13. Freud says that his notion of sexuality is derived from that of the divine Plato.

Given your reading of

the Symposium, discuss why Freud might have claimed this, and examine whether you think that his
claim is a justified one, or forced.

Sigmund Freud derived much of his inspiration the Greek philosophers, indeed from philosophy
generally. It is therefore useful to examine closely Plato’s Symposium, especially since Freud referred to
it when seeking to further psychoanalysis’ academic and actual credibility. From a twenty-first century
viewpoint, reading Freud works for the first time one comes upon references to sexuality, and
understanding this one relies upon previously received definitions of sexuality. This, however, is
evidently not how Freud intended us to understand the term “sexuality” (or Eros) when he utilised it, at
least from 1920 onwards. Sexuality is defined as the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis
of their reproductive roles1 or human sexuality is how people experience and express themselves as
sexual beings2. The Macquarie Dictionary defines sexuality as “sexual character” 3. All of these
definitions have some commonality in that they pertain specifically to genital sexuality and thereby limit
the reader’s understanding (in Freud’s case) of the connection between human love and human
sexuality. The limitations of a strict definition of sexuality have meant that Freud’s work has been too
narrowly interpreted. Since Freud’s reference to the Symposium, the reader has been allowed to
understand Freudian psychoanalysis in a much broader and paradoxically more accurate manner. Plato’s
Universe defined absolutes or ideals of perfection. In this sense, we understand the Eros of Freud’s
work to pertain to the general ideal of love – not specifically to just sexuality as we had previously
understood it. If we are to understand Freud’s work we are better to understand love without the
worldly connections from which Alcibiades struggles to disconnect. Freud’s claim is a justified one
because without it much of his work would not make sense and would be rendered inoperable,
especially in relation to transference love.

From the beginning of the dialogue between Socrates and Alcibiades, we can see that Socrates’ position
(or perhaps Plato’s position) as a proto-psychoanalyst is well-founded. The similarities between the
elenchus here and that of psychoanalysis is striking. Both deal with the realm of knowledge, and the city
state and its potential to engulf its citizens. The mode of questioning is similar to free association. The
elenchus also highlights the commonality of the state of all sentient beings. The goal of psychoanalysis
is not to convince the subject/analysand that they need psychoanalysis but rather to imbue a sense of
trust into the analysand. Socrates’ goal is to secure a patron and in this sense he attains his goal. They
both seek to gain a situation of transference love ; in psychoanalysis this is generally (but not always)
attained, in Socrates’ case the foundations as we later see are definitely laid. The image of the two souls
reflecting each other in the early dialogue is very similar to that of gestalt psychology. The following
passage gives insight into the motives both of Freud and Socrates : “Have you considered that the face
of one looking into the eye appears in the sight of one opposite as in a mirror- this being what we call
the pupil, a sort of image of the one looking in?...An eye seeing an eye, therefore, it must look at the
eye, and at that place the eye comes to exist, and presumably this is sight?..Therefore, dear Alcibiades, if

1
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
2
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Definition_Sexuality.html
3
Macquarie Little Dictionary Macquarie University : The Macquarie Library, 2004
the soul too is to know itself, should it look at the soul, and above all at that place in which the virtue of
the soul – wisdom – comes to exist, and at any other thing to which this happens to be similar?” 4. This is
very similar to the Freudian idea of observing one’s own reactions with the assistance of an analyst.
There are very few differences between Socrates’ mode of operation and that of the psychoanalyst. The
elenchus can be equated quite evenly with free association.

Socrates’ approach is very academic and Freudian psychoanalysis deals less with the academic, more
with the trivialities or grass-roots level of human existence, as exemplified by its preoccupation with
dreams, parapraxes and jokes. Socrates deals well with transference love insofar as he seeks to guide
Alcibiades on a journey of the soul. He does not, however, succeed as a teacher of lay analysis.
Alcibiades is not entirely convinced of his need to operate on a spiritual level in order to succeed on a
material plane. Socrates succeeds insofar as transference love is possible between two very dissimilar
people. In his role as analyst, he is impoverished and accustomed to operating on a spiritual plane. In
contrast, Alcibiades is from a wealthy family and accustomed to operating on the very earthly plane of
politics and materialism. Lear states “it is almost commonplace to view Socrates as the great ancestor of
psychoanalytic method; after all, he fashioned a method of cross-examination designed to elicit conflicts
which had hitherto remained unconscious inside the interlocutor.” 5

Diotima’s observance of love’s enjoyment in possessing at the beginning of the Symposium is quite
accurate. Alternately, one can simply note Alcibiades’ covetousness. Alcibiades’ basic attitude to
Socrates is that he is an ‘old lover’. The initial target of Alcibiades’ affections – on an entirely worldly
level – is Agathon. We are then led on to question whether Agathon really is his intended target, rather
than Socrates himself. It is questionable, then, whether Alcibiades has an awareness of his lack – on a
spiritual level – which prevents him from loving Socrates on Socrates’ (spiritual) terms. This is what
distinguishes Freudian psychoanalysis also. If we examine the case of Anna O.’s hysterical pregnancy,
from which Breuer had to flee, we see distinct similarities with Alcibiades’ situation. Alcibiades’ situation
is different only in the degree to which the analyst has allowed it to mature. The inability of Alcibiades to
bear a child to Socrates is most apparent marker in the degree of difference. Freud’s ingenuity was that
he noticed the therapeutic usefulness of these relationships and managed – not always successfully – to
exploit them.

