The Symposium

By Plato

The perfect books for the true book lover, Penguin's Great Ideas series features twelve more groundbreaking works by some of history's most prodigious thinkers. Each volume is beautifully packaged with a unique type-driven design that highlights the bookmaker's art. Offering great literature in great packages at great prices, this series is ideal for those readers who want to explore and savor the Great Ideas that have shaped our world.

Plato's retelling of the discourses between Socrates and his friends on such subjects as love and desire, truth and illusion, spiritual transcendence and the qualities of a good ruler, profoundly affected the ways in which we view human relationships, society and leadership—and shaped the whole tradition of Western philosophy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Release date: May 30, 2006
• ISBN: 9781101651490

Plato

Plato (428−348 BCE) was a philosopher and mathematician in ancient Greece. A student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle, his Academy was one of the first institutions of higher learning in the Western world. He is widely regarded as the father of modern philosophy. 

Book preview

The Symposium

APOLLODORUS: In fact, I’m well prepared to answer your question. As it happens, the other day I was going to the city from my home in Phalerum, and someone I know spotted me from behind and called me from a distance. He said (with playful urgency):

‘Hey, the man from Phalerum! You! Apollodorus, won’t you wait?’

I stopped and waited.

He said, ‘Apollodorus, I’ve just been looking for you to get the full story of the party at Agathon’s, when Socrates, Alcibiades and the rest were there for dinner: what did they say in their speeches on love? I had a report from someone who got it from Philip’s son, Phoenix; but he said you knew about it too. He wasn’t able to give an exact report. Please give me your account. Socrates is your friend, and no one has a better right to report his conversations than you. But before you do,’ he added, ‘tell me this: were you at this party yourself or not?’

‘It certainly wasn’t an exact report you were given,’ I replied, ‘if you think this party was recent enough for me to be there.’

‘Yes, I did think that,’ he said.

‘How could you think that, Glaucon? Don’t you know that it’s many years since Agathon stopped living in Athens, but it’s not yet three years since I started to spend my time with Socrates and made it my job to find out what he says and does every day? Before then, I used to run around aimlessly. I thought I was doing something important, but really I was in the most pathetic state – just like you now! – thinking that philosophy was the last thing I should be doing.’

‘Don’t make fun of me,’ he said; ‘just tell me when this party took place.’

‘When you and I were still children,’ I said, ‘and Agathon won the prize with his first tragedy. It was the day after he and his chorus held a sacrificial feast to celebrate their victory.’

‘So it really was a long time ago,’ he said. ‘Who gave you your report; was it Socrates himself?’

‘Certainly not!’ I said. ‘It was the same person who told Phoenix, someone called Aristodemus from Cydathenaeum, a little man who always went around barefoot. He was at the party because he was, I think, one of the people most in love with Socrates at that time. But, of course, I checked with Socrates afterwards some of the points he told me, and he confirmed Aristodemus’ account.’

‘Come on,’ he said, ‘why don’t you repeat this to me now? After all, walking on the road to the city gives us a good chance to talk and listen as we go along.’

So as we walked along this is what we talked about, and that’s why, as I said at the start, I’m well prepared. If I need to go through it for you as well, that’s what I must do. In fact, whenever I discuss philosophy or listen to others doing so, I enjoy it enormously, quite apart from thinking it’s doing me good. But when I hear other kinds of discussion, especially the talk of rich businessmen like you, I get bored and feel sorry for you and your friends, because you think you’re doing something important, when you’re not. Perhaps you regard me as a failure, and I think you’re right. But I don’t think you’re a failure, I know you are.

COMPANION: You’re always the same, Apollodorus. You’re always running down yourself and other people. You seem to believe that simply everyone is in a sad state except Socrates, beginning with yourself. How you ever got the nickname of ‘the softy’, I don’t know. In your conversation, you’re always just the same as you are now, savage in your attacks on yourself and everyone – except Socrates.

APOLLODORUS: Well, my dear friend, it’s quite obvious, is it, that if I take this view about myself and you, I’m raving mad?

COMPANION: It’s not worth quarrelling about this now, Apollodorus. Please, just do what I asked you, and tell me how the speeches went.

APOLLODORUS: All right, they went something like this – but it would be better if I try to tell the story from the beginning, just as Aristodemus did.

