Plato’s Puzzle

(A commentary on Plato’s views of love in the Symposium)

The Symposium has been in existence for 2500 years, and many have analyzed it in

order to attempt to understand its meaning in regards to love and the views expressed in

the text by the various characters involved. Of course, Plato simply comments on a story

heard from Apollodorus, who heard it himself from Aristodemus, who was present at the

gathering in question. I propose that the Symposium is a text meant to teach initiates the

basic views that Plato was trying to convey in regards to love, and that if analyzed, the text

provides us with a view of love both simple and magnificent. However, Plato does not give

us a simple answer to our questions; he rather gives us pieces to a grand puzzle, making us

work towards reaching our own understanding of the great question of love. As Plato

himself would report, we must begin at the beginning; where two people, master and

student, gather on a journey seeking perfection, and that will lead them to self-mastery.

Thus, our reporter Apollodorus is found on the road along with his friends. They

initiate a journey of discovery on the road to Athens; and what better place is there for

discussion than the common road of life. Let us then find ourselves in commute with

Apollodorus to resolve Plato’s puzzle; for “πάντως ἡ ὁδος... ἐπιτεδεία πορεθομένοις καὶ

λέγειν καὶ ἀκούειν.”1

The Speakers

Once Apollodorus and his friends initiate their journey, both physical and

metaphysical, we hear of the first hand reporter for this story. Aristodemus is an ardent

follower of Socrates, and finding him at a bath house, inquires of him where he is going so

un-customarily well dressed. Socrates confesses he is going to Agathon’s house, winner of

the latest contest for a drama in the city of Athens. Once there, it is decided (as proposed

by Eryximachus) that due to previous drinking, none of the guests present will indulge in

1 Lit. All in all the road… is suitably made for discussion (Symposium 173b7-8)

1

wine, but they will discuss the god Eros and praise him, since no one seems to have done

so previously. This is Plato’s attempt to make the proceedings the product of a sound mind,

no one will question that the elucidations proposed during the evening were not the

product of men at play, but those of men in search of enlightenment.

Aristodemus reports that he cannot recall all of the speeches, but he does remember

the most noteworthy. Thus, in order of speech: Phaedrus (a follower of Socrates),

Pausanias (the lawmaker) Eryximachus (the doctor), Aristophanes (the comedy playwright),

Agathon (the dramatist), Socrates (the philosopher), and Alcibiades (the politician) speak.

All of these characters are either historical figures of Athens or otherwise participants in

Plato’s dialogues at other times.

Phaedrus (Love is One of the Oldest Gods and the Most Powerful Force of Nature2)

Phaedrus tells that Eros is one of the oldest gods. Quoting Hesiod himself, our

speaker defends his theory and quickly moves on to state that love would be a powerful

military weapon, because none who love is afraid to die for his beloved; for when in love,

the worst “coward would become an inspired hero.” He also asserts: “if there were only

some way to contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves,

they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor, and

emulating one another in honor.”3 This idea resonates with the fact that both Alcestis and

Achilles died for love, while Orpheus died for want of it.

This is indeed the very first piece of Plato’s view of love, that love is old, and that it

is one of the first gods. Not only that, but that when people find true love, they are willing

to go to the utmost extreme in order to keep the object of their love safe and sound. The

gods praise those who love with utmost intensity, and Eros is the “giver of happiness and

virtue, in life and after death.”4 I cannot help but wonder if Plato was feeling he should

2 Plato p.1463 Plato p.1474 Plato p.148

2

have died for Socrates5; since, according to the philosopher, sacrifice for love is the first

natural result of its understanding.

Pausanias (There are More Loves than One6)

It is worth noting that there were other speeches, which followed Phaedrus’, yet

Aristodemus does not remember them. However, our lawmaker Pausanias is next in line,

and Plato will use him to deliver a most intriguing puzzle piece.

Pausanias defends that love is dualistic in nature, not because it is so by creation for

“actions are not in themselves either good or evil”7, but because we make them so

according to how we act. There is a good love, and a bad love, and which comes out in us

depends solely on the context we give it. Pausanias uses the argument of the good and bad

Loves: the love of the spirit and the love of the physical body. He argues that the love of the

body is worse because the body is inconstant, since it gets older and withers. On the other

hand, love of the spirit is everlasting because it unites with the unchangeable, the eternal,

and the pure.

Later in his argument, Pausanias explains the superiority of the lover versus the

loved, and how they are allowed to act strangely in pursuit of the object of their desire.

However, he gets lost in said argument, and is easily refuted later on. Pausanias will end

his speech with the phrase: “Thus noble in every case is the acceptance of another for the

sake of virtue.”8 Thus, while there is more than one kind of love, the love of the Spirit is

inherently better. Plato also seems to state that while love is willing to sacrifice for others,

not all sacrifices are worthy of note. Indeed the sacrifice for the love of the spirit, rather

than desire for the body, is the highest and best of all.

