This dissertation attempts to reveal the dramatic contest of Socrates the philosopher with sophists' disciples and poets for supremacy regarding wisdom in relation to the theory of erōs in Plato's Symposium and my point can be finally characterized by the thesis that the philosophical theory of...
This dissertation attempts to reveal the dramatic contest of Socrates the philosopher with sophists' disciples and poets for supremacy regarding wisdom in relation to the theory of erōs in Plato's Symposium and my point can be finally characterized by the thesis that the philosophical theory of erōs defeats not only the sophistic theory of erōs but also the poetic theory of erōs in that quarrel. To begin with, in the so-called 'frame conversation', the Memorabilia written by Apollodorus I notice Apollodorus' complex nature represented both a fanatic disciple and a softy in comparison with the accuracy of narratives. And then the prologue of Aristodemus full of 'touch passage,' 'wool analogy,' and 'frequent court jargon' proves to be the preparatory contest of philosophy with poetry. The first three speakers, Phaedrus, Pausanias, and Eryximachus are sophists' disciples and the advocators of 'the sophistic theory of erōs'. All of them pursue their private and selfish benefits under the disguised of the virtues of community through the argument on the basis of myth, law, and technique respectively. But eventually this pure selfishness is not possible as the principle of politics and leads to the disastrous catastrophe in danger of the existence of political community, let alone an individual Furthermore, their sophistry to be used with a view to justifying their particular positions are found incoherent and illogical. Phaedrus the loved's encomium consists of the utility and benefits of the loved and takes the loved's side asymmetrically. In the case of couple military and Achilleus his utilitarian theory of erōs results in a fallacious conclusion that it is preferred those who do not love to those who do love. And his argument of the antiquity of erōs is refuted owing to the failure of the distinction between genesis and generation and as a result infers logical incoherence in praising not erōs but genesis as the principle of erōs. Pausanias' sophistry to maximize his own erotic profit as a erastēs is chiefly used to legalize to achieve a legitimate of his paiderastia in making a perverted use of morality and concealing his underlying credo concerning the revision of Athen's laws. In his arguments of nous, license, and virtues, he is gradually falling to abyss because of the serious logical fallacy. For example, to love beautifully is to love the intellectual persons, more intellectual adult than a paidika is preferred and therefore his paiderastia can't be maintained. License is also incompatible with slavery in his paiderastia. Lastly, to slave voluntarily so as to acquire the virtues is also conflicted with his paiderastia because of making an erōmenos merely a receptacle. Eryximachus' theory of erōs is subordinated to the private profit related to his occupation, medicine and the crux of his argument is the compatibility of medicine with erōs. He invents the cosmic erōs by expanding the extension of erōs, but his argument of double erōs eliminates the distinction of the erōs of body and the erōs of soul in favor of supporting the authority of medicine. His thesis of the superiority of medicine results in the corporealization of soul and the duality within erōs, in other words, the scientific reductionism. Besides, the argument is connected to the harmony in opposites, finally explodes the conflict between medicine and Athenian paiderastia. Eryximachus' argument would rather be based to paiderastic erōs than heterosexual one, alleging the naturalness of paiderastia but the kernel of the technique of his medicine is opposite to the nature. Therefore, the incompatibility of medicine with erōs is proved in his speech. In Greek society the poets maximize the vulgar greed of the multitude and urge their luxury and license. In response to this the masses praise and make a hero of the poets. The poets seem not to have responsibilities for the gods and the moral order of the universe by creating impious stories. In addition, they remain on the surface or phenomenon of the thing and don't have knowledge but opinions. In the course of arguments Aristophanes the comic writer and Agathon the tragic writer develop each 'the poetic theory of erōs,' but there lies in the superiority of philosophy to poetry. According to Aristophanes' speech, his explanation of erōs is related to a tragic and unsatiable desire. But in fact his such sorrowful understanding about human beings is derived from his notion that it is impossible for man to transcend his body. Though he says erōs as embrace and aphrodisia alike, there is not any conversation in between couple. Therefore, it is not possible to philosophize by means of dialogues. The next point is that polis is the product of Zeus' trick to perpetuate man's political subordination to the Olympian gods. Similarly, it is revealed that the piety recommended by Aristophanes is ultimately 'a noble lie.' In opposition, Plato says polis is inseparable to her members and in short polis perfects insufficient individuals. Agathon alone resolves Phaedrus' complaint by praising erōs as a god. He expounds on the beauty and excellence of erōs and in terms of knowing erōs as the power to cultivate emphasizes the harmony of the erōs with civilization through philotimia. In his identifying the lover with the loved he argues the self-sufficiency statement that is closely connected to his paiderastia. But although there is some relation of beauty to sophia in his speech because he is so confident in both beauty and sophia, there is a difficulty in relation of beauty to goodness. The finest Socrates-Diotima's speech in the Symposium is indeed characterized by not only the serious refutation of the sophistic theory of