In the Symposium, Socrates and Diotima have a discussion on the nature of love. Socrates explains that love is good and fair god. Diotima disagrees stating that love is not good and fair or foul and evil but is in between both good and evil and fair and foul. She explains that gods are happy and those who are happy have the good and the fair. However, to be in love is to always want and those who want, want what is good and fair. One who wants good and fair things obviously does not have good and fair things, so is not happy and is not a god. At this point I wonder, does Diotima mean that no one is truly happy but the gods and to love is to be unhappy?
She goes on to say that love is between mortal and immortal and is intended to translate the commands of gods to man and the prayers of man to the gods. This seems to suggest that love is only for the purpose of spirituality, which I don’t agree with. Love is also mortal and immortal in nature because it is alive one minute and dead the next. I agree with this last statement and I interpret it as meaning that with love you can have it but not keep it and you can have no love but it is still there for you. Love is constantly fluctuating at each moment. This is also how I interpret Diotima’s explanation that love is never in wealth and never in want but in between both.
Diotima goes on to tell the story of how love originated. She says that during a feast of the gods celebrating Aphrodite’s birthday the god of plenty got drunk and fell asleep in the garden. The spirit of poverty came begging and found him. She plotted to have a baby with him to help her situation, so she lay with him and conceived a child and that child was Love. Because it was the birthday of the goddess of beauty the Love is the attendant and follower of beauty. She describes love as being like Poverty in that he was always homeless, poor, not tender or fair and always in distress. I don’t understand how this description correlates with love. First, sappy as it sounds I have always thought of love as being part of the home and that love resides in the heart. Love may be poor at times but isn’t love all about tenderness? If love is not fair it is foul or fluctuating between the two, which is an idea that I can grasp. However, I do not understand why love is always in distress, it maybe always passionate but not distressed.
Diotima describes love as resembling Plenty because love is always plotting against the fair and good, love is bold, strong, a mighty hunter, keen on pursuing wisdom, always weaving some intrigue, fertile in resources and a philosopher. According to Diotima, love is not a good enchanter, or a good sorcerer, or a sophist. I don’t understand how love is always in the pursuit of wisdom, isn’t love blind? I think of love as being illusive, complicated, and surprising which could relate to love weaving intrigue and being fertile in resources. How is love a philosopher? A philosopher seeks to explain the principles of existence and it seems that love seeks happiness and beauty. The popular concept of love presently is that it is enchanting and magical which contradicts Diotima’s description. Finally, Diotima states that love is not a sophist, it’s not clear to me why love would be considered sophisticated.
No comments:
Post a Comment