Free epub Phaedrus Author Plato –

HARRY s apartment from When Harry Met SallyHARRY is asleep on his couch On the table next to him are a mostly empty bottle of bourbon and a copy of PhaedrusEnter SOCRATES SOCRATES Good evening, Harry.HARRY How SOCRATES Don t worry, I m not real This is a dream.HARRY Uh SOCRATES I see you re reading Phaedrus Looking for advice, maybe HARRY I I just can t understand how I could have done it Why did I fuck her I ve ruined everything.SOCRATES You re sure about that HARRY We had such a great thing going We weren t, like, dating, so we could hang out and have fun and talk There wasn t any jealousy or possessiveness or any of that crap It was perfect SOCRATES Because you weren t lovers, you could enjoy each other s company much HARRY Exactly We did so many goofy things You know, there was this one time we were in a diner togetherSOCRATES And what happened HARRY It doesn t matter All over SOCRATES You seem very upset, Harry.HARRY Of course I m upset It was the best relationship I ve ever had And now I ve just flushed it down the can I must have been crazy.SOCRATES Maybe it s not such a bad idea to be crazy sometimes HARRY Oh, puh lease Don t give that mad people are the only sane ones bullshit It s not going to help.SOCRATES Come on, think about it Harry Whenever you ve done anything difficult or creative in your life, weren t you a little crazy People shook their heads But sometimes it worked and you felt really good about it afterwards.HARRY Okay, Socrates, I see where you re going But this time I just screwed up That s all there is to it.SOCRATES And it s particularly true with romance Have you ever made an important romantic decision and not wondered at least once if you weren t doing something totally insane that you d regret later HARRY Well, now you mention it SOCRATES In everyday life, one must of course act sanely But with religion and art and love, a little insanity is essential.HARRY Hm SOCRATES Here, let me give you this picture I sometimes use to help me focus on my own romantic life When I want to imagine my soul, I see it as this guy driving a chariot with two winged horses There s one good horse and one bad horse HARRY You know, you were almost talking sense there for a moment, but now you re losing me again What s My Little Pony got to do with it SOCRATES No, no, Harry This isn t about children s toys, this is serious The good horse is noble and obedient, but the bad one is full of base instincts When it sees the loved one HARRY Say, let me just ask you a direct question What is your romantic life, exactly SOCRATES Well, mostly oral sex with underage boys Some anal But the whole point of the analogy is that I try to keep it under HARRY So I m taking romantic advice from a pedophile SOCRATES Now Harry, you need to remember that we belong to different cultures In my society, what you regard as HARRY I m waking up nowSOCRATES disappears A moment later, HARRY is sitting up on his couch, rubbing his eyes In the background, the sound of scattered fireworks HARRY What theHe looks at his watch, which shows 18 minutes to midnight Suddenly, he grabs his coat and opens the door HARRY I might just be in time If I run. I m making my way though Plato s collected dialogues and there are quite a few of them All the same, I m surprised by how many I ve read before I m going to add some comments about the individual ones as I go through them and maybe something overall on them as a collection once I ve finished.It would be easy to say this dialogue is about love, except that the Phaedrus isn t actually about love alone, but also about the power of rhetoric and why we need to be aware of that power One of the things I ve particularly noticed in this read through of the dialogues is how attracted Socrates is to pretty young men In one of the dialogues he even mentions how tongue tied he starts off being while talking to a particularly beautiful young man And sometimes it is fairly obvious that he is showing off in front of them This presents something of a counter theme to the stated aim of many of these dialogues, that beauty is than just skin deep and that sexual attraction alone isn t to be trusted.I guess in some ways what is being discussed in relation to love is a bit like choosing someone to be your mentor, even if at least part of that relationship is also going to be sexual The dialogue starts with Phaedrus going to tell Socrates of something he had read on the nature of love written by Lysias Now, Socrates stops him, because he can see the speech is basically sticking out of his pocket and so he tells him to read it to him This is interesting given what is said later about the power of memory and the negative aspects of written texts.Lysias speech says that you should enter into a relationship with someone who doesn t love you, since love comes with lots of problems not least of which being jealousy and so you might be better off with someone who just wants to have sex with you as they are likely to have your best interests at heart and will not try to necessarily keep you from mixing with other people A disinterested lover is therefore likely to be a better mentor, whereas a passionate lover might ultimately do you harm.Socrates listens to this and then says that he was so swept along by how involved Phaedrus was in his reading of the speech that it was all a bit contagious Which is interesting for the second theme of this dialogue on rhetoric since it is that kind of contagion that ultimately Socrates is going to want to overcome But he then says he could do a better speech on the same theme, but