In Plato's Symposium, Socrates' eulogy, although delivered with the stated intention of praising love, is not about really love it at all. Instead, Socrates asserts 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 the desire for someone, and therefore love, for someone or something fades 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. Thus, the theme of Socrates' eulogy is the condemnation of love as defined by the other people present at the conference, and the praise of wisdom as the only thing truly worthy of love. This conception has certain parallels with Pausanias' speech, some in agreement and others in direct contrast. Pausanias also condemns a certain type of love in which someone is attracted to an individual for purely physical reasons. However, the speeches of Pausanias and Socrates differ markedly, since Pausanias identifies a type of love from one individual to another that is worthy of praise, while Socrates does not recognize this type of love and condemns all love of 'one person to another. These two arguments are in direct disagreement, and in many ways Pausanias' argument shows Socrates' argument to be false. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay First of all, it is necessary to study the meaning of Socrates' speech. The fact that Socrates' eulogy is not about love, at least as the other philosophers present have defined it, is demonstrated 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, he uses love to refer to the desire for something, as opposed to love to refer to 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 get closer, the desire for knowledge can never be extinguished. Here Socrates belittles the love of people, because it is temporary, and praises knowledge, because 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 asserts that one of the purposes of loving another person is the production of offspring, and that 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' assertion that the legacy left by this knowledge is far 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 awareness. Obviously, Socrates does not believe in the existence of permanent love between men. The content of this speech has several parallels with that of Pausanias's speech, although the speakers' views on love differ considerably. First of all,Pausanias also emphasizes the importance of wisdom. This priority is demonstrated by the belief that older men should "have relations with young boys" "before intelligence is old enough to form" (181d). Second, Pausanias and Socrates both denigrate a type of love for the same reason. Pausanias asserts that the common Aphrodite, whose attraction is purely physical, is inferior to the celestial Aphrodite, whose attraction is purely physical. attraction is to one's spirit. Pausanias even says that there should even be a law against having sex with boys younger than the age of mental maturity, because it is a sign that the older lover will intend to “contemptuously abandoning” the boy instead of being “ready to enter into a lifelong relationship” (181d). From this it can be understood that the reason why the common Aphrodite is less acceptable than the Celestial Aphrodite is that a relationship based on the physical, instead of a mental and emotional connection, is not permanent. This is a direct parallel to Socrates' eulogy, since Socrates also claims to condemn love for its fleeting nature. Furthermore, the speeches of Pausanias and Socrates address love of the spirit, and both men value it over attraction to a body. In his speech, Pausanias puts forward the idea that love for someone based on quality of spirit and without concern for physical beauty is good and eternal. Socrates also refers to the heavenly Aphrodite in his eulogy, but not by name. Recounting Diotima's speech, Socrates states that the second state of love consists of "considering the beauty of all bodies as absolutely identical" and "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 recognize the existence of this type of attraction, their interpretations of its meaning are directly opposed. While Pausanias suggests that the heavenly Aphrodite can lead to eternal love, Socrates says that the heavenly Aphrodite simply gives way to the next stage of love until all that remains is to love is knowledge. Another parallel link between the two speeches is that Pausanias speaks directly against the condemnation of love between men in general, as does Socrates. Just like Phaedrus before him, Pausanias notes that the strength of the bond between lovers can motivate them to do impressive things. This is why, he asserts, tyrants condemn love so that their subjects cannot overthrow them (182c). Socrates completely and directly opposes this construction throughout his eulogy. By asserting that all types of love between men give way to the love of knowledge, he completely denies the existence of this bond. Clearly, Pausanias and Socrates had similarities in their speeches, but radically disagreed on questions of the existence of love. Since they come to opposite conclusions about whether permanent love between men can exist, one must be right and the other wrong. I believe that Socrates' argument is shown to be flawed by Pausanias' argument in several ways. First of all, Socrates contradicts in his own speech the main reason why permanent love between people cannot exist. He claims that the desire for something is fulfilled and disappears once acquired. However, he also admits that it is possible to desire to have in the future what one currently has (200d). It would therefore be possible for a lover to desire a person even when he is in a relationship.