[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.If eros and its intimate connection with thebeautiful is at least in part psychic, and especially if it is decisively psychic, thenscience cannot be the authoritative account of eros.Eryximachus s physicalist position can, in principle, only explain physical beauty; but no one believes thatbeauty is an exclusively physical phenomenon.The question we are left with aswe move to Aristophanes speech, then, is this: in what direction should erosbe expanded, if not simply to the physical? Beauty, as we shall see, will haveeverything to do with the response of the subsequent speakers, but only afterAristophanes speech.After a long history of interpretation where Aristophanes speech was nottaken seriously as a part of the Symposium that contained important teachings,12nearly all interpreters now recognize that very important things are happeningin the comic poet s speech.As with the previous speeches, I shall not hereo"er anything like a comprehensive reading, but concentrate on those aspectsthat will prove germane to our theme as we move further along in the dialogue.It is worth reminding ourselves as we begin that Aristophanes is the famousand quite conservative comic poet who is already in a rather complicated andstrained relationship with the two leading symposiasts, Socrates and Agathon,whom he has roundly and even viciously satirized in his plays.13 It is thereforenot surprising, then, that in contrast to Pausanias and Eryximachus, both ofwhom began their speeches with reference to the previous speech and in ane"ort to correct or complete it, Aristophanes begins by asserting that he has itin mind to speak in a di"erent way than either Pausanias or Eryximachus(189c; he simply ignores Phaedrus).Conservative thinker that he is, he is nodoubt particularly opposed to Pausanias s defense of pederasty and the vul-garity into which it sinks and to Eryximachus s materialist account of eros.14Instead, as he now indicates, he will present a predominantly religious account,which asserts first that if we understood the power of Eros we would build greattemples and altars to him, for he is the most philanthropic of the godsliterally the god who loves human beings the most (189d).As it turns out, by thestandards of Aristophanes subsequent account, Eros is not just the god wholoves us the most, he would seem to be the only one who loves us; the other godscare about us, as we will soon learn, only for the sacrifices we give to them.Aristophanes now begins his hilarious account, but we must note exactlyhow he begins, for he does not begin directly with an account of Eros, but withan account of anthropinen physin kai to pathemata autes: human nature and itssu"erings (189d).This will be crucial: the account of Eros given by Aris- 38 plato and the question of beautytophanes will not be an account of an isolated human phenomenon in which weoccasionally indulge (today I fall in love, tomorrow I fall out of it), but anaccount of our very nature as it is now.This is our first clue as to Aristophanesway of recognizing that Eros extends much further than just our love a"airs(though for reasons that we shall soon understand, Aristophanes oH"cially limits it to such personal relations).Indeed, it will hardly be an exaggeration tosay that for Aristophanes, Eros is human nature as it is now (as opposed to our original position ).15So Aristophanes begins his account of Eros/human nature.We should notefirst how akin it is to so many traditional religious accounts, including thebiblical one.First, our original condition was superior to the one we are in now:we were once the hilarious double people with four legs, four arms, twoheads, etc. that Aristophanes describes, and as such we were extraordinarilypowerful (189e 190b).But, second, we had a fatal flaw, an original sin : wewere so hubristic as to try to overthrow the gods (190c).So, consequently,third, we experienced a fall from grace : we had to be punished by the gods,who did so by reducing us to our present, inferior status (190c ".).As a result ofthat, fourth: we must now continue to be pious toward the gods out of fear thatthey will punish us again if we are not (190d).It is remarkable the extent towhich Plato has Aristophanes set out the core convictions of so many religiousstandpoints.However, there are important di"erences as well that make Aristophanesaccount, to say the least, unorthodox even by pagan standards.First, we learnthat we are in fact cosmic creatures progeny of the sun, moon, and earthrespectively, and not of the Olympian gods (190b).Second, the gods themselvesare portrayed as in aporia (190c)! Aristophanes comes close to portraying thegods, no less than us, as comic fools.We are to imagine them scratching theirheads in aporia about what