before starting he covers his head, I think basically out of shame and embarrassment since he is going to be swept along by the muses in what he is saying In a sense this sort of thing sounds like it is Socrates being ironic and even a little sarcastic and I m sure it is that too but I also started to wonder if this wasn t a bit like watching science fiction films while knowing a little of physics You know, like in Star Wars where people zap off at light speed across the universe, but everyone is still in the same time relative to each other If you worry about the physics of the film, you ll ruin your enjoyment of the film but if you don t worry about it, then you have to sort of pretend to remain dumber than you necessarily are The solution being to worry about the physics after you ve enjoyed the film, perhaps Although, as someone who hasn t seen a Star Wars film since the second one which was probably numbered episode 7 or something stupid like that , the other option is, of course, to not bother watching them at all Which I guess is ultimately Socrates point and one I ve basically followed by default.In Socrates first speech he is also arguing that you are better off with a non lover since being in love is a kind of madness and since a lover wants their own pleasure from the object of their love, that is unlikely to involve them worrying too much about what is bests for the young man In fact, it is likely to have pretty bad consequences for the young man, since the lover will be moulding them into something that will best suit their own passions A non lover, on the other hand, is likely to be a guide in the young man s life and so ought to be chosen for those reasons.Except, love is basically a god and so Socrates, in making this speech against love, has just blasphemed the little ghost guy that tells him when he made some sort of blunder tells him this before he can leave, and so he now has to make another speech to make amends And so, this time his focus is on the benefits of love In this Socrates talks of how the particular beauty of the young man acts as a kind of stepping stone towards grasping the truth of the form of the beautiful and this is realised in the movement from the particular the beauty of the boy to the universal beauty per se or from the concrete realisation of beauty in the young boy, to the abstract and therefore true nature of beauty as a form To achieve true love, the lover and the boy need to be swept along by desire so as to be nearly overcome by it, but to ultimately not give into that desire that is, I guess, they show that their desire for knowledge and truth about beauty is stronger than the baser emotions involved in consuming and consummating their physical desire.So, to recap a little Phaedrus reads a speech by Lysias to Socrates, Socrates first tries to improve this speech, by improving upon its rhetorical form, but then has to give another version of the speech to not just fix up its form, but also the problems with its content We then come to a discussion on the nature of rhetoric itself or rather, of writing Socrates sees writing as a problem, and it is important in that context to remember that he, a bit like Jesus, never wrote anything, but spent his life in discussions with people All the same, as I said at the start, it is interesting that he demanded a reading of the first speech, rather than a recollection of it Socrates believed discussion was far superior to writing since if you don t understand something said by someone you are talking to, you can ask them a question and asking questions is certainly Socrates thing But with a book it has the problem of only being able to tell you the same thing over and over again And as I said before, we can too easily get swept along by the beauty of a speech, and miss the fact that perhaps nothing worthwhile is being said I noticed this particularly this week, after the Labor Party here in Australia lost the election an election it had been decided by everyone for years it would be impossible for the ALP to lose Anyway, one of their ex politicians put a video online of him very passionately saying things needed to change He didn t say which things needed to change, how they needed to change, how those changes might make it likely for the ALP to win the next election none of that just that things needed to change He did, however, say this with remarkable force and conviction, so much so that I m quite sure he was terribly, terribly sincere, and his little video has received 16,500 views It is just that, despite the depth of his sincerity, I m not sure I could tell you what he is being sincere about.Of course, the problem with writing isn t just that you can t ask the written text questions well, you can, it s just you can t expect answers Rather, the real problem with written texts for Socrates is the impact they have on memory Writing is often considered to be an aid to memory but for Socrates, it is likely to be the exact opposite Whereas before writing you had to remember by heart things you wanted to take with you , with writing you can always refer back to the text The problem is, that having something in your heart isn t quite the same as having something that you can look up For a long time I tried to learn poetry by heart, and for pretty much the same reason Socrates is saying here I highly recommend it, by the way you can play with poems you know by heart in ways it is harder to play with them if you have to track them down and read over again And that does make a difference You understand poems once you have committed them to memory Part of me