He said that he met Socrates, who’d just had a bath and put on sandals – things he hardly ever did. He asked Socrates where he was going looking so smart.

Socrates replied, ‘To dinner with Agathon. Yesterday I stayed away from his victory celebrations, avoiding the crowd; but I promised to join him today. That’s why I’ve smartened myself up, so that I can look good when I go to the home of a good-looking man. But what about you?’ he asked. ‘How would you feel about coming to dinner without an invitation?’

‘I’ll do whatever you say,’ Aristodemus replied.

‘Come with me, then,’ Socrates said, ‘so we can prove the proverb wrong, and make it say: "Good men go uninvited to good men’s banquets. Homer, after all, doesn’t just prove the proverb wrong but comes close to treating it with contempt. His Agamemnon is an exceptionally good fighter, while Menelaus is a soft spearman". But when Agamemnon sacrifices and holds a feast, he makes Menelaus, the inferior man, go uninvited to the banquet of a better man.’

Aristodemus replied to this, ‘But I’m afraid that I will also match Homer’s description rather than yours, Socrates, and be the inferior man who goes uninvited to the banquet of a clever one. If you take me along, think about what excuse you’ll give; I won’t admit I’ve come uninvited, I’ll say you’ve invited me.’

‘The two of us going together on our way’, he said, ‘will work out what to say. Come on, then.’

After this conversation, Aristodemus said, they went off. But Socrates fell into his own private thoughts and kept dropping behind as they went along. When Aristodemus stopped too, Socrates told him to go ahead. When Aristodemus reached Agathon’s house, he found the door open, and was caught in a ridiculous situation. One of the household slaves met him right away and took him to the room where the others were lying on their couches; and he found them just about to have dinner. As soon as Agathon saw him, he said, ‘Aristodemus! You’ve come at just the right time to have dinner with us. If you’ve come for any other reason, put it off. I looked for you yesterday to invite you, but couldn’t find you. But what about Socrates – why haven’t you brought him along?’

When he turned round (Aristodemus said), he saw Socrates wasn’t following after all. He explained that Socrates had brought him along, and that he was coming to dinner at Socrates’ invitation.

‘I’m very glad you are,’ Agathon said. ‘But where is he?’

‘He was behind me just now. I can’t think where he must be.’

‘Go and look, slave,’ Agathon said, ‘and bring Socrates here. And you, Aristodemus, share Eryximachus’ couch.’

A slave washed Aristodemus’ hands and feet, so he could lie down. One of the other slaves came and said, ‘Socrates is here; he’s retreated into your neighbour’s porch and is standing there, and won’t come in, although I’ve asked him to.’

‘That’s odd,’ Agathon said. ‘Go on asking him in and don’t leave him alone.’

‘No,’ Aristodemus said; ‘leave him. This is one of his habits. Sometimes he goes off and stands still wherever he happens to be. He’ll come soon, I’m sure. Don’t bother him, leave him alone.’

‘Well, if you think so, that’s what we must do,’ Agathon said. ‘Now, slaves, serve dinner to the rest of us. You generally serve whatever you like, when nobody is supervising you – and I’ve never done that. On this occasion, treat me as your guest for dinner as well as the others, and look after us in a way that will win our compliments.’

So they started having dinner, but Socrates still didn’t come in. Agathon kept on saying they should send for Socrates, but Aristodemus wouldn’t let him. In fact, Socrates came quite soon (he hadn’t taken too long doing what he usually did), when they were about half-way through dinner. Then Agathon, who happened to be lying on his own on the bottom couch, said, ‘Come and lie down beside me, Socrates, so that, by contact with you, I can share the piece of wisdom that came to you in the porch. It’s clear you found what you were looking for and have it now; otherwise you wouldn’t have stopped.’

Socrates sat down and said, ‘How splendid it would be, Agathon, if wisdom was the sort of thing that could flow from the fuller to the emptier of us when we touch each other, like water, which flows through a piece of wool from a fuller cup to an emptier one. If wisdom is really like that, I regard it as a great privilege to share your couch. I expect to be filled up from your rich supply of fine wisdom. My wisdom is surely

[jan_cornelis · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It was kind a like a 2230 year old version of Fromm's 'The Art of Loving'. Won't say much about this one. That has been done enough.

