Plato's Symposium

As a dinner party among friends, Plato’s Symposium recounts a conversation on love by seven men, each with different professions and therefore different understandings of love. Its ultimate point is that through love, we can reach the good and the beautiful because love propels us toward it.

Plato assumes that his audience shares values of beauty and that beauty comes from universal sources. In addition, beauty is aligned with the good, and the good is transcendent – there can be no discussion of what is ultimately good. That is, he assumes that his audience has at least some idea of what the transcendent “good” or “beautiful” is, though they cannot attain it. Plato also shares with his audience the belief in rhetorical style – the Socratic or plainer style that gets us closer to truth, instead of the neo-sophistic, more ornamented one. Finally, I think that Plato assumes that truth can be assessed through speeches; in other words, that if a person delivers a good speech, his beliefs should be accepted. In some sense, this might suggest a belief in a speaker’s morality as reflected in their speech.
In terms of changing the ideas in place, I think it’s important to note that Plato brings into play the variety of opinions and perspectives. Whether he ultimately endorses them is a different issue altogether – and, obviously, one that warrants discussion -- but in the long run the style of the piece does not call on his trademark, traditional “dialogue.” Readers see speeches within speeches, and really have to work to get the message, which, I think, presents the complexity of the issues at hand as well as mirrors the kind of work needed to achieve the good and beautiful.

Since love propels the search for the good and beautiful, I am interested in how Plato conceives the relationship between love and good. Can’t love be destructive? Can love also blind us to things that we believe are “good” and “beautiful,” but are actually the opposite? Of course, these are universals, which carry with them their own baggage. Who, then, decides the absolutes? Further, why are there only absolutes instead of degrees? Can we have an aesthetic experience without love?

Another question focuses on the form of this piece. Why does Plato stage a dinner party as the scene of this conversation? Could it be a comment on how environment influences aesthetic experiences? Why did Plato make this choice, and what could his point (or several) be?

What I like about this piece is its variety; I like that the perspectives shift and yet all are inflected with Plato’s control. I like the intellectual puzzle. It seems almost Talmudic, where there’s commentary upon commentary, but nothing really resolves on its own accord. As I write this, I’m beginning to question whether my assertion that Plato’s ultimate message was that love drives us toward the good and beautiful; perhaps I am only seeing this point because of other factors at work.