Eryximachus (Love is Filling the Good and Emptying the Bad)

5 399 BCE6 Plato p.1487 Plato p.1488 Plato p.152

3

Let us notice the doctor’s first phrase: “Seeing that Pausanias made a fair

beginning, and but a lame ending,”9 Plato here is telling us that, while Pausanias speech

was well in regards to the duality of love, his digression on the superiority of lover and

loved is to be thrown out.

Our healer proposes that just like love is dual, so is the body. In addition, it is a

doctor’s responsibility to ensure that the fluids of “desire” are emptied or transformed into

good fluids, namely those that fill the spirit.10 Indeed reconciling the spirit is the goal of

every physician. The Greek word σωφροσύνη11 plays a part that indicates the Hellenes’

struggle for control of the passions and desires.

Before digressing into divination, Eryximachus tells us our next clue: “The

conclusion is that… both loves ought to be noted as far as may be, for they are both

present.”12 Plato then, wants to make sure that the love of both the spirit and the physical

are noted, even though love of the spirit is higher, there is no telling what humans can or

will do for love of the body. Indeed, every person has both loves, and finding balance

between the two is the key to controlling the appetites of the physical.

Aristophanes (Missing the Point)

The playwright begins stating that he will take the discussion into a separate plain.

He wonders at humanity’s inability to understand the power of love, after all animals also

love. So what makes it so much better in humans? To illustrate his point, Aristophanes uses

a metaphorical story in which humans were at first united in three tribes: Man, Woman,

and Androgynous.13 These people had two heads, four arms and four feet.

These three tribes rebelled against the gods, knowing how powerful they had come

to be; however, Zeus could not destroy them because their praise was necessary to the

immortals, makes them weaker by literally cutting them in half. Now we are always looking

9 Plato p.15210 Plato p.15311 Lit. Moderation, Discretion12 Plato p.15413 Plato p.155

4

for that other part of ourselves, according to Aristophanes, because each “of us when

separated is but the indenture of a man, having one side only like a flat fish, and he is

always looking for his other half.”14 Thus, the man tribe and the woman tribe were

separated into men and women who seek those of the same sex, while the androgynous

tribe (both man and woman) seeks those of the opposite sex.

Plato here argues that whatever sexual urge we have, it is in our blood, it is who we

are, and we cannot avoid seeking that which is our other half. Unlike animals, this is the

very reason why we seek to become one with our companion, we are incomplete without

them, and only Eros (according to Aristophanes) can melt us together, for “if we are pious,

[love] will restore us to our original state, and heal us and make us happy and blessed.”15

Agathon (But what is love?)

Agathon, winner of the award for best drama, is next to speak. He quickly stresses

that while all other speakers have spoken of the benefits that mankind reap from love, they

have done little to elucidate on the traits of Eros himself, who gives love to humanity.

He describes the god as the epitome of all good things: manlier than Ares, yet soft

and young. Wet and feminine, yet with the valor of a marine; he does not have to exert

dominion, for all people obey him willingly. Even the coarsest of men become poets by his

mere touch.16 Agathon, in a very dramatic way and, one may argue, with much too many

words, makes Eros the greatest of all the gods; he fills men with affection and empties

them of disaffection. He also refers to the theme of the journey on the road, for Eros causes

men to come together at the communal gatherings of the city.

Indeed, poetic in every sense is the final sentence in Agathon’s speech: “In every

word, work, wish, fear –pilot, helper, defender, savior; glory of gods and men, leader best

and brightest: in whose footsteps let every man follow, chanting a hymn and joining in that

fair strain with which love charms the souls of gods and men.” Therefore, Plato tells us that

14 Plato p.15615 Plato p.15816 Plato p.160

5

love is in all things, participant in all beings, jobs, the things we do daily. Let us remember

this phrase, for Plato will have Socrates combine it with all others to present us with Eros

and love in a final masterstroke.

Socrates (High praises do not mean high truths)

Our dear philosopher of course does not accept the praising that has been given

about Eros or love. He sees that the previous speakers were only out to praise the god,

whether such praises were true or not, or if whether the qualities given could be attributed

to the god. The philosopher turns first to Agathon, and argues that anyone in want of

something is in said state because such does not have it; or, in other words, “he who is

anything can not want to be that which he is”17; a fact to which Agathon agrees. Socrates

continues to argue, stating that he who has what he wants, only wishes for the continuance

of such quality. Therefore, if love wants and has no beauty it neither possesses nor is

beautiful, which is obviously wrong.

Plato here has Socrates not debunk the god, but the notion of him that we have. For

if he is the sum of all things, he need nothing; yet love yearns and wants, seeks and suffers.

It is noteworthy that this is the only speech directly refuted. Now Plato has Socrates bring

in a woman priestess (the initiated) to tell us of love and its magnificence.