What i liked was that it was well written (or translated). It was also nice to see a lot of the same images of love passing by that we see today.

What I did not like was the obvious sexism. Funny though that the most intelligent speech comes by the mouth of a women (Diotima). Secondly, I did not get why the universal aspect of love was praised. Three, the text did also not show me why the good, happiness, and beauty are 'ideas' that compliment each other, sometimes even equal to each other (as with good = happiness). Forth, the whole text seems as a polemic to praise Socrates, who, himself doesn't say anything with substance...

Read this if you are interested in old Greek society, but do not expect to understand love. For that: hug, listen, read poetry, do what you like or take recreational d....

[robfwalter · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

What stands out to me about this book is how relatable many of the ideas are. I work at a university and although I have never and will never have sex with my students, I do understand how wonderful a mentoring relationship with a younger person can be. There is a kind of romance in showing a student around an intellectual domain in the same way there's a romance in showing someone around a foreign city you're familiar with. You get to see it through their eyes and when they share your delight it feels like quite a deep meeting of hearts. Of course it's a good thing that this is now mediated by professionalism and structures that enable students to get access to this world without making themselves vulnerable to harm, and it's not longer only available from teaching staff - often students share the journey together.

There are many other relatable elements - like the fact that when we experience something of beauty we can't help but think it means something or represents some fundamental good and even just the sense that there must be a rule out there that can tell us how to live. There's relatable elements even in the details, like the stuff at the beginning about how they are absolutely, definitely not going to get drunk tonight because they've been drinking too much lately; they will only drink as much as they feel like. Of course randos turn up and everyone gets pissed and either falls asleep or spends the night talking nonsense.

I read the Cambridge Howatson translation and I found it very enjoyable to read. I read the introduction after the text and found it clarified some of the ideas. There's a bit of the usual nonsense about Gods and so on, but I found that easy to get through. I've always assumed that all ancient philosophy is mostly wrong, but as this was my first time reading an original (translated) work, I was pleased to find that despite being mostly wrong, there was much of value. I felt a real sense of connection to the people who, in one sense or another, are among my intellectual forebears.

[MarcosAndrade · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Of all the stories told at the banquet, the one I liked the most was about the being that had both sexes at the same time, male and female. It was so powerful that it did not need the gods. The jealous gods of this creature decided to split it in half, leaving one half with the male sex and the other half with the female sex. From that moment on, each half is condemned to seek the other half as a longing impulse to become that powerful creature it once was. Male and female at the same time. (Translated from Spanish)

[Ailed Rguez · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Here we find the comments of several men about what love is; personally, I can't say that I connected with most of the ideas, but there were interesting viewpoints. (Translated from Spanish)

[rsairs_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I read this in a different edition, Plato the Complete Works ISBN 0872203492. I use LibraryThing to keep track of what I have read, not which books I own. I read the Symposium and listed it here in 2010. I'm a bit ashamed about how little of it I remembered from that reading. Socrates' speech on love was certainly worth the read and the effort. The lengthy elaborations on adult male to adolescent male mentorship frankly gave me the creeps.

[Díaz Rolando · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The first time I read "The Symposium" was during the winter break; I was in my first year of training as a philosophy teacher, and chatting with my classmates and our professor (Manu), we decided to read it every Saturday night, and that's what we did. The reading became an experience of group dynamics for us, in addition to the long and entertaining debates. There, we formed a group of friends who are still in touch to this day.
The Symposium is, without a doubt, the book that best addresses everything related to love. The greatest proof of this is that, despite its age, it remains relevant as if it were written in the twenty-first century, and on the other hand, it can be discussed, without any problem, outside the circle of those who practice or promote the beautiful "discipline" that philosophy is. (Translated from Spanish)

[souitsbaladi · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Does this count as homoerotic literature? (Translated from Spanish)

[Llargo · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I am surprised and saddened that we were not directly suggested to read the original texts of Plato by those of us who studied it in high school. Perfectly accessible (in terms of language and length). What a marvel to see Socrates completely convince everyone with his reasoning. (Translated from Spanish)

[Kathebet · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The works of Plato are characterized by the dramatic structure of debate among his interlocutors; the dialogues that take place in The Symposium are full of that genius and brilliance that is impossible not to appreciate once immersed in the topic of debate, in this case, love. Using his characters to represent each of the perspectives that people have on love and its purpose in the world, Plato philosophically addresses the most interesting aspects of love and its influence on society. A true work of philosophical art that deserves to be read, recommended as a one-day read. (Translated from Spanish)

[Ceci Damiani ✨ · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The Banquet is one of the most beautiful and important works of Plato. In it, we encounter genuine philosophy, which in this case stems from the reflection on Eros, the God of love, and the homage that is paid or should be paid to him by the different diners. It addresses love and eroticism in a way that oscillates between humor and seriousness...