thinks that should sound obvious, but another part of me suspects many people might not really believe it.This is one of the classic dialogues perhaps one of the top ten a couple of things I ve read about it talk about how it is one of Plato s homosexual dialogues which is, of course, a bit stupid given that homosexuality as we think of it now wasn t really what the Ancient Greeks understood by the idea of love or even sex between a man and a boy We find it impossible to understand the past other than through the lens of our present prejudices As such, this book is a good curative for that. A Twist in Your TogaAs they say in the classics, I m glad I reviewed The Symposium before Phaedrus the two relate to similar subject matter, it s uncertain in what order they were written However, Phaedrus isn t the toga party that The Symposium was, primarily because there are less participants And everybody knows, the bigger the toga party, the better Well, it has a potential for surprises, though apart from the surprise element, I don t think there s anything intrinsically wrong with a toga party for two Under Plane or Chaste Tree Ironically, my assessment of the number of participants might not be strictly correct It s a tribute to Plato s metafictional structure that, in both cases, only two people are speaking in the present The difference lies in how many people s views they recount in significant detail, too.Here, Socrates and Phaedrus discuss only one other person, Lysias.In effect, Plato sets up a debate between two rival views of Love held by Lysias as read from a book by Phaedrus and Socrates.Unlike The Symposium , this dialogue is conducted outdoors by a stream under the shade of two tall trees one a plane tree, the other a chaste tree It is also a much sober affair Despite all of the flirtation, it swings between plain talking and chasteness.Lover and BelovedPlato s dialogue concerns two options for a male youth or Beloved Lysias tale concerned a fair youth who was being tempted by a Non lover.Lysias advocates that a Beloved should prefer a Non lover , while Socrates advocates a Lover.However, this is not a contrast between a non sexual relationship and a sexual relationship They are both forms of homoerotic sexual relationship The real issue is the extent to which there is a pedagogical or spiritual function in the relationship that would constitute Love or Eros in the Greek sense i.e., the relationship between Lover and Beloved.LysiasLysias advances the case of Non lovers effectively by attacking Lovers 1 Lovers attach pedagogical and spiritual duties to their passion or desire for the Beloved The compulsion of their duties is the cost of their passion As their passion wanes, they count the cost of their passion and they come to resent their Beloved They cannot maintain the fa ade of selflessness once their passion flags 2 The esteem in which Lovers hold their Beloved will suffer when they find an alternative Beloved.3 The Lover s love is madness, and who would be taught by a madman 4 Because the number of Non lovers exceeds the number of Lovers, the Beloved has a greater choice of sexual partner from the pool of Non lovers.5 Lovers limit the Beloved s access to society at large.6 Lovers fall out of love when they discover their Beloved has grown into a lesser adult.7 Lovers praise the Beloved for ulterior motives.Phaedrus is convinced.Socrates First Speech Desire and Reason Socrates believes that Phaedrus has simply been enchanted by the rhetoric of Lysias arguments.He sets out to puncture the enchantment by defining the nature and power of Love.Socrates argues that the above problems result not from the duties of Love, but from Passion or Desire, which is equally found in a Non loverEvery one sees that Love is Desire, and we know also that Non lovers desire the beautiful and good Now in what way is the Lover to be distinguished from the Non lover The difference between the types of Lover depends on the ability to manage or master Desirein every one of us there are two guiding and ruling principles which lead us whither they will one is the natural desire of Pleasure, the other is an acquired opinion which aspires after the Best and these two are sometimes in harmony and then again at war, and sometimes the one, sometimes the other conquers When opinion by the help of Reason leads us to the best, the conquering principle is called Temperance but when Desire, which is devoid of Reason, rules in us and drags us to Pleasure, that power of misrule is called Excess Socrates elaborates on the cause of this imbalancethe irrational desire which overcomes the tendency of opinion towards Right, and is led away to the enjoyment of Beauty, and especially of personal beauty, by the Desires which are her own kindred that supreme Desire, I say, which by leading conquers and by the force of Passion is reinforced, from this very force, receiving a name, is called Love erromenos eros Socrates Second Speech The Madness of Love In the first speech, there is a tendency to regard Love as a form of madness or mania that overcomes Reason.In contrast, in his second speech, he refers to it as inspired madnesslet no one frighten or flutter us by saying that the temperate friend is to be chosen rather than the inspired, but let him further show that Love is not sent by the gods for any good to Lover or Belovedwe, on our part, will prove in answer to him that the madness of Love is the greatest of heaven s blessings Socrates proceeds to recant the views in the first speech and to reinstate Eros, at the very least, side by side with Reason He starts by asserting