erōs and especially the poetic theory of erōs but also an philosophical alternative to them. The philosophical theory of erōs is composed of the unity of an eternal possession of goodness with the delivery in the beautiful and the ascent to the ultimate object of erōs, the Beauty Itself. Besides, Socrates-Diotima's theory of erōs works as the foundation of a political life. The world of Idea is the paradeigma of the political ideal and therefore is confirmed the causal realization of Idea. In the case of 'beautiful but not-good' notion Diotima criticizes Aristophanes' amputation thesis and Agathon' concept of goodness alike. She refutes Agathon's position that is equipped with 'beauty and self-sufficiency of erōs' through 'deficiency and relation argument of erōs.' Furthermore, in mentioning the fact that all men want eudaimonia by his having the good she refuses Aristophanes' statement to love whatever his belongings may be. In this Diotima's theory of erōs proves to be a dialectical unity of Penia with Poros as the harmony of opposites. On the other hand, Diotima offers the philosophical theory of erōs in the dimension of the foundation-building for political community. For all such transition from the non-political embrace into the political aphrodisia, she makes the political space beyond the species-preservation by discussing erōs for the good not erōs for his own half. At the same time, Diotima stresses human incompleteness or relationship in defeating Agathon's notion of self-sufficiency. The main point of her speech shows that not simply remaining an immortal fame-seeker one produces the true virtues and gets immortality in contemplation of the Beauty Itself. Alcibiades' speech is the literary 'apology' of Plato for the purpose of the reevaluation of Socrates' infamy, for it is intended by Plato to refute the public charge that Socrates was responsible for Alcibiades' political vices. Indeed Alcibiades is the victim of an Athenian democratic vice, a perpetual desire "to have more"(pleonexia). In practice, his entire life may be explained as hybristic insolence, in which conceit led to a self-destructive combination of daring and insolence. The unsatisfactory character in the love affair between Socrates and Alcibiades is a necessary consequence of the peculiarity of Socrates' erōs. Each socially fixed role in the strict hierarchy and asymmetry of desire between an erastēs and an erōmenos is dramatically shifted into the mutual roles of the philosophical erōs by Socrates' performing the erōmenos-role of Greek paiderastia. For young men to produce ideas from his own mind, his intention for this philosophical activities is not to put ideas into pupil's mind but to draw them out from within. The final argument in the Symposium is about philosophy transcending both tragedy and comedy. Here Plato's Symposium is rediscovered in the perspective of the political philosophy dialogue of the contest for supremacy regarding wisdom between philosophy and poetry as the thematic continuation of the Politeia. Keywords: Erōs, Paiderastia, Sophistry, Aretē, Technē, Poiēsis. Philotimia.
This dissertation attempts to reveal the dramatic contest of Socrates the philosopher with sophists' disciples and poets for supremacy regarding wisdom in relation to the theory of erōs in Plato's Symposium and my point can be finally characterized by the thesis that the philosophical theory of erōs defeats not only the sophistic theory of erōs but also the poetic theory of erōs in that quarrel. To begin with, in the so-called 'frame conversation', the Memorabilia written by Apollodorus I notice Apollodorus' complex nature represented both a fanatic disciple and a softy in comparison with the accuracy of narratives. And then the prologue of Aristodemus full of 'touch passage,' 'wool analogy,' and 'frequent court jargon' proves to be the preparatory contest of philosophy with poetry. The first three speakers, Phaedrus, Pausanias, and Eryximachus are sophists' disciples and the advocators of 'the sophistic theory of erōs'. All of them pursue their private and selfish benefits under the disguised of the virtues of community through the argument on the basis of myth, law, and technique respectively. But eventually this pure selfishness is not possible as the principle of politics and leads to the disastrous catastrophe in danger of the existence of political community, let alone an individual Furthermore, their sophistry to be used with a view to justifying their particular positions are found incoherent and illogical. Phaedrus the loved's encomium consists of the utility and benefits of the loved and takes the loved's side asymmetrically. In the case of couple military and Achilleus his utilitarian theory of erōs results in a fallacious conclusion that it is preferred those who do not love to those who do love. And his argument of the antiquity of erōs is refuted owing to the failure of the distinction between genesis and generation and as a result infers logical incoherence in praising not erōs but genesis as the principle of erōs. Pausanias' sophistry to maximize his own erotic profit as a erastēs is chiefly used to legalize to achieve a legitimate of his paiderastia in making a perverted use of morality and concealing his underlying credo concerning the revision of Athen's laws. In his arguments of nous, license, and virtues, he is gradually falling to abyss because of the serious logical fallacy. For example, to love beautifully is to love the intellectual persons, more intellectual adult than a paidika is preferred and therefore his paiderastia can't be maintained. License is also incompatible with slavery in his paiderastia. Lastly, to slave voluntarily so as to acquire the virtues is also conflicted with his paiderastia because of making an erōmenos merely a receptacle. Eryximachus' theory of erōs is subordinated to the private profit related to his occupation, medicine and the crux of his argument is the compatibility of medicine with erōs. He