We start from a dinner (Banquet) where Socrates and other Greek philosophers, drink by drink... contribute their thoughts on what they believe to be the origin of such a feeling that has been dealt with throughout the centuries. What or who is love? It is to desire the good and the beautiful. What is to desire the beautiful? What is beautiful and what is ugly? are worthy philosophical questions even without answers, and what would philosophy be if they were finally found? Surely it would not exist.

I know that classical philosophy can be a bit heavy in many cases, but I can assure you that this is not the case, as it is a very short dialogue (no more than 30 pages) with much reflection applied to many different aspects and primarily filled with a sense of humor and irony, or at least that was my perception. Totally recommended. (Translated from Spanish)

[drbrand-271246 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

[T]he object of love is the permanent possession of goodness for oneself.

As usual, Plato’s arguments in Symposium are profoundly beautiful, strangely compelling, and often absurd. It’s certainly the most entertaining reading experience of his dialogues: drunk speeches, friendly sniping, mock praise, and a lot of talk about how big of a tease Socrates was. Philosophically, there is much to dig into here, but of particular interest to me is the beautiful idea (however implausible) at 211c that there are hierarchal levels to the ways of love: first, one experiences physical attraction to a specific person; then, an appreciation of physical beauty in general; next, the love of the good things people do; fourth, the beauty of intellectual endeavors; finally, one ascends to the appreciation of true beauty in itself. If only it were so!

[Poly González · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The banquet is the most reflective discussion on the nature of love. The greatest philosophers of antiquity sitting side by side, discovering their own virtues against the rhetoric of Socrates. Following the thread of their dispute, one can gradually account for their own experience of love, make conjectures, propose theories, and just when you think you have it figured out... Socrates enters the scene to dismantle every argument, a man whose ability is to convince you that you are not convinced. Is there love in beauty, in what is good, in wisdom, in Venus? Well, only if you seek in the essence of your preconception will you discover what love is! I felt part of the banquet, I argued with Socrates, I loved his rhetoric, I will be a slave to his wisdom. (Translated from Spanish)

[amorporloslibrosok · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Written around 385–370 B.C., various philosophers discuss the different concepts they have about love.

Among them are Socrates, Aristophanes, Eryximachus, Apollodorus, and others who, in the manner of conversation, as was customary at that time in history, talk about their different perceptions of love.

The various shared views on this feeling make it a completely hopeful and beautiful book!

I really liked how the different positions intertwine in the conversation, how the characters are portrayed and interact, each contributing something of themselves and creating a much larger and deeper idea of what love is! I believe that by playing with these elements, a beautiful and pleasant atmosphere is created!

For some readers, these types of works may become boring or heavy, but I think it is worth getting carried away by the reading and enjoying it because as one reads, it becomes clear that it is different from the other works by this author!

It is simply a beautiful read from every angle, and I recommend taking some time to read it because it is a masterpiece!

Remember that if you liked the review, you should click the big heart on the side, and if in doubt, click the like button on both hearts! Thank you! (Translated from Spanish)

[sumisbooks · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A wonderful book...
A symposium, I have come to learn, is actually a gathering of guests with the intent on dining and drinking together. This book takes place during that symposium where a few members of higher society gather together and each take turns giving speeches on the subject of love.
I am reading the Oxford World's Classics edition of this book and like the introduction to this book proposes I suggest that you sit and read this book in its entirety in one sitting. It's not very long. It's about 70 pages. But in reading it in one sitting you are really able to grasp the speeches and their differences and similarities.
You know that story that you have probably heard in a movie or have heard somebody recant to you where humans actually started off as one single sex and how we were split down the middle and now are forever seeking our other half to become whole again? Well that story actually originated from this book. And what makes the story so profound and impactful is that it is told with utter sincerity from the comedian of the group. It is a very beautiful story.
The other speeches that we get in this book are extremely insightful and indeed make you look at and even question things regarding love and it's different aspects.
You are able to see through these five speeches the immense power that love has over us all and the miraculous wonders that it can achieve. I like what Socrates says toward the end of the symposium, "It's (why) today, and everyday, I do all I can to praise Love's power and courage."
This book is an absolute classic of Western literature and I highly recommend it to everyone!

