Symposium - AIC

speakers represents sophistic antagonism.
4. Socrates’ criticism and a double image of Eros
Noburu Notomi
We find many hints of sophists’ influence in the earlier speeches, but Socrates starts his
speech with a total rejection of this kind of sophistic discourse: the latter is concerned solely with
“beauty” in appearance, but not with the real “beauty” (i.e., the truth). Socrates expresses this
rejection exactly when the sophistic tendency culminates in the Gorgianic extempore speech by
Agathon (197c-e). His encomium is typically empty and fallacious. Thus, philosophy as seeking for
the truth is sharply contrasted with rhetoric as presenting beautiful logos.
Socrates cross-examines Agathon in a philosophical way (i.e., through questions and
answers). However, his elenchus reveals a more radical view than that of Prodicus, since they
conclude that Eros is not a god at all. He criticises the previous speakers, notably, Aristophanes in
205d-e (cf. 212c); this reminds us of sophistic competition. Therefore, Socrates must seem to the
others to be a far more formidable sophist who defeats all the others. This might be related to the
perplexing passage where Eros is characterized as “sophist” along with “philosopher” (cf. 204a-b):
[ Symposium 203d ]
His father’s side, for its part, makes him a schemer after the beautiful and good, courageous,
impetuous, and intense, a clever hunter (θηρευτὴς δεινός), always weaving new devices, both
passionate for wisdom and resourceful in looking for it, philosophizing through all his life
(φιλοσοφῶν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου), a clever magician, sorcerer, and sophist (δεινὸς γόης καὶ
φαρµακεὺς καὶ σοφιστής).
Also, Socrates reports that Diotima speaks like “accomplished sophists” (οἱ τέλεοι σοφισταί, 208c).
This fusion of “sophist” and “philosopher” is striking as well as perplexing, since Plato
always tries to make a clear distinction between the two. The sophists, such as Protagoras, Gorgias,
Prodicus and Hippias, are sharply contrasted with the philosopher, Socrates, and therefore we see few
“respectable” sophists in Plato’s dialogues. 24
It seems obvious that Plato deliberately fuses the philosopher and the sophist in these
passages. Then, should we, or can we distinguish between the two in a clear way? These coincide in
the figure of Eros as if they are an inseparable twin. How about Diotima? What is her wisdom? Again,
what is the “erotic” wisdom of Socrates, which he was taught by Diotima? 25 Plato may be suggesting
that the distinction is neither simple nor easy. Do we need sophists in order to do philosophy?
Sophists may be within us, when we seek for truth in philosophy. I think this is a genuine challenge of
the Symposium.
[ Bibliography ]
Burnet, J. (1901 1 , 1910 2 ), Platonis Opera, Tomus II, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit
Ioannes Burnet, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bury, R. G. (1909 1 , 1932 2 ), The Symposium of Plato, edited with introduction, critical notes, and
commentary, W. Heffer, Cambridge.
Classen, C. J. (1965), “Bemerkungen zu zwei griechischen ‘Philosophier-historikern’”, Philologus
109, 175-178.
Dover, K. (1980), Plato, Symposium, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ferrari, G. R. F. (1987), Listening to the cicadas: a study of Plato’s Phaedrus, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Kienle, W. von (1961), Die Berichte über die Sukzessionen der Philosophen in der hellenistischen und
spätanktiken Literatur, Freie Universität, Berlin.
Mansfeld, J. ([1986]/1990), “Aristotle, Plato, and the Preplatonic Doxography and Chronography”,
G. Cambiano ed., Storiographia e dossografia nella filosofia antica, Torino, 1986, 1-59; repr. in
his Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy, Assen / Maastricht, 22-83.
Notomi, N. (2010), “Prodicus in Aristophanes”, Stefania Giombini e Flavia Marcacci. Aguaplano ed.,
Il Quinto Secolo: Studi di filosofia antica in onore di Livio Rossetti, Aguaplano, Perugia, 655-
24 In only a few passages, the word “sophist” seems to be used in a neutral or a positive way: Men. 85b (“experts”), Prot.
312c (“man of wisdom”), and Rep. X 596d (“man of wisdom”, but ironical). It is also used for gods in Crat. 403e and Minos
319c bis.
25 Socrates unusually claims his knowledge, in 177d, cf. 201d.
147