Symposium - AIC

Claudia Luchetti
the first, is that in the following myth about the genealogy of Love it is possible to recognize, as it has
already been noticed, under the guise of Poros and Penia, the ἕν and ἀόριστος δυάς of the oral
teaching. The second, much more important from my point of view, is that maybe in the only true
definition of the Good contained in the platonic dialogues, precisely in the Phaedo (99c1-6), the
ἀγαθόν is the authentic immortal power that truly keeps and connects (everything) together… ὡς
ἀληθῶς τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δέον συνδεῖν καὶ συνέχειν.
Following this suggestion, Eros would be an icon of the Good, by virtue of its being fruit of
the mixture between the two Principles, both dominated from a Unique ἀρχή which, being identical
with the mixture, the product of this fusion, is immanent to them, while being the cause of the Union,
constituting therefore their ontological foundation, transcends them both.
Not only Eros, also the φιλόσοφος par excellence is a faithful image of the Good: Socrates.
The only man that can be regarded as demonic (see 203a4-5, 219b7-c2), the only true expert in
matters of Love (see 177d6-8, 198c5 ff.), Socrates is, like the Instant in which the Beauty-Good
irrupts in the Soul (ἐξαίφνης, 210e4, 213c1), being in the middle between wisdom and ignorance (see
201e10-202a10), an ἄτοπος φύσις µεταξύ (see Symp. 175a10-b3, 221d2, and Parm. 156d1-e3). But
his ἀτόπια is the same θαυµασιότης of Beauty itself (see 210e4-5 e 213e2, 215b8, 216c7, 219c1,
220a4, a7, 221c3, c6). Precisely this wonder discloses the deepest feature of Socrates’ personality, his
being ἄφθονος (see Symp. 210d6 and, for example, Euthyphr. 3b5-d9, Phaed. 61d9-e4), that is,
ἀγαθός (see Tim. 29e1-3).
Obviously, the ultimate reason for the supremacy of Diotima’s agathological perspective on
Aristophanes’ henology, takes root in the source of that primordial antinomy which, by means of an
analogy, tells the ἀγαθόν as ἰδέα and οὐσία, being the highest giver of Form, and as “beyond” Form,
at once (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας, 509b9-10), so, literally, as οὐκ ἰδέα and οὐκ οὐσία (509b8-9).
The λόγος of Diotima shows us that it is not necessary to follow only one among these two
ways, excluding the other, for it is exactly in the Union with that what is pre-eminently Idea, Beauty
itself (210e6-211b5), that the whole generative πρεσβεία and δύναµις of the Good become manifest.
Only from a συνουσία (Symp. 211d8, 212a2) with this kind of ‘Unity’, better to say, of
unifying cause, or Non Duality, and neither with a primary but undifferentiated unity, nor with a
derived or second degree unity (see Aristophanes, respectively 191c7, 192c5, c6), the procreation in
the Beauty (τόκος ἐν καλῷ, 206b7-8) becomes possible: as in the Republic from the erotic µείξις of
the philosopher with the οὐσία gush out νοῦς, ἀλήθεια and ἐπιστήµη (book VI 490a 8-b8), so in the
Symposium, from the coexistence with Beauty the Soul generates the ‘remaining’ offspring (Resp. VI
507a1-5) of ἀγαθόν, true ἀρετή (212a2-7).
The “Primordial Nature” and Aristophanes’ One reviewed in an agathological perspective.
To conclude, the conception of a Good including in itself dialectically the One, allows us to take a
retrospective look at Aristophanes’ speech, in order to focus in it on some further platonic facets of
the relationship between ἀγαθόν, ψυχή and ἕν.
Naturally, one could doubt about the correctness of an attempt aimed at finding in the
description of the divided humans strict correspondences with the two fundamental methods of
platonic Dialectics.
It is a state of fact though, that the dividing by two completed by Zeus, and underlined with a
certain insistence (διατεµῶ δίχα, Symp. 190d1, τεµῶ δίχα, d5, ἔτεµε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δίχα, d7, ἡ
φύσις δίχα ἐτµήθη, 191a5-6), occurs as terminus technicus and is perfectly interchangeable with the
well known δίχα διαιρεῖν of the dialogues commonly regarded as dialectical (see Soph. 221e2,
265a11, 265e8, Polit. from 261b4 to 302c8, Phil. 49a9, and Leg. V 745c5, d2), but it is used also at
the beginning of the famous Simile with the Line in Republic VI 509d6.
As far as the reduction to unity is concerned, even if at this point of the account, Aristophanes
seems to understand the desire of interrelation and conjunction of the two halves in a mainly sexual
sense, the choice falls on formulations like συµπλεκόµενοι in 191a7, συνεπλέκετο, 191b3, ἐν τῇ
συµπλοκῇ, 191c4, and συµπεπλεγµένοι, 191e8-192a1, typical for the συµπλοκὴ τῶν εἰδῶν (see Soph.
259e6, 240c1, 262c6, Theaet. 202b5, and Polit. 278b2 till 309e10, and particularly the meaningful
connection between συµπλέκειν and the agathological συνδεῖν in 309a8 ff.). The συναγωγή instead,
considered as erotic instrument put at our disposal from the conjunct action of Zeus and Apollo to
cure the human nature, is explicitly mentioned also in 191d3 (συναγωγεύς).
Furthermore, it is very interesting to observe that through the process of individualization or
individuation carried out by Apollo on each half, to heal the wounds produced by the scission (190e2-
191a5), it is possible to restore the conditions of that inner order (see κοσµιώτερος, 190e4), necessary
299