[gonzurdon · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I liked it; the most interesting part, in my opinion, was that description of the daily life of the Greeks, at least of those few who were not second-class citizens. The odes to Eros before what Socrates recounts were the least appealing part of the book. The descriptions of the philosopher's personality, what I liked the most were the doubts. (Translated from Spanish)

[Profrtello · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The entire wisdom of Socrates is manifested in this dialogue by Plato. A work of unquestionable historical, philosophical, and anthropological value, as it delicately and profoundly describes the thoughts of philosophers, orators, and Socrates himself on that matter of everlasting importance: love. This work condenses a rigorous, rational, and very well-told exposition on the nature, purposes, objects, and types of love. A dialogue that enchants with its reasoning, logical rigor, and beautiful words. All of Plato, all of Socrates, in a dialogue that should not be missing from our cultural heritage. Highly recommended. (Translated from Spanish)

[jonfaith · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

And Agathon said, It is probable, Socrates, that I knew nothing of what I had said.
And yet spoke you beautifully, Agathon, he said.

Back in the late 1990s a cowpunk band named The Meat Purveyors had a song, Why Does There Have To Be A Morning After? It detailed stumbling around in the cruel light of day, sipping on backwash beer from the night before and attempting to reconstruct what at best remains a blur.

The event depicted here is a hungover quest for certainty. The old hands in Athens have been tippling. Socrates is invited to the day after buffet. The Symposium attempts to explore the Praise for Love which occupies such a crucial yet chaotic corner of our earthly ways. There is ceremonial hemming-and-hawing about the sublime and then Socrates steps into the fray. All is vanity, Love is a bastard child of Poverty: the attempts at the Ininite and Eternal only reflect poorly on our scrawny and fleeting tenure.

[sashame-485567 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Delightful and entertaining, a good inspiration for your own party, but also fuck Plato.

[antao-3 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

(Original Review, 2003-03-02)




The problem for me is that philosophy is surely about ideas which are themselves constructed out of language. Dinosaurs, or evidence for them in the fossil record, are not linguistic constructs - but philosophical ideas would seem to be.

I don't mean that ideas themselves are entirely linguistic. I can have ideas that involve non-linguistic elements - for example I can mention a landscape that I could never fully describe in all its visual richness - and which there would not be words to sufficiently describe even if I had an eternity to do so (though that is arguable come to think of it, as assemblages of pixels can describe extraordinarily rich visual scenes - sorry bit of a side track).

I don't even mean that philosophical concepts have to be made of language. It may well be possible to conceptualise ideas beyond the constraints of language and, as it happens, I think we can do that. The problem is, of course, that once you try to communicate any such ideas to anyone else you have to reduce them down to linguistic constructs (or perhaps logical constructs but I would say that logic and maths are languages too, albeit, like French, not languages that I am at all fluent in).

It goes back to things like your "moral facts" which intrigue me but, so far, I am just not convinced of it. Dinosaur fossils sure - facts. You can poke them with a stick, measure them and compare them to other fossils etc. Moral facts, they don't seem to be solid enough to have convinced Plato of the wrongness of slavery.

I find this sort of reasoning from "moral facts" problematic. It comes down to how Plato and Aristotle might have defined an "inferior person". For much of human history, and certainly for Plato's contemporaries, "inferior" might simply mean "from a tribe that was defeated in battle". Military success thus defines superiority. What fact could be used to show that this view is false?

[mavaddat-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Foundational to the mythos and language of Islamic mysticism (especially Rumi's Sufism). Philosophy as poetry as dialogue.

[lord_boris-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Some guys get together over a few drinks and discuss the nature of love.

