In Plato's Symposium, Socrates' eulogy, although delivered with the declared intent of praising love, is not about love at all. Socrates instead claims that the typical definition of love does not exist and instead praises wisdom. By saying that love is desire, and that one cannot want what one already has, Socrates asserts that the concept of love between people is fallacious since someone's desire, and therefore love, for someone or something vanishes as soon as he acquires precisely that object of desire. affection. According to Socrates in his speech, the only thing one can truly love is wisdom, since it can never be fully acquired. After all, it's impossible to know everything. Therefore, the theme of Socrates' eulogy is the condemnation of love as others present at the symposium define it, and the praise of wisdom as the only thing truly worthy of love. This conception presents some parallels with Pausanias' speech, some concordant and others directly contrasting. Pausanias also condemns that certain type of love in which someone is attracted to an individual exclusively for physical reasons. However, the speeches of Pausanias and Socrates differ markedly, as Pausanias identifies a type of individual-to-individual love that is worthy of praise, while Socrates does not recognize this type of love and condemns all love from one person to another. These two arguments are in direct disagreement, and in many respects Pausanias' argument proves Socrates' argument to be wrong. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First, you need to investigate the meaning of Socrates' speech. The fact that Socrates' eulogy is not about love, at least as the other philosophers present defined it, is highlighted in several ways. Unlike all other philosophers, Socrates does not use the word "love" to refer to the bond between lovers in his speech. Instead, use love to indicate the desire for something, instead of using love to indicate the bond between lovers. Furthermore, from the beginning, Socrates indicates that the concept of love lacks beauty, since one cannot desire what one has and lovers love attractive things. However, it follows from his argument that knowledge can be loved; while love for a person diminishes as the two grow closer, the desire for knowledge can never be appeased. Here Socrates belittles the love of people, since it is temporary, and praises knowledge, since it can be pursued eternally. The theme of the value of knowledge is further emphasized when Socrates discusses one of the main purposes of love: procreation. Socrates states that one of the purposes of loving another person is the production of offspring, and the purpose of procreation is to leave a legacy. However, according to him, biological procreation is not the only form of procreation. When two people exchange ideas, the mind can become pregnant, resulting in the birth of knowledge (209a). Socrates' statement that the legacy left by this knowledge is much greater than the legacy left by physical procreation supports the idea that the theme of his speech is the condemnation of love and the admiration of knowledge. Evidently Socrates does not believe that permanent love exists between people. The content of this speech has several parallels with that of Pausanias' oration, although the speakers' opinions on love differ substantially. First, Pausanias also emphasizes the importance of wisdom. This priority is demonstrated by the belief that older men should “have affairs with younger guys” “before intelligence is formed”(181d). Second, Pausanias and Socrates both disparage one kind of love for the same reason. Pausanias states that ordinary Aphrodite, in which the attraction is purely physical, is inferior to celestial Aphrodite, in which the attraction is purely physical. The attraction is for someone's mind. Pausanias even says that there should be a law even against sexual relations with boys under the age of mental maturity, since it is a sign that the older lover will have the intention of "contemptuously abandoning" the boy instead of being “ready to do it”. enter into a permanent relationship” (181d). From this it can be discerned that the reason why common Aphrodite is less acceptable than celestial Aphrodite is because a relationship based on physicality, rather than a mental and emotional connection, is not permanent. This is a direct parallel to Socrates' praise, as Socrates also condemns love for its fleeting nature. Furthermore, both Pausanias and Socrates' speeches address the love of the mind, and both men value it over the attraction to a body. In his speech, Pausanias puts forward the idea that love for someone based on the quality of the mind and without concern for physical beauty is good and eternal. Socrates also refers to the celestial Aphrodite in his praise, although not by name. Returning to Diotima's speech, Socrates states that the second state of falling in love consists in “considering the beauty of all bodies as absolutely identical” and in “valuing mental beauty much more than physical beauty” (210b). Obviously, this description of the second stage of love closely resembles Pausanias' description of the celestial Aphrodite. Although the two thinkers both acknowledge the existence of this type of attraction, their interpretations of its meaning are in direct conflict. While Pausanias suggests that celestial Aphrodite can lead to eternal love, Socrates says that celestial Aphrodite simply gives way to the next stage of love until all that is left to love is knowledge. Another parallel connection between the two speeches is that Pausanias speaks directly against the condemnation of love between people in general, as Socrates does. Just as Phaedrus did before him, Pausanias notes that the strength of the bond between lovers can motivate them to do majestic things. Therefore, he states, tyrants condemn love so that their subjects cannot overthrow them (182c). Socrates goes completely and directly against this construct in all of his praise. By claiming that all kinds of love between people give way to the love of knowledge, he completely denies the existence of that bond. Clearly, both Pausanias and Socrates had some similarities in their speeches but drastically disagreed on issues related to the existence of love. Since on the question of whether permanent love can exist between people they come to opposite conclusions, one must be right and the other wrong. I believe that Socrates' argument is flawed from that of Pausanias in several ways. First of all, Socrates contradicts in his own speech the main reason why permanent love between people cannot exist. It states that the desire for something is satisfied and disappears once acquired. However, he also admits that it is possible to desire to have in the future what one currently possesses (200d). Therefore, it would be possible for a lover to desire a person even when he is in a relationship with that person, wanting that person to be in his future as well as his present. This means that it may be possible for people to have lifelong love. Secondly, Socrates' argument was found to be flawed by Pausanias' argument because it fails to recognize love as something more than desire. Socrates.