invents the cosmic erōs by expanding the extension of erōs, but his argument of double erōs eliminates the distinction of the erōs of body and the erōs of soul in favor of supporting the authority of medicine. His thesis of the superiority of medicine results in the corporealization of soul and the duality within erōs, in other words, the scientific reductionism. Besides, the argument is connected to the harmony in opposites, finally explodes the conflict between medicine and Athenian paiderastia. Eryximachus' argument would rather be based to paiderastic erōs than heterosexual one, alleging the naturalness of paiderastia but the kernel of the technique of his medicine is opposite to the nature. Therefore, the incompatibility of medicine with erōs is proved in his speech. In Greek society the poets maximize the vulgar greed of the multitude and urge their luxury and license. In response to this the masses praise and make a hero of the poets. The poets seem not to have responsibilities for the gods and the moral order of the universe by creating impious stories. In addition, they remain on the surface or phenomenon of the thing and don't have knowledge but opinions. In the course of arguments Aristophanes the comic writer and Agathon the tragic writer develop each 'the poetic theory of erōs,' but there lies in the superiority of philosophy to poetry. According to Aristophanes' speech, his explanation of erōs is related to a tragic and unsatiable desire. But in fact his such sorrowful understanding about human beings is derived from his notion that it is impossible for man to transcend his body. Though he says erōs as embrace and aphrodisia alike, there is not any conversation in between couple. Therefore, it is not possible to philosophize by means of dialogues. The next point is that polis is the product of Zeus' trick to perpetuate man's political subordination to the Olympian gods. Similarly, it is revealed that the piety recommended by Aristophanes is ultimately 'a noble lie.' In opposition, Plato says polis is inseparable to her members and in short polis perfects insufficient individuals. Agathon alone resolves Phaedrus' complaint by praising erōs as a god. He expounds on the beauty and excellence of erōs and in terms of knowing erōs as the power to cultivate emphasizes the harmony of the erōs with civilization through philotimia. In his identifying the lover with the loved he argues the self-sufficiency statement that is closely connected to his paiderastia. But although there is some relation of beauty to sophia in his speech because he is so confident in both beauty and sophia, there is a difficulty in relation of beauty to goodness. The finest Socrates-Diotima's speech in the Symposium is indeed characterized by not only the serious refutation of the sophistic theory of erōs and especially the poetic theory of erōs but also an philosophical alternative to them. The philosophical theory of erōs is composed of the unity of an eternal possession of goodness with the delivery in the beautiful and the ascent to the ultimate object of erōs, the Beauty Itself. Besides, Socrates-Diotima's theory of erōs works as the foundation of a political life. The world of Idea is the paradeigma of the political ideal and therefore is confirmed the causal realization of Idea. In the case of 'beautiful but not-good' notion Diotima criticizes Aristophanes' amputation thesis and Agathon' concept of goodness alike. She refutes Agathon's position that is equipped with 'beauty and self-sufficiency of erōs' through 'deficiency and relation argument of erōs.' Furthermore, in mentioning the fact that all men want eudaimonia by his having the good she refuses Aristophanes' statement to love whatever his belongings may be. In this Diotima's theory of erōs proves to be a dialectical unity of Penia with Poros as the harmony of opposites. On the other hand, Diotima offers the philosophical theory of erōs in the dimension of the foundation-building for political community. For all such transition from the non-political embrace into the political aphrodisia, she makes the political space beyond the species-preservation by discussing erōs for the good not erōs for his own half. At the same time, Diotima stresses human incompleteness or relationship in defeating Agathon's notion of self-sufficiency. The main point of her speech shows that not simply remaining an immortal fame-seeker one produces the true virtues and gets immortality in contemplation of the Beauty Itself. Alcibiades' speech is the literary 'apology' of Plato for the purpose of the reevaluation of Socrates' infamy, for it is intended by Plato to refute the public charge that Socrates was responsible for Alcibiades' political vices. Indeed Alcibiades is the victim of an Athenian democratic vice, a perpetual desire "to have more"(pleonexia). In practice, his entire life may be explained as hybristic insolence, in which conceit led to a self-destructive combination of daring and insolence. The unsatisfactory character in the love affair between Socrates and Alcibiades is a necessary consequence of the peculiarity of Socrates' erōs. Each socially fixed role in the strict hierarchy and asymmetry of desire between an erastēs and an erōmenos is dramatically shifted into the mutual roles of the philosophical erōs by Socrates' performing the erōmenos-role of Greek paiderastia. For young men to produce ideas from his own mind, his intention for this philosophical activities is not to put ideas into pupil's mind but to draw them out from within. The final argument in the Symposium is about philosophy transcending both tragedy and comedy. Here Plato's Symposium is rediscovered in the perspective of the political philosophy dialogue of the contest for supremacy regarding wisdom between philosophy and poetry as the thematic continuation of the Politeia. Keywords: Erōs, Paiderastia, Sophistry, Aretē, Technē, Poiēsis. Philotimia.
주제어
#플라톤의 에로스론
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.