that the Soul is immortal, because it is forever in motion Because it is self moving, it has no beginning and equally no ending It cannot be destroyed A body which is self moving or moved from within has a Soul The Soul in her totality has the care of inanimate being everywhere He then describes the Soul in terms of a figure of a charioteer with a pair of winged horses The horses of a human charioteer differ from those of a divine charioteer one is noble reason and the other is ignoble passion The pursuit of truth requires both horses to be harnessed If their wings are damaged and they are unable to stay in flight, they fall to the earth and form mortal creatures composed of both Soul and Body.The Soul is sustained by the Divine The Divine is Beauty, Wisdom and Goodnessand by these the wing of the Soul is nourishedthe reason why the Souls exhibit this exceeding eagerness to behold the plain of Truth is that pasturage is to be found there, which is suited to the highest part of the Soul In short, Love is a desire of Beauty, Wisdom and Goodness, and therefore the Divine Love nourishes the Soul, and reunites it with the Divine.Hence, he who loves the beautiful is called a Lover, because he partakes of it, the Divine and its heavenly blessings.So Socrates concludes, great are the heavenly blessings which the friendship of a Lover will confer upon the Beloved Non lovers cannot offer a Beloved these heavenly blessings They work solely within the framework of mortal or earthly Desire.The Ranks of Beauty and of LoveYou could argue that the dialogue is of limited relevance to our contemporary concepts of heterosexual Love, because it operates within the framework of homoeroticism and the pedagogical spiritual world of Greek polytheism However, this is a potentially superficial argument.Firstly, I think that the mechanism of Love is very similar, regardless of the gender of the participants.Secondly, it s easy to imagine how the same concepts could be adapted to Monotheism However, it s also arguable that Beauty might play a similar function within Love, regardless of whether Beauty is associated with Wisdom, Goodness or Divinity Thus, the relationship of Beauty and Love could apply equally in the case of Atheism Remarkably, this latter argument finds some support in Phaedrus itself, partly as a consequence of the polytheism of Greek religion.Socrates believed our views on Beauty depend on the gods we follow Perhaps there is some subjectivity in our choice of god This subjectivity might equally affect our perceptions of Beauty and our LoveEvery one chooses his love from the ranks of beauty according to his character, and this he makes his god, and fashions and adorns as a sort of image which he is to fall down and worship The followers of Zeus desire that their beloved should have a soul like him and therefore they seek out some one of a philosophical and imperial nature, and when they have found him and loved him, they do all they can to confirm such a nature in him, and if they have no experience of such a disposition hitherto, they learn of any one who can teach them, and themselves follow in the same way And they have the less difficulty in finding the nature of their own god in themselves, because they have been compelled to gaze intensely on him their recollection clings to him, and they become possessed of him, and receive from him their character and disposition, so far as man can participate in God The qualities of their god they attribute to the beloved, wherefore they love him all the It s almost as if, because the Lover s sense of Beauty is subjective, there is inevitably an overwhelming desire to both seek it out and project it onto the Beloved of choice.But that s a whole other storyit will be told, only elsewhereVERSE The Form That Love TakesLike Bob Dylan, I veTried love fast and slow,But still sought answersFrom those in the know.So, to enquire,I searched high and low,Trying to fathomLust and desire.I even wondered,Are they part of love Do they connect to Virtue or higher Can t someone tell me Does anyone know How do we fall andCupid deal his blow What makes you realiseIt s love at first sight What is it that smilesIn a lover s eyes Who chooses the shrine Why love one personAnd another scorn What makes love divine What causes these stormsThat so lash my heart Says what s good for meIsn t always so What kind of black coalFuels this mad fire How do you explainWhat controls the soul Could the Greeks be right Are the answers inPhaedrusand orThe SymposiumWhat god s law is itThat true love informs Or is it these god Damned Platonic Forms SOUNDTRACK Frankie Goes to Hollywood The Power of Love Extended Version Goes to Hollywood The Power of Love Official Version All of My Heart From the album The Lexicon of Love The Look of Love From The Lexicon of Love Cave Babe, You Turn Me On Live at the Brixton Academy London, 2004 Cave Nobody s Baby Now these are my many lettersTorn to pieces by her long fingered hands Phaedrusis another Socratic dialogue, but one which actually is a dialogue Socrates runs into his friend Phaedrus, who tells him of a conversation he just had with Lysias, a mutual acquaintance As in theSymposium http review show the topic is love, but here, instead of looking at many different aspects of love, the topic is, initially, who is the better object of a man s love One should keep in mind that one of the positions defended in theSymposiumis the most noble form of love is that of a mature, virtuous man together with a young, inexperienced man, because the latter could learn thereby from the former how to be a man of virtue