Diotima ironically ridicules the pretentious omniscience shown by the sophists, or mocks earlier utterances. When depicted as a sophist, Diotima may be a poetic element, purposed to changing the literary genre of poetry or challenging the existing Aristophanes. The purpose of the paper is to explain the role of Diotima in communication and eros; a lesson shared in the views of Socrates and Phaedrus.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Diotima plays an important role in communication, especially in her dialogue with then young Socrates. Socrates reported the dialogue himself, an aspect that may appear conspicuous when deliberating the similarities between the characters involved in the conversation, young Socrates and the priestess, and those who are embedded in the dialogue, Socrates and his audience: the audience comprises of Agathon and all the speakers that the dialogue indirectly addresses. The characters in the dialogue are symbolic of Socrates and the audience at the symposium.
The content of Diotima’s theory compromises the views of Agathon and Socrates, especially when she considers that the soul can as well perish just like the body. Similarly, her approach towards the nature of the supreme idea which the pledge is to behold at the end of the philosophical ascension: not the form of good, but that of beauty. The ‘father of the speech’ is Phaedrus, and not Socrates, as it is he who projected through his criticisms to Eryximachus that Eros should be the focus of praise. His remarks are approved by other scholars such as Agathon and his follower Gorgias, who exemplify the characters of all former speakers. The encomium, however, contradicts Socrates’ dispositions in two major ways: first, a eulogy is quite often a lengthy speech, and also, it rigidly communicates the thoughts of the speaker to their audience. As much as Socrates is free to communicate using long speeches, he finds this as an alternative option for meeting the expectations of the other conversers in his midst. Socrates often used short questions and answers in his dialogues as it has proven to be the best tactic in teaching the truth about different concepts, and prevents other speakers from losing focus of the topic in discussion. Also, it guides him to find answers and unmatched answers by himself.
Despite Socrates having admitted to the resourceful nature of Eryximachus and Phaedrus, he shows a inclination for dialectical inquiry and brakhulogia. He chooses to engage Agathon is a question and answer discussion, though cut short by Phaedrus, reminding them of the focus at hand, which is the subject of love. Out of the discussion, Socrates concludes that “real knowledge cannot be transferred between two minds as water flows from one cup to another” (Ferrell, 2017). Agathon shows prejudice, similar to the sophists, especially since they believe that knowledge cannot be exchanged like an item on trade. When Socrates explained his point on love, he did so by using measures adopted by the priestess, using his concept of question and answer. In his explanation, Love was a great god, a god of beautiful things (Ferrell, 2017). However, in his view and out of the discussions he had with Diotima and Agathon, Love was neither beautiful nor good. Diotima interrogated young Socrates using brakhulogia, similar to the tactic he uses on Agathon. Diotima’s doctrine is in the form of a long moral monologue without the need for further questioning. Her methods are those of a schoolmaster, making it easier for Socrates to directly comprehend the true meaning of eros by listening to her.
Lessons from Socrates’ Dialogue with Phaedrus in the Symposium
Socrates reports his learnings from Diotima, a woman he views as wise, but in real context is a fictional character. He modifies his speech by describing the characteristics of love before sharing his learnings with others present in the symposium. Diotima’s concepts challenge Socrates perception of love, reframing his entire belief on the ideology of love and the knowledge of eros. His interactions with Diotima initially lead him to believe that love is bad and ugly.
According to Diotima, the main purpose of love is reproduction. The knowledge and concept of love, however, are placed outside the constraints of reproduction. The concept of love s best understood under the notion of seeing the beauty in itself, but not under the eye of fulfilling reproductive purposes. The concept of reproduction needs male knowledge, and pregnancy needs sexual interactions. Phaedrus uses symbolizes sexual imagery to his readers for mental creativity, but never in his teachings poses the question as to whether one needs to be knowledgeable of the virtue of love, or the concept of reproduction altogether.
One must be knowledgeable with wisdom to reciprocate it to others. What this means is that without interest, one cannot acquire the knowledge they seek. To understand the concept of Love, Socrates had to have taken intrigue in her theoretical descriptions and analogies. He declares that through Diotima’s guidance, he is well experienced in matters of love. Diotima’s teachings amplified knowledge that was engraved in Socrates, and he did benefit from it. Through his lesson in the form of a reported dialogue, Socrates and Phaedrus intend on remaining passive recipients of the lesson on love, acknowledging that the views and solely Diotima’s and not theirs, and therefore one may not rely extensively on her views if they would like to gain more knowledge on eros.
