See if you can keep track of all the characters – it might be beneficial to make note of all the people as they are introduced, along with what information we are given about each one of them. Especially note their jobs, their relationships to one another, who is honored (and why), and who is the host.
Consider:
1. Why does Plato include such an elaborate framing device? Why does he tell the story of the Symposium from the perspective of someone who wasn’t there?
2. Socrates receives a warm reception at the Symposium, despite apparently being a weirdo. Given all the details of his intelligence and eccentricity, what does Plato want us to think about this person?
3. How is this Symposium different from other Symposia? What does this suggest about a “normal” Symposium, and the characters at this “abnormal” Symposium?
4. Phaedrus is the first speaker, and caught off-guard by the direction to make a speech. What are the key ideas he has about love? But also: what problems can you identify in his descriiption of love, and the examples he uses to defend his perspective?
5. Pausanias is the second speaker, but his speech is a bit disorganized. What are his key ideas about love – in particular, the difference between “good” and “bad” love? What issues does he circle back to frequently?
Consider:
1. Eryximachus is initially described to us as a doctor. How does his view of the world influence his perspective on love?
2. What are the main ideas of Eryximachus’ speech? Where can love be found in the natural world? How does he modify Pausanias’ ideas of good and bad love?
3. Pay close attention to the details of Aristophanes’ speech-myth about love. What do those details suggest about his perspective? How is his take different from that of the earlier speakers?
4. Aristophanes was a famous comic playwright- several of his plays have survived to the present day (and are still funny!). Many of the characters express concerns that his speech is not supposed to be taken seriously. But is it? What is silly or comical about his perspective? What serious – or even tragic – implications are suggested by his worldview?
5. Agathon is celebrated for his poetry at this Symposium, and his speech is appropriately poetic as well. How does that influence Agathon’s perspective on love? Is there anything wrong – or at least suspicious – with this take?
This is the longest reading from the Symposium yet, and the most typical example of a Platonic dialogue. But don’t just trust Socrates! (or Diotima, for that matter) These dialogues are meant to be wrestled with. Think about questions you might have that Plato/Socrates doesn’t answer, or criticisms you might have of Socrates’ conclusions. Be like Socrates: poke holes in these arguments!
Consider:
1. This section opens with a pretty bold critique of Agathon’s speech – and of all the speeches that we’ve read so far. What exactly is Socrates’ critique? How does he frame his criticism? Is it fair to call all these speeches lies?
2. Socratic methodology is every bit as important as Socrates’ conclusions. Look at the kinds of questions Socrates asks. How does he lead Agathon around to his point? How does Diotima do the same to Socrates? Is this method fair and convincing?
3. Socrates has been hailed as the wisest man among the speakers at the Symposium, and we might think his speech is the best so far. But this is tricky. How is Socrates’ speech dissimilar from the speeches that have come before? What ideas does it incorporate from other speakers?
4. The Symposium is a predominantly male-centric affair, but Diotima is a woman, and Socrates (wisest among the Symposiasts) regards her as wiser than he is. Why does Plato put some of the wisest statements about love in the mouth of a woman? Does Plato have a sneaky agenda here?
5. The “ladder of Diotima” – where Diotima describes the steps to seeing beauty-in-itself – is one of the most famous passages in this book. What does Diotima’s view of love prioritize? What kinds of love seem devalued, or underappreciated? What would a love-relationship actually look like, if we were to follow Socrates’ and Diotima’s directions here?
The devil is in the details in this reading: pay attention to the specific interactions between Alcibiades and Socrates, Alcibiades and Agathon, and even brief details like who stays up talking with Socrates at the conclusion. Plato’s ultimate message isn’t necessarily clear at the end of this text, but these details can seriously affect our interpretation of which speeches are important, and who among the Symposiasts might have important clues to the truth about love.
Consider:
1. Socrates and Alcibiades both claim to be the victim in their relationship. Why does Plato include this drama in the Symposium? How might this be a response to the historical accusers of Socrates?
2. Alcibiades’ speech is supposed to be directed to love, like the other speakers, but he insists on addressing it to Socrates instead. Is there a connection between Socrates and the god of love insinuated by the text? What similarities exist between Socrates and Eros?
3. Alcibiades arrives directly after Socrates’ speech and Diotima’s ladder, and we’re likely to be thinking about this new development in that light. Where are Socrates and Alcibiades located on Diotima’s ladder?
4. In most Platonic dialogues, Socrates is considered the utmost authority on philosophy, but here his speech doesn’t get the last word. Is Alcibiades’ speech meant to be more authoritative than Socrates? Why does Plato include it here?
5. What is Plato’s ultimate philosophy of love? How does each of these speeches contribute to our overall understanding? Whose speech seems most trustworthy? Which speeches reveal unintended truths? What have we learned in this Symposium about love that we did not know before?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|