Many of us grew up enjoying the myths and legends about Greek gods, mortals, and monsters that have been enjoyed by adults and children around the world for thousands of years. But not many, if any, would remember ever reading about homosexual relationships involving the great deities and brave heroes. In facts, those pieces of information were considered by our moral standards unappropriated and negligible, such that they had to be distorted in some way before the stories reach the public. The Greeks in Plato’s Symposium, however, are loud and proud of their homosexuality. Some argue that same-sex romance is the ideal and most honorable example of love since it guides the lover and the beloved to achieve the highest goods of life – wisdom …show more content…
These relationships, though there were exceptions, were relatively short-lived. They usually ended once the eromenos had crossed the threshold into adulthood, and, as the result, their romantic relationship turned into friendship.
It is not exaggerated to say that male homosexual relationship held a very important position in ancient Greek culture for it had extensive influence on a large part of their social life: in politics, education, history, and mythology. With this in mind, it is no surprise for this practice to be brought up and idealized as the paradigmatic example of Eros in the Symposium. One method the orators use to do this was to subordinate heterosexual relationship and give male homosexual engagement superior and divine qualities. In Pausanias’ speech, he associates male/female romance with the Common Aphrodite’s Love and male/male romance with the Heavenly Aphrodite’s Love (14, 181B-181D). The Love of Common Aphrodite, Pausanias argues, is “vulgar” because it is based on mere impulse and erotic desires (14, 181B). Participants in this kind of love, men who chase after women, are controlled by lust and, therefore, unable to see pass the physical beauty of the body. On the other hand, the Love of Heavenly
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining
The poetry of Sappho, and the speeches in Plato’s Symposium both deal primarily with homoerotic love, although Sappho, one of the only female poets in Ancient Greece, speaks from the female perspective, while Plato’s work focuses on the nature of this love between men. There are several fundamental elements that are common to both perspectives, including similar ideals of youth and beauty, and the idea of desire as integral to both views on love. Despite these similarities, however, there is an important distinction, which can be understood in terms of Pausanias’ concepts of Common versus Celestial Love, where Sappho’s view represents
In Plato’s Symposium, sequential speeches praise the god of Love, but they stray from truth until Diotima’s speech provides a permanent form in which love “neither waxes nor wanes” (Sym. 211A). Through the speeches, love shifts from identifying with the concrete to the abstract, but still ultimately advances goals of present: Phaedrus sees love as helping “men gain virtue,” Aristophanes as only a “promise” to restore humans to their “original nature” and Pausanias and Eryximachus have to use two changing notions of love (Sym. 180B, 193D). In contrast, Diotima relates love as the closest humans can come to immorality, a future goal motivating us to seek completeness and an uninhibited timelessness. She uses this shift to explain love’s
The main argument is about the problem posed for the modern viewer by the eroticized body of the political ruler, which wasn't a problem for the ancient - Mesopotamians; that sexuality was inextricably linked to potency to male vigor and manly vigor to dominance and authority. In other words, Irene Winter's thesis is about sexuality signifying rule in ancient times.
The repeated emphasis on honor, wisdom, and virtue is a recurring theme throughout greek homosexual relationships. The archetypes of the two male partners: the younger lover known as the ‘beloved’ (eromenos) and an older lover (erastes). Cantarella asserts that “love relationships, were also, in fact, intellectual ones that in some ways saw the beloved as the disciple and the lover as the master of life, ethics and civic education” (Cantarella, 8). It will come as no surprise that such relationships were especially prevalent among the upper class and were considered a denotation of wealth and station.
But he also comments say that is supportive but make sure they never get too caught up in their lover’s charms. That being said, most of the speakers at this dinner would be looking at the bright side of the lover, relationship, but with Pausanias, he spoke the truth of what a roller coaster ride the relationship can truly be. To help prove his point after most of the speakers has gone, they receive a much unexpected drunk guest. The guest was Alcibiades, who had somewhat a relationship with Socrates. To explain it short Alcibiades came off as being a mad ex. When Alcibiades starts to speak to Socrates, he explains that there was no peace between them. Then he continued by saying “You can’t imagine what a nuisance my love for this man has become. Ever since the start of our affair. I’ve never been able to look at or talk to anyone attractive without him getting so jealous and resentful that he goes crazy and calls me names.” (Plato, p. 58) At first, this makes it sound as his the roles of the younger and older relationship have switched. Thus making Socrates be the immature and overacting boy that is too young for a relationship. But as Alcibiades continues to speak you see that it isn’t Socrates, that is immature but Alcibiades himself. He has a relationship with Socrates that he can’t live with him or without him.