over, because they could go to war or to the assemblies of solely male citizens together, the fear of shame in front of the loved one would assure that both would fight or otherwise comport themselves bravely and virtuously After walking into the countryside, Socrates and Phaedrus find a secluded spot and Phaedrus recounts Lysias view that, on the contrary, better than a love to such a beloved is a love to a non beloved What the devil did Lysias mean by that I find that when I analyze Lysias argument with the critical exactitude of a mathematician, it doesn t hold together If one doesn t look too carefully, here are some of the main points Strong desire blinds, causing errors and removing one s freedom strong desire wanes, then obligations once willingly accepted are resented if one chooses a lover on the basis of his apparent virtue or potential for virtue , one is too strongly limiting the sample set perhaps it is among the others you would find your truly deserving friend if one has a lover, then everyone will think when they see you with him that you are either coming from or going to a sexual encounter Lysias counters that if you have a relation with a non lover, then when others see you together, they will not have sex in mind if you have a lover, then you are doubly vulnerable to fate, for a blow to the lover is a blow to yourself You get the idea What Lysias proposes as better is, roughly speaking, don t get passionately involved with anyone, just have friends with benefits or, using another colloquialism, fuck buddies Note that the position taken has nothing to do with male male relationships it may be applied to any person person relationship Having read a fair amount of Plato by now, I recognize that this is the set up of the straw man, whom Socrates Plato will now demolish But, first, Plato s sock puppet, I mean, Socrates must go through his Ah, shucks routine and pretend not to be up to the challenge Big sigh After we have been subjected to that charade again, Socrates gets down to it.I m sure you noted in the partial list of Lysias points above that he confused categories and tacitly weighted personal freedom of action and convenience than other factors That might go over well among Ayn Rand s flock, but, in light of Socrates Plato s defense in theSymposiumof the position that the highest form of love is love for the Absolute, Lysias must get ready for a beat down Duly delivered.But, dear reader, this first third of the dialogue is just preamble The reason why Plato wrote this at all is what comes next He distinguishes between the natural desire for pleasure and the acquired desire, mediated by reason, for what is best Ever heard of persuasive definitions Guess which one he thinks is better Both Socrates and Phaedrus think that Socrates has been inspired by the gods here sigh And then for 40 pages he elaborates in great detail on the position already presented in theSymposiumthe highest form of love is divine love of wisdom, of the Absolute All other forms of love are lower and should best be sublimated into the higher form But as transparent as Plato s rhetorical ploys have become to me, I must yet acknowledge that the man writes eloquently, if not always persuasively.Plato makes an interesting digression in his paean to the Absolute in the midst of an analysis of good versus bad speech surprise good speech reveals serves the Absolute , he has Socrates expand upon the usefulness of written knowledge wisdom Although Plato s primary efforts were made in person in his school, he did, after all, write quite a bit What did Plato think about such writings He begins the digression with an Egyptian myth about the god Theuth, who offers written language to the king of upper Egypt, who politely declines, saying that the invention will ruin the memory of his people, for they will rely on the written page instead of internalizing the content Having read such books, instead of being instructed by the wise, they will believe themselves to be knowledgeable, whereas they are actually ignorant Socrates agrees with the king The written word gives only the illusion of life, but it answers to no questions, cannot accommodate itself to different audiences, cannot defend itself against counterargument This all is negatively contrasted with the living speech of the wise employing the dialectical art before his students The only positive quality of writing books he mentions is if the writing is made for one s self, to collect a supply of memories for one s own forgetful old age My translation from the German He adds, rather inconsistently, the clause and for every person who follows the same path to this sentence Once again, one should remember that Plato put these words into the mouths of all participants Of course, I am oversimplifying here, as my next paragraphs already indicate Read in a modern revision of Friedrich Schleiermacher s classic German translation. A Superb Translation That Captures The Rhetorical Brilliance Of The Greek The Translation Is Faithful In The Very Best Sense It Reflects Both The Meaning And The Beauty Of The Greek Text The Footnotes Are Always Helpful, Never Obtrusive A One Page Outline Is Useful Since There Are No Editorial Additions To Mark Major Divisions In The Dialogue An Appendix Containing Fragments Of Early Greek Love Poetry Helps The Reader Appreciate The Rich, And Perhaps Elusive, Meaning Of Eros The Entire Introduction Is Crisply Written, And The Authors Erudition Shines Throughout, Without A Trace Of Pedantry This Is An Excellent Book That Deservedly Should Find Wide Circulation For Many Years To Come Tim