The Accounts of Eros in the "Symposium"

The word love carries with it many, many different interpretations. In modern da
y, our views on what is appropriate love is much different from the views from t
he time of Socrates and Plato. To them love was eros, a direct translation of th
e word love.
However, the word itself wasn't the only thing that was different about love. In
Plato's "Symposium", there is a celebration for Agathon. He had just won a dram
atic contest in Athens, Greece two nights ago. It is customary to drink much win
e at these gatherings, however, every one present is too weak from the night bef
ore. (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. xiii) So a proposition is made, by Phaedrus, to pr
operly give praise to the god Eros, and speak on the topic of love. It was their
opinion that no poet has yet been able to properly do so. (Nehamas & Woodruff,
pg. 7) There were a total of seven accounts given in praise of eros, by seven di
fferent people who are present at the party. Of these accounts, the one that mad
e the most sense was the speech of Socrates when he quotes Diotima. This account
is practical, and shows love not as a heavenly creature, but as a mortal being,
where we can interact with him. It also has answers that most of the other acco
unts could not even question. This is what stands the speech of Socrates and Dio
tima apart from most of the others. But, there were two other speeches that were
also impressive and brought about points that Socrates did not make. These acco
unts were given by Aristophanes and Agathon. Through these three speeches, we ca
n get a good picture of what eros is. Starting with the most complete account: S
ocrates and Diotima; and moving through Aristophanes and then Agathon, this pape
r will show why these accounts are superior, and why Socrates' makes the most se
nse.
After Agathon's speech, it was Socrates' turn to present his account of eros. Bu
t before he does, he tells Agathon that his speech was marvelous and that at one
time, Socrates also believed in what Agathon believed. That was until a women
named Diotima taught him the real truth in eros. It is however, believed, that S
ocrates made up the character of Diotima, the reason, though, is unknown. In spi
te of this, Socrates gives a remarkable speech that is truly complete. One of th
e first misconceptions among all the speakers was the age of the god Love. Many
believed him to the oldest of the gods, thus making him ancient. Diotima knows t
his is not true. She speaks of the way Love was conceived, a clever scheme by a
god to escape her misfortunes. It seems the goddess of poverty, Penia laid down
beside Poros and became pregnant with Love (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg.48) This make
s Love unique. Love is good, though, because he is a lover of wisdom, that is, h
e pursues the notion of philosophy. But, he is in between wisdom and ignorance (
Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 49), according to Diotima, which is much different an ac
count from the other speakers. Phaedrus had placed Love at the top of all gods,
describing ways in which Love "breathes might into some of the heroes," (Nehamas
& Woodruff, pg. 10). This is untrue. However, Diotima speaks of ways in which l
ove helps human beings. This happens when the love for things like sports or poe
try helps a person create something from nothing. Love is a word used to describ
e the whole, where there are special parts of love used to describe specific pas
sions and possessions. (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 51). And love is wanting to poss
es the good forever (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 52) Finally we see the main points
in Diotima's argument when she accurately describes the real purpose of love. It
is almost like a natural instinct. All animals, including humans, have a need t
o reproduce. The real purpose in love is giving birth in beauty, whether in body
or soul (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg.53). This means that the pregnant person causes
the baby, or new born idea if the birth resulted from the soul, to be beautiful
because all new borns are beautiful and this is as close as a mortal may get to
immortality. By producing offspring, the human being continues life forever. By
this, we see what it is that love wants as well. And that is reproduction and b
irth in beauty (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 53) to continue the love, and retain pos
sessions that have been acquired through the good.
Diotima had briefly referred to aspects in her story that closely resembled the
account of Aristophanes. Aristophanes also gave a vivid account that had brought
up arguments that were very interesting. They were somewhat different from Diot
ima's, but nonetheless, they were good.
Aristophanes believed in human nature. No one else had spoke of this. To Aristop
hanes, there were three kinds of human beings. To the others, there were only tw
o kinds (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 25) Aristophanes described the way humans were.