The view of love presented in Plato’s Symposium is not a very positive one to a modern reader; although some of its eulogies can appeal to various emotions or make sense logically, they fail to present love in a way that is both humane and sends a positive message. While Aristophanes’ eulogy depicts humans as inherently flawed and lacking independence, Socrates’ logic based definition takes away the emotion and humanity from love and leaves readers with an unappealing image of love that leaves little to no room for mystery, curiosity, and pure emotion. One of the most famous eulogies delivered in the Symposium is delivered by Aristophanes in the form of a myth; he states that long ago, people lived in conjoined pairs with two faces, four arms,
In the world of Ancient Greece, a large array of deities were worshipped. Each god had their own forms of identification in which they used to express themselves. This includes things such as personality, style, sexuality, and many other things. One of these forms of expression was gender. The Greeks seemed to focus more on the two typical genders, which are male and female. Some Greek gods seemed to play into certain gender roles, but others portrayed traits of the opposite sex. In this paper, I will be analysing the possibility that the Greeks believed the female and male genders were closely connected and that is why many of the gods are described with blended aspects of gender.
The erotic-educational relationships described in Plato’s Symposium features seemingly strict boundaries and limits for the lover and boyfriend. Contrastingly, Tommy and Hedwig’s relationship in Hedwig and the Angry Inch is more complicated as it is muddled with numerous other factors such as differing genders, sexual dynamics, and identities. The salient similarity between the ancient Athenian sexual relationship and that of Hedwig and Tommy is the brining together of an older, more knowledgeable individual (Hedwig) with a younger pupil (Tommy). Out of the erotic-educational relation birth is possible in two ways: a physical birth of a child or the birth of immortal ideas (Plato, 209c). Tommy and Hedwig arguably produce an ideas together through
Love, in classical Greek literature, is commonly considered as a prominent theme. Love, in present days, always appears in the categories of books, movies or music, etc. Interpreted differently by different people, Love turns into a multi-faceted being.
One type of love that is brought up by many speakers in Plato’s Symposium is that of an older man, around thirty, and a much younger boy, around thirteen. This love is rare in today’s society, but all of the speakers present feel the need to defend this pederasty, proving the increased role that this love played in their society. Although this love was more common during the time of the Symposium, there are similar types of relationships still occurring. Not all of these modern relationships include sex as the old relationships did, but they still have the exchange of virtue and wisdom that the past relationships did. Many of the speakers address the issue of pederasty directly, and others do so indirectly through inferences and conclusions.
The older man will exchange his knowledge and virtue to the younger man for the fulfillment of the older man’s sexual desires. Like Plato, Pausanias believes that the highest maxim in the world to strive for is virtue: “For he too has demonstrated something about himself: that he is the sort of person who will do anything for the sake of virtue—and what could be more honorable that that? It follows, therefore, that giving in to your lover for virtue’s sake is honorable, what ever the outcome.” (185B) Yet, Plato, through Socrates and Diotima, differs from Pausanias in the way in which virtue is obtained. For Pausanias, the relationship between desire and virtue requires favors to be exchanged for both bodily and mindful stimulation. Since virtue is the desired outcome for the young man, he must submit to the authority of the older man by basically any means necessary, namely through sexual favors. Homosexuality appears to be a common beginning for the quest of virtue and philosophy, but by what means necessary to obtain these ends? Plato presents Pausanias’s theory to be only partially correct, as he ultimately extols a love that requires no sexual love. In Pausanias’s theory of love, sexual love is necessary to fulfill the both needs. Plato’s ideal form of love is fully expressed in the concept of Diotima’s ladder.
Plato was a philosopher from Classical Greece and an innovator of dialogue and dialect forms which provide some of the earliest existing analysis ' of political questions from a philosophical perspective. Among some of Plato 's most prevalent works is his dialogue the Symposium, which records the conversation of a dinner party at which Socrates (amongst others) is a guest. Those who talk before Socrates share a tendency to celebrate the instinct of sex and regard love (eros) as a god whose goodness and beauty they compete. However, Socrates sets himself apart from this belief in the fundamental value of sexual love and instead recollects Diotima 's theory of love, suggesting that love is neither beautiful nor good because it is the desire to possess what is beautiful, and that one cannot desire that of which is already possessed. The ultimate/primary objective of love as being related to an absolute form of beauty that is held to be identical to what is good is debated throughout the dialogue, and Diotima expands on this description of love as being a pursuit of beauty (by which one can attain the goal of love) that culminates in an understanding of the form of beauty. The purpose of this paper is to consider the speeches presented (i.e. those of Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, and Agathon) in Plato 's Symposium as separate parts that assist in an accounting of the definition and purpose of platonic love.
The twentieth-century tendency to view human love and sexuality within a dichotomized universe of deviance and normality, genitality and platonic love, is alien to the emotions and attitudes of the nineteenth century and fundamentally distorts the nature of
Again, philia is another level of love and King describes it as “an intimate affection between personal friends, it is types of reciprocal love. On this level you love because you are loved. It is friendship” (King, 400). In another word, Philia doesn’t require the physical attraction and passion that is standard in eros rather depend on standard friendship. Philia love is deeper than eros, but usually non-sexual intimacy between close friends and family members or as a deep bond establishes by soldiers as they fight alongside each other in the battlefield. In fact, philia works on the idea that an individual loves because that individual is loved by someone else. Perhaps, the feeling of love that experiences between soldiers in battle