It can be said that Eros is an intermediary state roughly equating with the object-relation’s school of a
transitional space. Both ideas imply a situation of movement, a temporary state. In psychoanalysis,
transference love is a temporary situation – before enlightenment. In a similar way, as exemplified by
Alcibiades’ miserable state, Eros dominates a semi-divine state (as laid out by Diotima), which leads
inevitably on to a divine state. This is distinguished from the sex-dominated space, from which
Alcibiades struggles to leave. This is typical of Platonic definitions – Eros is illuminated before our eyes as
a state higher than this demi-world, which the participants (excluding Socrates) of the symposium
inhabit. The analyst, like Socrates, tries to ease the transition between the human, semi-divine and

4
133 a ff, Plato, “Alcibiades 1 : On the Nature of Man” in T. L. Pangle (ed.), The Roots of Political Philosophy : Ten
Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1987
5
Page 739, Lear, J. “An interpretation of Transference” in International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 74, 1993
divine. Zeus, according to Aristophanes, is the divine director. The analyst can also be likened to Zeus.
S/he splits the analysand into two and attempts to remould them, in their own, more divine image,
according to the dictates of their own logic, as gleaned through the experience of the analysis
(elenchus). Diotima and Socrates’ account of love can be criticised because it can be deemed to be
forced or slightly artificial. It is questionable whether the erotic can be tragic (according to Socrates’
argument) if it takes us “ever upward to true beauty”. Socrates can alternatively be seen as a successful
analyst who aids Alcibiades in sublimation.

Eros is a developmental or transitionary phase through which the analysand must pass in an attempt to
gain fuller self-awareness, sublimation and divine connection to other people (the Christian agape?).
Alcibiades differs, however, in that he is stuck in a cycle of repetition – with Eros – not on a path to a
higher love. Psychoanalysis differs in that it has a wider spectrum of what constitutes “psychic
commitment” and therefore what constitutes a “psychological improvement.” 6 Alcibiades is resisting
Socrates’ attempts to assist him in attaining a higher plane of existence. The transference love Alcibiades
experiences is not successfully sublimated so that Alcibiades can exist on a higher plane of existence, but
rather Alcibiades rejects – whether consciously or not – Socrates’ teachings on the nature of love and
existence. This is testament of Socrates’ failure to successfully psychoanalyse Alcibiades (it can also be
seen to be due to some final flaw in Alcibiades’ personality). Alcibiades is inconsistent and this can be
interpreted as a resistance on his part . He is attempting to seduce Agathon, as he has apparently done
with many others. For a seduction speech to work it must be lyrical and perhaps an ode to the elevating
powers of beauty in this context. It is an indication, however, of Alcibiades ‘flawed personality’, of a
massive resistance to this transition and to Socrates himself. It is also perhaps an observation by Plato of
the unhealthy nature of the polis. It is a barometer of the society that its youth cannot progress to
higher levels of (spiritual) existence. One interesting point to note is that there is “..[o]ne evident
misunderstanding of Freud is to suppose that he thought of sexual repression as the natural instrument
by which civilization maintained itself in the cultural domain, parallel to its employment of political
repression in the civil domain. For, amongst other errors , this interpretation suggests that instinctual
renunciation is exacted only from the oppressed classes; whereas it was Freud’s view that oppressors
and oppressed alike are made to pay. Indeed, the oppressors pay more heavily. Where injustice arose, in
Freud’s view, was in the fact that only the oppressors stand to gain from this imposition, for it is only
they who share in the benefits of civilization.” 7

Alcibiades is attempting to seduce Agathon in the same powerful way that Socrates seduced Alcibiades
himself. The failure of Alcibiades to learn from what Socrates has taught him inevitably means the
failure of his argument. He does not use elenchus to bring forth Agathon’s contradictory beliefs, but