They were completely round, spherical, had four hands and four legs, two faces
and two sets of reproductive organs. The three kinds were male and male; female
and female; and a special kind of mix of male and female (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg
. 25) These being presumable were too out of control. The gods needed to contain
them in order to be served by them. So Zeus had split each human into two halve
s, making two distinct people (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 26) Now, each person had
a feeling that they were incomplete. They longed for their other half. This is t
heir source, and now ours, for desire to love. They spent their lives searching
for that other person to complete the circle. Hence, love is born into every hum
an being to go find their other half, this is our nature (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg
. 27). This idea helps Aristophanes describe the male/female love, because to hi
m, it is of the lowest type of love. But for modern society, it helps describe t
he male/male and female/female love. This idea makes sense to the members of the
party. It truly explains why men would love women, and not just keep them to pr
ocreate. When the two halves find each other, it is said that something miraculo
us happens. They fall in love, and never wish to be separated again. It is almos
t like they become a single person again. Those men that were split from another
man, according to Aristophanes, are the most manly in their nature (Nehamas & W
oodruff, pg. 27). He says that he can prove it because those are the boys that a
re politicians (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 28) However, this part of Aristophanes a
rgument has no real proff behind it. There is no way of measuring human nature,
and so, there is no way of telling which type of human being each boy descended
from, whether it be a male to male relationship, or a male to female relationshi
p. This problem in Aristophanes argument brings about another oversight. He cla
ims these men have no interest in marriage and reproduction (Nehamas & Woodruff,
pg. 28) This however, would go against what is good. It is good to produce offs
pring, we see this in Diotima's account, but for Aristophanes, this does not see
m to be a case of good or bad. Aristophanes definition of Love is that it is the
name we give for our pursuit of wholeness with our other halves. It is our des
ire to be complete (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 29). This is a very accurate stateme
nt, in light of what Aristophanes is arguing for. This is very much different, h
owever, then the characteristics Agathon gives to Love. Agathon does not think t
hat there is a single idea for love, but that it encompasses many related charac
teristics.
As Agathon first speaks, he wishes to celebrate the gods, not congratulate mank
ind as his predecessors have done (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 32) Agathon states th
at Love, is the youngest of all the gods. To defend this, he claims that Love is
always within young people and is one of them. Therefore, he stays young foreve
r. The proof here is that the violent deeds done in the past were before Love wa
s created, and taken his throne of king of the gods (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 33)
. Love's character was noble and moral. He contained four virtuous characteristi
cs: justice, moderation, bravery and wisdom (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 34). In jus
tice, Love could not be harmed by violence, and this was further proof of his ag
e and his position as king of the gods. Love was moderate in that he took power
over pleasure. By this, Love had power over pleasure, because the greatest of al
l pleasure was love (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 35). In other words, Love was a fit
ting king, according to Agathon. In bravery, Love had a hold on everyone, gods a
nd humans alike. Bravery is related to power, and with this hold, Love is the br
avest (Nehamas & Woodruff, pg. 35). Of all four characteristics, the one that sh
ows proof of Love's goodness towards humans. In wisdom, one can teach another, w
hatever the task may be. Love gives this wisdom, for it is a love for something
that allows us to learn from it, this is a technical skill that Love offers (Neh
amas & Woodruff, pg. 35) Agathon's account of Love is very good. He backs up his
 claims with popular belief. But, what was right to them, may not seem correct t
o us, and this is a problem that arises with Agathon's speech.
In the times of Socrates and Plato, eros was a much different word then it's tra
nslation: love. He have seen how love takes the shape of a god, and how it has i
nfluenced the evolution of human kind. In the "Symposium", Socrates gives the mo
st sensible account of eros when he quotes Diotima , even though to this day, it
is unclear whether Diotima was a fabrication to fit Socrates' needs when discus
sing love. The speech of Aristophanes was also worth noting, as he had brought u
p the point of human nature, the only speaker to do so. As well, Agathon had a v
ery complete speech, he chose to describe the god Love in terms of his moral cha
racter and his virtues. These three accounts were the best of all that were offe
red. Socrates was the superior one to the other two, but nonetheless, the speech
es of Aristophanes and Agathon were complete. Together, these three accounts for
m a very good picture of eros, one that shows every aspect of what eros truly is
.

Bibliography
Nehamas, A. & Woodruff, P. "Symposium", Hackett Publishing Company, Indi
anapolis, Indiana, 1989