to do with us.Zeus finally comes up with the idea tosplit us, which is almost a disaster, so they have to try a second operation thatfinally makes the situation better (191b c)! Third, the gods do not love us! Theyrefrain from killing us o" only out of self-interest: they want our sacrifices(190d).What they like about Zeus s solution is that, by doubling our number,they will double our sacrifices to them, as well as making us less of a threat.Erosis the only god who loves humans.Zeus s first e"ort is nearly disastrous, as we spend all our time trying to joinwith our original half once we are split.So we were dying o" after all, whichwould not serve the gods purposes.By the second operation which changedthe location of our genitals and enabled us to procreate as we join each otherthe race is saved (191c).But notice: the race is only saved by what we now callheterosexuals.He says of the formerly double men (now homosexuals) that theywill now at least satisfy themselves and stop (191c)! This will be in tensionwith the apparent praise of homosexuality in which Aristophanes will soonindulge.Nevertheless, Aristophanes account of the three sexual orientations as the question of beauty in the symposium 39a result of the splitting of double males, double females, and the androgynousbeings respectively, is remarkable.It represents one of the first accounts thatwhat we now call sexual orientation is by nature. It is, as we now say, genetic. For Aristophanes, our sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice, butthe way we are after our fall from grace.And now, at 191d, we are at last told just what Eros is: It is out of thissituation, then, that the natural love (ho eros emphutos) for each other arose inhuman beings; it collects the halves of our original nature and tries to make asingle thing out of the two parts so as to restore human nature. At 193a this isglossed as: So the desire and pursuit of wholeness is called love. Eros is thedesire to return to our original wholeness out of our present incompleteness.About this remarkable account a number of things must be said.First, we should note the intimacy between Eros and human nature in thisaccount.Eros is in fact a triadic phenomenon.It is, first, our incompleteness:our present ontological condition as incomplete beings.Human beings now areas incomplete; incompleteness is our very being [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.If eros and its intimate connection with thebeautiful is at least in part psychic, and especially if it is decisively psychic, thenscience cannot be the authoritative account of eros.Eryximachus s physicalist position can, in principle, only explain physical beauty; but no one believes thatbeauty is an exclusively physical phenomenon.The question we are left with aswe move to Aristophanes speech, then, is this: in what direction should erosbe expanded, if not simply to the physical? Beauty, as we shall see, will haveeverything to do with the response of the subsequent speakers, but only afterAristophanes speech.After a long history of interpretation where Aristophanes speech was nottaken seriously as a part of the Symposium that contained important teachings,12nearly all interpreters now recognize that very important things are happeningin the comic poet s speech.As with the previous speeches, I shall not hereo"er anything like a comprehensive reading, but concentrate on those aspectsthat will prove germane to our theme as we move further along in the dialogue.It is worth reminding ourselves as we begin that Aristophanes is the famousand quite conservative comic poet who is already in a rather complicated andstrained relationship with the two leading symposiasts, Socrates and Agathon,whom he has roundly and even viciously satirized in his plays.13 It is thereforenot surprising, then, that in contrast to Pausanias and Eryximachus, both ofwhom began their speeches with reference to the previous speech and in ane"ort to correct or complete it, Aristophanes begins by asserting that he has itin mind to speak in a di"erent way than either Pausanias or Eryximachus(189c; he simply ignores Phaedrus).Conservative thinker that he is, he is nodoubt particularly opposed to Pausanias s defense of pederasty and the vul-garity into which it sinks and to Eryximachus s materialist account of eros.14Instead, as he now indicates, he will present a predominantly religious account,which asserts first that if we understood the power of Eros we would build greattemples and altars to him, for he is the most philanthropic of the godsliterally the god who loves human beings the most (189d).As it turns out, by thestandards of Aristophanes subsequent account, Eros is not just the god wholoves us the most, he would seem to be the only one who loves us; the other godscare