Symposium - AIC

Annie Larrivée
the Alcibiades, among other dialogues), to care primarily for the soul, philosophia, and intelligence,
rather than one’s wealth or reputation. (In what follows, I will refer to this order of priorities as
‘Socrates’s hierarchy of care’). These apparently innocent comments from the prologue are
significant, for they reveal the correlation between being intensely devoted to and enamoured with
Socrates, and starting to care about the right things in life, things that truly matter and deserve
attention. 3 The speeches on love carefully memorized and later retold by Apollodorus shed light on
other aspects of the possible connection between love and care. The first two, in particular, seem to
offer a vision of love that is compatible with the Socratic exhortation to care about the self (as soul).
However, as we will now see, such a rapprochement is problematic in many ways.
Phaedrus: taking care of oneself in order to be loved
The core idea of Phaedrus’ eulogy 4 , as summarized in its conclusion, is simple: Eros is the most
powerful force that enables human beings to acquire virtue and eudaimonia. 5 At first glance,
Phaedrus’ praise, with its emphasis on the role of eros in “living well” (178c5-6) seems in harmony
with the Socratic hierarchy of care –an impression made even stronger by the fact that he depreciates
the role of kinship, public honor and wealth in this good life (178c6-d1). It is love, he claims, that is
the source of the greatest goods in so far as it imparts this “guidance each person needs for his whole
life, if he is to live well” (178c5-6, note that the ‘guiding love’ he has in mind is pederastic).
However, the resemblance between the role Phaedrus attributes to love and Socrates’ hierarchy of
care remains superficial; Phaedrus’ account is centered on love’s power to trigger an intense concern
for oneself, but the form that this concern takes is clearly unsocratic. He in no way suggests that love
leads to virtue by inciting the lover or the beloved to care for the state of his soul (there is no mention
of the psuche in Phaedrus’ speech). In the wake of the traditional heroic ideal, he thinks of virtue and
eudaimonia essentially in terms of actions, and more importantly, actions that are (or could be)
witnessed, seen by the loved-one. 6 His understanding of virtue and eudaimonia is somehow ‘external’
as it is focused on the public (or at least, ‘visible’) performance of fine actions and the achievement of
great and beautiful deeds (megala kai kala erga, 178d4). Phaedrus holds that love is the source of fine
deeds (mostly courageous ones in the context of war) and an obstacle to shameful acts, for a lover
would rather die than be seen performing dishonourable acts by his beloved. Thus what love seems to
trigger, beyond a care for virtue as such, is a fear of shame and a desire to be admirable (kalon) in the
beloved’s eyes.
Now, needless to say, from a Socratic point of view this emphasis on visibility raises
questions. First, one can wonder if eros is the principle of a genuine form of individual and political
betterment or if it only triggers a concern for the way one appears to be. 7 This problem appears later in
the interlude between Aristophanes’ and Agathon’s speeches when Socrates asks Agathon if it is
really the case that he would only be ashamed of doing something disgraceful if it was witnessed by a
group of intelligent individuals and would not mind at all if it happened before a crowd of ordinary
people (194c). 8 With this remark Socrates seems to question the idea that the quality of an action
somehow depends on the ‘audience’ that witnesses it. This echoes his well known attack on the care
for doxa, reputation, and appearances.
Let us note in passing that the value Phaedrus attributes to love-motivated self-sacrifice at the
end of his eulogy also raises important questions for my inquiry. Can self-sacrifice be, in certain
3
The prologue also subtly evokes a theme that will be crucial in Diotima’s speech, namely the necessity to constantly
reactivate one’s memories and to repeat and thus recreate what one knew in order to maintain one’s identity, 208a. Indeed,
Apollororus twice mentions the fact that he was well exercised (ouk ameletetos einai 172a1, ouk ameletetos echo, 173c1),
having apparently memorized, told and retold Socrates’ speech (as well as the other guests’).
4
Despite the fact that Eryximachus was the one to suggest a eulogy to eros, the idea originates from Phaedrus and since
Phaedrus is also presented as learning a speech about love by heart in the Phaedrus, we can infer that eros was a topic to
which he had given quite a bit of thought. That, coupled with the fact that he is the first to speak, makes his speech
important: it is his speech that sets the scene and to which the other guests will react.
5
“Love is the most ancient of the gods, the most honored, and the most powerful in helping men gain virtue and blessedness,
whether they are alive or have passed away” 180b. Eros’ capacity to lead to eudaimonia at the level of the polis is mentioned
at 178d, e. Although Phaedrus does not explain what this contribution consists in, we can infer that he is thinking of its
collective usefulness in the context of war and as a motive for self-sacrifice.
6
On the importance of being or not being seen, see 178d-e, 178a. Vernant [1991] 105-7, provides insightful explanations on
this aspect of Greek culture.
7
And if the latter is the case, could this concern for the actions witnessed by the beloved lead, eventually, to a real
improvement of the lovers' character?
8
“ –S:...if you did run into wise men, other than yourself, you’d certainly be ashamed at the thought of doing anything ugly
in front of them. Is that what you mean? –A.: That’s true, he said. –S.: On the other hand, you wouldn’t be ashamed to do
something ugly in front of ordinary people. Is that it?”
42