Representing the priestess and young Socrates in place of Agathon creates an understanding of the type of person who would likely benefit from the teaching to gain more knowledge. The audience of his teachings can decipher Socrates’ character on the science of eros, knowledge drawn from his interactions with Diotima. It is important to note that the teachings he derived from Diotima did not make him a priest, or a schoolmaster, but a practitioner with the power of knowledge, someone in search of infinite truths to communicate the eros of knowledge rather than the theoretical concepts of eros. The concept of Eros in its true nature is not that of a god, nor is it beautiful, but an agent that reciprocates love, an instrument but not a divine creature. In that accord, there is no need to conceptualize the existence of any ideology behind love, good or virtue, explaining why Socrates opts to give a mythical account of eros as explained by the priestess. The main intention of Diotima’s lecture was to awaken the knowledge within Socrates rather than preach truth to him, helping him discover the value of the knowledge he had and the desire to learn more. Diotima helped Socrates devote to his science of eros.
The complex nature of the dialogue in the Symposium between Socrates and Phaedrus cannot be considered the drive behind Phaedrus’ or Socratic theories of love. The literary context is important as it prevents the reader from misinterpreting the context of Socrates’ wisdom on love, the nature of communication about eros rather than knowledge of eros, and the nature of love( Ferrell, 2017). The most important aspect learned is the effectiveness of knowledge given depends on the philosophical school of thought of the person being addressed, and the context to which the person wishes to use it.
Phaedrus’s conversations show that the lesson only makes sense if it makes concessions with the beliefs of the audience and that the lesson is only efficient if applied in the correct context. For example, the sophistic nature of Diotima’s lesson is comparative to the attitudes and nature of her audience. However, the priestess does not identify with the sophists but is compared to them (Ferrell, 2017). The priestess is only a sophist regarding the context of her lesson, as it aligns with the teachings of the sophists to their pupils.
Socrates’ practice is a demonstration of the benefits of reporting dialogues rather than addressing an audience in his name, providing crucial elements to Phaedrus’s literacy practices. His engagement with Socrates allowed him to grow beyond his silence and hold a discussion with him. Basing from his encounter with Diotima, it is evident that Socrates wished to impact the same knowledge passed on to him by the priestess to Agathon to communicate the eros of knowledge rather than the knowledge of eros (Lesher, 2016). However, even after his experience, Socrates chose not to engage Gorgias to a didactic monologue, for it would impact a sophistic lesson, contrary to his beliefs. His idea is to teach less about the eros, but to impact a sense of honor from his description, as that is the way to ignite knowledge, by leading his audience towards a philosophical path.
The effectiveness of Socrates’ techniques is not considered at the point of dialogue in the Symposium but the level of literary communication between Phaedrus and his readers. The dialogue on love reveals two types of audiences with different interpretations about eros, both passive recipients, but with one audience showing tendencies of a student learning from traditional education (Ferrell, 2017). The other is the opposite, showing understanding on a philosophical perspective invoked by a passion for discovering the truth. Similar to Socrates’ reported dialogue, Phaedrus’s interpretation wishes to create an aspect of supposed knowledge of eros and the eros of knowledge, engaging the audience in a complicated series of imitative teachings. The erotic nature of the different approaches used by Socrates ad Phaedrus is not a call of identification: Both philosophers make it known to whom their teachings are directed to. In the right context, Socrates’ teachings should be considered to take an ironical point of view, with readers and the audience taking into consideration the literary characteristics of the dialogical framework in play, even when the teaching is presented rigidly. In Phaedrus’s view, Socrates’ ironic nature prevents the audience from misinterpreting the way they understand his teachings.
References
Ferrell, R. (2017). Love and Writing–Phaedrus and the Symposium. In Differential Aesthetics (pp. 61-73). Routledge.
Lesher, J. (2016). Later views of the Socrates of Phaedrus’s Symposium. In Socrates in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (pp. 81-98). Routledge.
