The Symposium demonstrates the utter ineffability of love. Is it a hole to be filled; is it a soul's companion in another; can it be with one or many? The task of defining love is the fiercest hydra in the realm of philosophy, for when one question even appears answered three more spring forth.
The speakers tackle the issue from their paradigm of strength, whether it be Pausanias's legal bent, the historian's perspective that Phaedrus offers, or Socrates's questioning of Agathon. From this, we ask ourselves: Is love just 'to each his own'? Is it not universal in value as opposed to universal in form?
For my part, I tend to side with Aristophanes. Love, whatever form it may come in, makes us whole in a way that exceeds human understanding. We become gods when empowered by love. Love is limited by no bounds. Love is, as Aristophanes proposes, essential to our happiness.
----
As far as Socrates's bridge goes, I believe I shall quote the Bible (yes, I think it might be the first time ever). "God is love." (John 4:8) [I don't think I'll ever do that again, it makes me feel disgusting.] While I don't necessarily agree with the "God" implications, I understand this statement through a sort of reverse reading. That love is not a bridge, but the "God" itself, residing in all of us.
Now, before the temptation to delve into the hypocrisy of some religions and their views of love overwhelms me, I will stop. Plato's symposium offers a keen discussion of the source of endless human curiosity, the whimsical connections between souls. And perhaps the most important thing one can take from reading it is the fleeting uncertainty and yet alluring nature of anything concerning love.
MZ
The speakers tackle the issue from their paradigm of strength, whether it be Pausanias's legal bent, the historian's perspective that Phaedrus offers, or Socrates's questioning of Agathon. From this, we ask ourselves: Is love just 'to each his own'? Is it not universal in value as opposed to universal in form?
For my part, I tend to side with Aristophanes. Love, whatever form it may come in, makes us whole in a way that exceeds human understanding. We become gods when empowered by love. Love is limited by no bounds. Love is, as Aristophanes proposes, essential to our happiness.
----
As far as Socrates's bridge goes, I believe I shall quote the Bible (yes, I think it might be the first time ever). "God is love." (John 4:8) [I don't think I'll ever do that again, it makes me feel disgusting.] While I don't necessarily agree with the "God" implications, I understand this statement through a sort of reverse reading. That love is not a bridge, but the "God" itself, residing in all of us.
Now, before the temptation to delve into the hypocrisy of some religions and their views of love overwhelms me, I will stop. Plato's symposium offers a keen discussion of the source of endless human curiosity, the whimsical connections between souls. And perhaps the most important thing one can take from reading it is the fleeting uncertainty and yet alluring nature of anything concerning love.
MZ