Symposium - AIC

Philip Krinks
activity is in itself either defensible or indefensible. Pausanias can then distinguish bad erōs, which is
not controllable, from good erōs which can be channelled through a social transmission mechanism.
Thus Pausanias steps away from Phaedrus’ simple absolutes, to a subtle account of virtue. 10 Human
values are viewed in a more relativistic way. Ethical principles, matters of right and wrong, are polisspecific
conventions, determined by political and social factors.
IV: ERYIMACHUS AND COMPLETENESS
IV.1 Eryximachus and his predecessors
Pausanias came to a pause (pausamenou, 185c5). Eryximachus thinks he can do better than a pause
and bring completion (telos). 11
‘It seems to me to be necessary, since Pausanias set out well in his speech, but failed sufficiently to
complete it (apetelese), that I must bring completeness (telos) to his argument’ (185e6-186a3)
Eryximachus compliments Pausanias on making a distinction 12 :
‘To say that erōs is double (diploun) seems to me to make a good distinction (kalōs dielesthai)’
(186a3-4)
The compliment is a self-serving one, however: Pausanias did not say that. Pausanias’ notion was not
one erōs with a double nature. It was multiple erōtes with evident differences. Eryximachus sees
things differently. Pausanias wanted specificity of praise (or not), according to each erōs and its
praxis; Eryximachus sees erōs as one thing with multiple aspects.
IV.2 Eryximachus’ focus: a complete praise
Eryximachus significantly broadens the discussion at 186a4-7. He recalls Empedocles: both in the
breadth of his cosmic view, for example fragments B21 and B26; and in the statement that a single
force of love plays a role throughout the whole cosmos (for Eryximachus, erōs; for Empedocles
philotēs, for example at B17). A praise of love must be teleion in the sense of applying to the whole
role of erōs: it must be complete, in the sense of exhaustive. erōs can best be praised as a broad
phenomenon, through the frames of medical practice and Empedoclean philosophy: it is a cosmic
force which has utility (katakrēsthai, 187d1).
V: ARISTOPHANES AND POWER
V.1 Aristophanes and his predecessors
Aristophanes’ opening remark is addressed to Eryximachus:
‘Indeed I do have in mind to speak in a different (allēi) way from you and Pausanias.’ (189c3-4) 13
They have made the same mistake as all or most other people:
‘…For it seems to me that human beings have completely failed to perceive the power (dunamis) of
erōs…’ (189c5-6)
To say that one should do justice to the power of erōs seems reasonable. But it is a sharp criticism of
Eryximachus. Contemporary scientists and philosophers believed that to understand the nature
(physis) of x, one must understand the power (dunamis) of x, both what x does (poiein) to other things
and what x undergoes (pathein) at the hands of y. By seeing what y does (poein) to x, one sees the
power of y. 14 If Empedocles should have yielded anything to Eryximachus, it was an understanding of
10 Cf. Sheffield 2006a p.36: perhaps, as Phaedrus said, erōs does manifest itself in a love of honour but one needs to ask
whether that ‘is … the only (or the best) [manifestation]’
11 What it is to be complete (teleion) is a topic in many Platonic dialogues, e.g. Philebus 20d, Sophist 253d
12 Examples of discussions elsewhere in Plato include Phaedrus 265e, Sophist from 218c
13 So Pausanias’ earlier suggestion was right: Aristophanes does ‘have in mind to praise the god in a different way’ (188e4)
14 For this view elsewhere in Plato, v. e.g. Phaedrus 270c8-d5
351