Alcibiades speech: reflect Platos philosophy, in particular the Cyclical Argument

Emphasize the ambiguity of the text, especially considering the juxtaposition of

Alcibiades emotionally-charged speech with Diotimas calculating, logic one
It is the empathetic quality of Alcibiades speech that connects Platos audience,
thus making Alcibiades speech possibly the strongest counter-argument to
Socrates argument. Bring the divine (Socrates) level back, down to the earthly,
mortal one (Alcibiades). After all, recall the epics & tragedies that we have learned:
it is the mortal that we sympathize with; we respect/fear/honor the gods but it is
just hard/impossible to sympathize with them because they are extraordinary to
begin with.
Although the Symposium starts with the purpose of discussing Love, at the end, no
speakers get close to agreeing upon even the definition of Love. It seems epoche,
the suspension of judgment, is appropriate here, as people withhold from forming
any definitive view and continuing on their ongoing quest for the truth/the idea.
Place the paragraph questioning Socrates place in the ladder of logic near the end
or the one prior to the conclusion
As Diogenes Laertius implies, Plato himself, speaking through his Socrates, was
regarded as the model Academic wise man. His Socrates refutes all positions, or
fails to decide between positions, or arrives at an ironic dogmatic conclusion, in
every case implying that he suspends judgment.
Show understanding of: the basic content of each of the 6 formal speeches, and
what differentiates them from each other; the historical context of the dialogue
(written after the death of Socrates, with a frame narrative set before his death but
after the conquest of Athens by Sparta, recounting the events of a party held before
the Sicilian expedition and demise of Athenian democracy); the historical roles of
Plato, Socrates, Aristophanes, and Alcibiades in relation to one another; the
meaning, in Attic culture, of the lover-beloved relationships that play an important
symbolic role in the text (in very general terms).
Show appreciation of the literary qualities of the text: the problems of reliability
introduced by the frame narrative [Plato says that Apollodorus (who is giving a
rehearsed and admittedly imperfect account of events he did not witness) says that
Aristodemus (who was asleep for part of the proceedings, and who is also said to be
the originator of a garbled account that he did not witness) said that Diotima
said]; the broadly triangular affective construction of the text, in which Diotima
and Alcibiades compete, as it were, for the heart and soul of Socrates; the extreme
ambiguity resulting from the narrative construction, from the deliberate blurring of
boundaries between, e.g., comedy and tragedy (Aristophanes gives a tragic speech,
Agathon a comic/parodic one; Socrates argues much later that the same author
should write both genres), and from the powerful emotional appeal of Alcibiades
following the rarefied reasoning of Diotima
Must show compassion to Alcibiadesof course! His speech is not supposed to be a
comic one, but rather tragic.

Must understand the role of the Symposium in relation to the tragedies of Athens,
Alcibiades, and Socrates.
The idea of binary, brought up by Pausaniashe introduces the themes of virtue,
and distinguishes between good and bad lovewill later be developed into
dialectic dynamics; at least that is what I think. Note how Socrates is ugly in his
appearance, but is beautiful (in the soul/spirit/mind), or how Diotima is a woman,
but her reasoning/attitude is like that of a man, or how Agathon is a tragedy poet
but his speech is like that of a comedy poet and the reverse is true for Aristophanes,
etc. There certainly is a sense of dialectic going on. But why?
Remember to bring into discussion Socrates speech, since it precedes Alcibiades
one immediately. Make sure to present Diotimas ideas as progressive aspect of
Love. What is the notion of Platonic form)?
Also, what is it about the pregnancy metaphor? Is it better to be pregnant in soul
rather than in body? What, implicitly, becomes of society if everyones a
philosopher (extinction?!)? Does the pregnancy motif appear elsewhere in the
Symposium? Note the statues of Silenus to which Alcibiades compares Socrates
(again, the dialectic: ugly and comical outside, beautiful and solemn within). Why
is Socrates compared implicitly to a pregnant woman? Which leads to another
question, why is Diotima a woman? Is Socratess re-introduction of Woman into the
party (after the flute girl was sent away at the outset) akin to his inviting the
deliberately uninvited Aristodemus? Why does Socrates do this? And why is Diotima,
a woman, the source of a philosophy that explicitly excludes women from being
philosophers?
The timing and manner of Alcibiades interruption is most noteworthy. Note the
parallels with Diotima [e.g., re-irruption of the personal and particular vs. reirruption of the feminine, both marked by Suddenly (exaiphnes); also, the arrival
at the utmost form of Love/Beauty on Diotimas ladder of logic, is also introduced
suddenly]. What does Alcibiades speech reveal about Socrates and Alcibiades
himself (a form of autobiographical narrative)? How does Alcibiades uphold or tear
down Socrates argument (does he uphold or tear down or both)? What does he
want from Socrates? Who is the lover, who is the beloved here (disruption of the
pederasty model)?
In Alcibiades tragic passion, Plato subjects Socrates high-minded model of love (as
springboard to wisdom) to the severest possible test: he makes it go head-to-head
with a real, live, case of love, one with which many in Platos audience will identify.
In particular, Alcibiades raises one powerful objection to Socrates reasoning about
love: while Socrates has proposed that what we love about a person is their beauty
(i.e. that part of them that partakes of the universal Form of Pure Beauty), and that
this love can therefore be abstracted to a love of Beauty in general, Alcibiades love
Socrates specifically. (To take an abstract example, if A is just as beautiful as B, why
arent the two interchangeable? In other words, if one loves A, why will B not do just
as well?) Does Socrates successfully answer this objection (he never responded to
this point after Alcibiades finished his speech)?

It seems Socrates has successfully followed his own directions and made the
transition from the contemplation of physically beautiful individuals to the
contemplation of Beauty at some more abstract level; the proof of his success being
that he is impervious to the appeal(s) of Alcibiades. Is this the model of human
successthe attainment of perfect abstraction, to the exclusion of human emotion
and sensation (note that Socrates is equally impervious to cold, fear, etc. according
to Alcibiades story)acceptable to us, the audience? Again, recall that the gods/the
divine portrayed in epic poems and tragedies prior to this are for us to revere but
not emulate. Is Socrates the same? Is the price of enlightenment too high?