Diotima (The Initiated speaks on Seeking Absolute Love and Beauty)

Once Agathon is baffled enough, Socrates relates the story told to him by a priestess

named Diotima. To contradict Phaedrus, she argues that love is a δαίμον18 who dwells

between the realm of gods and men; having nothing, he has everything, and is always in

the middle, in balance (a wink to Eryximachus). To correct Pausanias, she also states that

those who attain love are made happy by the acquisition of good things, never the bad, thus

ending love’s duality. She further defines lovers as people who have filled themselves with

17 Plato p.16318 Lit. Spirit

6

love to the point that out from them comes love for the good things in life. These people

seek each other out because they recognize the same love in others, that is, the love for the

same things.19 She also explains that the beautiful seek out the beautiful because of their

beauty: “procreation must be in beauty and not in deformity” because “to the mortal, birth

is a sort of eternity and immortality”.20 She seems to say that it is genetically propitious for

those who are equally beautiful to mate, thus rendering Aristophanes incomplete.

However, Diotima will echo Aristophanes in saying that animals posses all these

desires; she explains it saying that humanity seeks immortality, and the only way to attain

that is through the preservation of oneself in offspring. Men are willing to go to great

lengths to preserve their name for eternity, having children who will remember them.

However, the spiritual man will seek a spirit akin to himself, another man whom he will

train to be like him, and perpetuate his legacy.

She defends that there is such a thing as absolute beauty, and that the attempt to

reach for that absolute concept is the key to understanding love. For any person, step by

step, and progress upon progress, will reach the uppermost part of an imaginary

progression ladder, which is the source of all love, indeed the source of true love.

Therefore, Plato does not say that all previous speakers were wrong, except for

Agathon, but he rather completes their views to find meaning in reason rather than a make-

belief world. We find Plato conveying views of genetic material and selfish self-preservation

thousands of years before modern thought.

Alcibiades (In wine comes truth)

I believe that Alcibiades represents here the truth about the οἱ πόλλοι21 in Athens.

He comes in drunk; right after Socrates has finished his rendering of Diotima’s account. It

is as if at the highest degree of discovery, contemplation and realization, the commoners

manage to ruin yet another great discussion by bringing in women, wine and outrageous

19 Plato p.16820 Plato p.16921 Lit. All others, the common people

7

claims. Alcibiades complains of his inability to seduce Socrates, and all present laugh at the

end of his speech, for it would seem that even though the enlightened few have reached a

better understanding of love, the common man is still (and will forever be in a state of)

lacking.

Although Alcibiades does reveal to us Plato’s thoughts on Socrates: he compares the

philosopher to a statue of Silenos22. Like the deity, Socrates was ugly on the outside and

appears to be what he was not, however, when spoken to, Socrates would open up and

reveal the absolute truths he held so dear; indeed, this knowledge was as images of the

gods. I think this is very accurate, for few Athenians understood Socrates, ugly on the

outside, but full of truth and beauty on the inside.

Finally, more partygoers enter, officially ending the conversation. The last scene

remembered by Aristodemus is a very lucid Socrates attempting to show Agathon and

Aristophanes that comedy and drama were so similar they should be able to do each other’s

work. Dawn is upon the men, and Socrates retires once the comedian and dramatist have

fallen asleep in order to take a bath and go about his day. The philosopher will only rest

when night comes on the second day. These last words of Plato make Socrates to be

unconquerable, undefeatable, and heroic in his power to conquer all things.

Conclusion

Thus, we arrive at the end of a road that has taken us to a destination at which we

have many pieces of a puzzle, but not a definite answer on that which we are seeking. What

is love? Who is right? We know one thing: that the Symposium was written well after

Socrates’ death. Plato was bitter at the mob for killing him, and he thought of his master,

who had obtained an absolute view of love, having been killed by commoners who did not

understand him. I think this is the very solution to the problem, for anyone who understood

absolute love would never have killed Socrates. Indeed, the very steps towards self-

22 A prominent Satyr, the statue could be opened to reveal images of the gods inside.

8

discovery would have taken Athens on a journey that would have enlightened the city

against the philosopher’s death.

I believe Plato argues that if we can look to Socrates and see past what he seemed

to be in order to see him for what he was, we would be willing to spend a lifetime

attempting to reach his great state of understanding. Moreover, if after our entire lives we

were only able touch but the bottom of his feet, we would be much better off than most

other human beings would. Therefore, we arrive to the conclusion that true love is

understanding, found by those who have an absolute goal, and that a philosopher is the

only one able to reach that goal. For in the end, our visions of love are limited by our

experiences in life (hence our examples of speakers), and we cannot go outside of ourselves

in order to reach a goal unless we are willing to suffer to attain it, to look outside ourselves.

Plato is simply making the point that no mere follower, lawmaker, doctor, comedian,

dramatist or drunkard could best Socrates at anything. Socrates was a true philosopher,

always seeking wisdom in all places, unbiased towards man or woman, seeking everlasting

beauty, truth and understanding wherever he went. Therefore, from each character, we

gather bits of Plato’s mind, puzzle pieces through which we can know and understand one

of the great philosophers of all time. Let us picture Socrates that very morning, at the door

of the house; he looks back smiling at us, for we begun the journey, followed the path,

arrived at our destination, and completed the puzzle of love.

9

Bibliography

Symposium, Plato, Greek Text with Facing Vocabulary and Commentary, Geoffrey Steadman, 2009 Edition

Plato, Six Great Dialogues (Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Sympsium and The Republic) Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Dover Publications INC. 2007 Edition

10