6
Pp 162 – 163 ,Lear, J. Open-minded : Exploring the Logic of the Soul
Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1998
7
Page 222, Wollheim, Richard
Freud
London : Harper Collins, 1991
rather attempts to destroy Socrates publicly. It is therefore inevitable that his attempt to duplicate
Socrates’ powerful strategy is doomed to failure. It is apparent that Socrates appears like the arch-
puppeteer, but it is perhaps an excessive criticism to label him a ‘camp queen’. Lear states that “..[f]or
his part, Socrates is at times indifferent to the human-erotic; at times he takes advantage of it”. 8 A camp
queen is thoroughly immersed in the world of the human erotic and will at times take advantage of it.
Socrates’ role, however, is larger than that of lover in that he seeks also to adopt the role of teacher,
even though this is not explicit. Like Lacan, Lear compares the ancient ideal of Platonic love to that of
the Christian ideal of ‘agape’. Lear states ‘..[o]nly those who already have a divine-erotic principle within
the will be able to learn from Socrates example, but they are the ones who don’t really need him”. 9 This
is the paradigm of erotic love to which all of Plato’s characters evidently ought to aspire. Psychoanalysis’
frame of reference is necessarily wider, which is what gives it an appeal to a wider audience. No doubt,
Freud’s claims to a divine or wider view of sexuality helps here. Lear states ‘..[t]he real difference
between the Socratic and the psychoanalytic versions of the fundamental rule is that psychoanalysis has
a broader conception of what constitutes a psychic commitment.” That is, to getting well or to ascending
to a higher plane of spiritual existence.

Socrates indifference to Alcibiades can be read in two ways. Lear states that “[i]t misses the point to say
that Socrates did not understand that human eros functions as a resistance.” 10 What is at stake here is
the Athenian polis, whereas what is at stake with Lacan 11 is Alcibiades’ liberation from Socrates’ love.
Lear takes a more global perspective than Lacan, and possibly a more accurate one if we refer to the end
of Alcibiades 1. This is where Socrates says “I stand in dread, not because I do not trust in your nature,
but rather because, seeing the strength of the city, I fear that it will overcome both me and you.” 12 Thus
we have established that the Symposium is a complicated document, giving insight into the minds of
humanity and Freudian psychoanalysis. To say that Socrates is the first proto-psychoanalyst is not
forced, nor is it a misnomer. There are some clear similarities between Freudian psychoanalysis and
between the elenchus of Socrates as recorded by Plato. 13

Plato’s Symposium successfully illuminates the reader as to the nature of Freudian psychoanalysis. The
way it deals with transference love is somewhat limited, but through the mode of questioning which
Plato uses via Socrates allows us to see what Freud exactly meant. Freud states that “..[b]y carrying what
is unconscious on into what is conscious, we lift the repressions, we remove the preconditions for the
formation of symptoms, we transform the pathogenic conflict into a normal one for which it must be
possible to somehow find a solution. All that we bring about in a patient is this single psychical change
[back to a state of innocence or agape?] : the length to which it is carried is the measure of the help we

8
Page 160, op. cit.
9
Page 161, op.cit.
10
Page 164, op.cit.
11
Lacan, Jacques The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book VIII : Transference, trans. C. Gallagher (from the unedited
French manuscripts), Weeks IX - XI
12
Plato, “Alcibiades 1 : On the Nature of Man” in Pangle, T.J. op. cit.
13
Page 541, Freud, Sigmund
Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis
New York : Norton, 1977
provide.” Freud later points out that the method of discovering what is unconscious in the patient and
then transmitting it is short-sighted, because “he does not receive it instead of his unconscious material
but beside it; and that makes very little change in it.” 14 Communication of the unconscious material must
be done at the point of resistance or anticathexis for it to be effective. This notion of love is questionably
closer to that of the divine Plato – Freud illustrates “..[i]f we are once more able to clarify the position,
we find that the cause of the disturbance is that the patient has transferred onto the doctor intense
feelings of affection which are justified neither by the doctor’s behavior nor by the situation that has
developed during the treatment.”15

14
Page 543, ibid
15
Page 548, ibid
Bibliography :

Flax, Jane, Thinking Fragments : Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the Contemporary
West, Berkeley : University of California Press, 1990

Freud, Sigmund, Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, New York : Norton, 1977

Freud, Sigmund, New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis and Other Works, London : Vintage,
2010?

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/lear02.htm

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Definition_Sexuality.html

http ://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Lacan, Jacques, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book VIII : Transference, trans. C. Gallagher (from the
unedited French manuscripts), Weeks IX - XI

Lear, Jonathan, Freud, New York : Routledge, 2005

Lear, J., “An interpretation of Transference” in International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 74, 1993

Lear, Jonathan, Happiness, Death and the Remainder of Life, Cambridge : Harvard University Press,
2000
Lear, Jonathan , Love and Its Place in Nature : a Philosophical Interpretation of Freudian Psychoanalysis,
New Haven : Yale University Press, 1998

Lear, J., Open-minded : Exploring the Logic of the Soul, Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1998

Macquarie Little Dictionary Macquarie University : The Macquarie Library, 2004

Plato, “Alcibiades 1 : On the Nature of Man” in T. L. Pangle (ed.), The Roots of Political Philosophy : Ten
Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1987

Ricoeur, Paul, Freud and Philosophy , New Haven : Yale University Press, 1970

Wollheim, Richard, Freud, London : Harper Collins, 1991