about us, as we will soon learn, only for the sacrifices we give to them.Aristophanes now begins his hilarious account, but we must note exactlyhow he begins, for he does not begin directly with an account of Eros, but withan account of anthropinen physin kai to pathemata autes: human nature and itssu"erings (189d).This will be crucial: the account of Eros given by Aris- 38 plato and the question of beautytophanes will not be an account of an isolated human phenomenon in which weoccasionally indulge (today I fall in love, tomorrow I fall out of it), but anaccount of our very nature as it is now.This is our first clue as to Aristophanesway of recognizing that Eros extends much further than just our love a"airs(though for reasons that we shall soon understand, Aristophanes oH"cially limits it to such personal relations).Indeed, it will hardly be an exaggeration tosay that for Aristophanes, Eros is human nature as it is now (as opposed to our original position ).15So Aristophanes begins his account of Eros/human nature.We should notefirst how akin it is to so many traditional religious accounts, including thebiblical one.First, our original condition was superior to the one we are in now:we were once the hilarious double people with four legs, four arms, twoheads, etc. that Aristophanes describes, and as such we were extraordinarilypowerful (189e 190b).But, second, we had a fatal flaw, an original sin : wewere so hubristic as to try to overthrow the gods (190c).So, consequently,third, we experienced a fall from grace : we had to be punished by the gods,who did so by reducing us to our present, inferior status (190c ".).As a result ofthat, fourth: we must now continue to be pious toward the gods out of fear thatthey will punish us again if we are not (190d).It is remarkable the extent towhich Plato has Aristophanes set out the core convictions of so many religiousstandpoints.However, there are important di"erences as well that make Aristophanesaccount, to say the least, unorthodox even by pagan standards.First, we learnthat we are in fact cosmic creatures progeny of the sun, moon, and earthrespectively, and not of the Olympian gods (190b).Second, the gods themselvesare portrayed as in aporia (190c)! Aristophanes comes close to portraying thegods, no less than us, as comic fools.We are to imagine them scratching theirheads in aporia about what to do with us.Zeus finally comes up with the idea tosplit us, which is almost a disaster, so they have to try a second operation thatfinally makes the situation better (191b c)! Third, the gods do not love us! Theyrefrain from killing us o" only out of self-interest: they want our sacrifices(190d).What they like about Zeus s solution is that, by doubling our number,they will double our sacrifices to them, as well as making us less of a threat.Erosis the only god who loves humans.Zeus s first e"ort is nearly disastrous, as we spend all our time trying to joinwith our original half once we are split.So we were dying o" after all, whichwould not serve the gods purposes.By the second operation which changedthe location of our genitals and enabled us to procreate as we join each otherthe race is saved (191c).But notice: the race is only saved by what we now callheterosexuals.He says of the formerly double men (now homosexuals) that theywill now at least satisfy themselves and stop (191c)! This will be in tensionwith the apparent praise of homosexuality in which Aristophanes will soonindulge.Nevertheless, Aristophanes account of the three sexual orientations as the question of beauty in the symposium 39a result of the splitting of double males, double females, and the androgynousbeings respectively, is remarkable.It represents one of the first accounts thatwhat we now call sexual orientation is by nature. It is, as we now say, genetic. For Aristophanes, our sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice, butthe way we are after our fall from grace.And now, at 191d, we are at last told just what Eros is: It is out of thissituation, then, that the natural love (ho eros emphutos) for each other arose inhuman beings; it collects the halves of our original nature and tries to make asingle thing out of the two parts so as to restore human nature. At 193a this isglossed as: So the desire and pursuit of wholeness is called love. Eros is thedesire to return to our original wholeness out of our present incompleteness.About this remarkable account a number of things must be said.First, we should note the intimacy between Eros and human nature in thisaccount.Eros is in fact a triadic phenomenon.It is, first, our incompleteness:our present ontological condition as incomplete beings.Human beings now areas incomplete; incompleteness is our very being [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]