Mahoney, University Of Texas At Arlington I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know although if we found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men Delightful rumination on the contrast of rhetoric and philosophy, on the written against the spoken and the madness which is love I read this as grist for a Derrida project which failed to appear on command Other tools require being readied. I am myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalization they help me to speak and to think. This is one of Plato s discursive dialogues, wandering from topic to topic like a real conversation rather than presenting a tight argument As such, it is not exactly satisfying as a presentation of Plato s idealistic philosophy by itself but it makes for a wonderful companion piece to other dialogues, such as the Gorgias or the Symposium The two primary themes of this dialogue are love and rhetoric and they are combined in the criticism of speeches about love The love that Plato embraces is, predictably, Platonic the admiration of the soul rather than the lust of the body As usual, Socrates attacks rhetoric for being the art of twisting and obscuring the truth and as usual, I find his arguments to be rather purposefully na ve Knowing the truth and convincing somebody else of it are two entirely different things and the skillful use of language can very much help with the latter though, of course, it can also be used to deceive Plato of all writers knew the value of rhetoric it is as much for his literary skill as his intellectual merit that he remains so widely read.As a case in point, this dialogue is notable for containing some of Plato s memorable episodes We see Socrates, for once, outside the city, relishing the beauty of the natural scenery, his senses almost drunk with pleasure The madness or divine inspiration of lovers and poets is frequently noted, to be contrasted with the cool rationality of Socrates Plato also gives us the famous metaphor of the soul as a charioteer with two horses, one of the flesh and one of the spirit And the dialogue ends with Socrates denunciation of writing which, again, can only sound playfully disingenuous when written by Plato The dialogue then ends, and Socrates and rhetoric live to fight another day. Spoiler alert This book is not about a philosophy of love as many reviewers seem to believe As every dream has its manifest content a storyline that masks a latent content the suppressed, unconscious emotions that bubble into our semi conscious REM sleep , Socrates discourse on the nature of love thinly masks the true subject of this dialogue bullshit, how to produce it, and how to recognize it For the reader, his dialectical approach gives us a hint about how to resist it.With self deprecating charm true to form Socrates schools beautiful young Phaedrus on his own susceptibility to bullshit, alternately praising Phaedrus s current object of infatuation, the silver tongued rhetor Lysias, and ruthlessly dismantling the rhetorical artifices of Lysias manufacture.This excellent translation by Christopher Rowe is not only accessible to the reader not familiar or terribly comfortable with the Socratic dialogs, but manages, too, to emphasize Socrates sharp wit, good humor, and gentleness of pedagogy Rowe s scholarly introduction provides context and background making clear the significance of this work.It is a testament to Plato an early generation child and devotee of alphabetic literacy that he takes pains to accurately convey to us Socrates belief that writing would sap the intelligence of the Athenian youth, making them both less knowledgeable about the universal precepts of logic, and less inclined to engage in a dialectic with thought externalized and made permanent. Very interesting and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Initial Problem Can a lover be a stable friend P1 The Lover is dis ordered than the non lover.P2 Love is a desire Plato 237 P2a Erromenos Eros is the Supreme Desire.P3 Socrates speaking The non lover has all the advantages in which the lover is deficient.P 1 3 establish that the lover is always unstable He is concerned with pleasing the beloved It seems if he is controlled by desire Eros , then he isn t rational In fact, he is mad.But Socrates raises an interesting question Do we not consider Eros divine the ancient Greek would have said yes If so, he can t be evil If he isn t evil, does that call into question P 1 3 Socrates renews his argument P4 What if madness weren t necessarily an evil 244 Prophecy is a kind of madness, yet no one considers prophets evil not usually Therefore, love might be a madness, but it isn t automatically evil.Here Socrates breaks the narrative and talks about the nature of the soul The soul is immortal, which means it is indestructible and self moving Therefore, the soul can t be evil Therefore, presumably, it s desiring isn t madness In fact, it has to be mad.P4 Souls long for that which is beyond themselves 248.Plato introduces the famous metaphor that the soul is a charioteer.Soul Good Horse forms OR Bad Horse defective Charioteer KnowledgeProblem Truth is in the eternal realm, yet I am in this world of flux How can I know truth How can I know what I don t yet know Desire Eros mediates between what is known and what is unknown As Socrates says, I love, but know not what 255 Thus, knowing is a form of loving As Catherine Pickstock says, Eros is described as a liquid, pouring into the eyes and overflowing into others Pickstock 239 Pickstock suggests that knowledge implies a pre understanding through a desire to know.