[jen6e6moore · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The introduction in this one goes completely off the rails when it starts getting into homoromantic relationships, which is simultaneously hilarious and offputting. Fully a third of the introduction is dedicated to explaining that Plato didn't *really* mean that men loved each other like that, and if he did that doesn't mean it really happened like that, and if it did that doesn't mean that the Greeks were not good, manly men. (Never mind that Plato makes a point of arguing with Aeschylus over whether Achilles was a top or a bottom.)

A treatise on the nature and purposes of love; not my favorite subject, to be sure, but still interesting enough. I like the structure of several people talking around the point and one tying it all together; this seems like the most useful way to address such a massive and amorphous subject. I do quite like the conceit of Love as the messenger and mediator between gods and mortals. If you believe the prudish introduction, the rest of it is mostly leading toward the Platonic ideal of beauty, with a perverted comic bit tacked on the end, but I'm inclined not to believe the introduction, and to consider the comic bit something of an illustration of Socrates's earlier points, which is rather neatly done.

[poquette_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It is not easy to review Plato when I have no claim whatsoever to being schooled in philosophy, so I will speak in generalities and leave the analysis to others.

First let me once again sing the praises of Robin Waterfield whose guidance through Plato's Republic and Gorgias I would term essential. While other editions of these three dialogues were at hand, Waterfield's stands head and shoulders above the others, for he has a gift for making the dialogues and the characters in them come alive so that the whole experience is more like reading a novel than a work of philosophy.

According to Benjamin Jowett, "Of all the works of Plato the Symposium is the most perfect in form, and may be truly thought to contain more than any commentator has ever dreamed of; or . . . more than the author himself knew." This may seem a bit overblown, but there is certainly more than meets the eye of the uninitiated reader if Waterfield's introduction and notes are any indication.

Symposium is quite literally a third-hand account of a banquet that was given by the tragedian Agathon to celebrate the festival prize won by his play the night before. (All of Agathon's work has been lost.) There were many people attending this party, seven of whom delivered after-dinner speeches on the subject of "Love." Love in this dialogue is both treated philosophically and personified as a god. Three of the speakers are well known to us: Socrates of course, comic playwright Aristophanes and the political leader Alcibiades. The host Agathon also spoke, along with Phaedrus, Pausanias and Euryximachus. Probably more apparent in Greek than in English translation, these speeches were noteworthy because each reflected a different literary or rhetorical style and each approached the subject of Love from a different angle.

After all the speeches were given honoring Love in one way or another, and in which Love was recognized as being both attractive and good, the real philosophizing began. Love and philosophy became more or less identified with each other. And jumping straight to the bottom line, after posing the question, "What do humans gain from Love?" the conclusion was that the object of Love is the permanent possession of goodness for oneself.

In the course of all this speechifying and philosophizing, both directly and through Waterfield's contributions one learns a great deal about each of the participants and their relationships with each other and to Athenian society. All in all it is quite an interesting look at the ancient Greek mind at work.

[lukerik-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A lively, clear and readable translation with notes and an introduction that are more than just by the numbers. Gill's particularly good at explaining the linguistic and broader cultural differences that can impair your understanding. There are also good references for readers who want to explore the deeper philosophical implications of the dialogue. I wholeheartedly recommend this edition for the lay reader, who, like me, is on their first or second reading.

[kcshankd · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Beautiful Folio Society edition. More interesting to me as a testament to Greek leisure culture than philosophy, and always with slaves present around the edges.

[waelrammo · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This one is soooo much fun.

[benedict8-2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

So Plato, the pillar of philosophy in Western Civilization, is an enthusiastic pederast, a lover of boys. Nothing subtle here.

[audacity88_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The arguments are interesting and important; the drama is hilarious.

[nielsengw_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Plato’s Symposium is essentially a love story. The general outline is that a group of Greek thinkers are gathered together to a symposium by the poet Agathon to celebrate his recent victory in a dramatic competition. Phaedrus (an aristocrat), Pausanius (some sort of lawyer), Eryximachus (a doctor), Aristophanes (a comedian), Agathon, Socrates, and Alcibiades (a statesman) then take turns discussing the nature and types of love. They each offer valid perspectives on the topic while trying to surpass each other in the quality of their rhetoric (and trying to ward off a hangover from the previous night’s drinking). Socrates gets the upper hand quickly by undermining—piece-by-piece—each of their arguments about the nature of Love.

Along with each of the speeches we get small insights into how gatherings were conducted in ancient Greece, and how different members of the social fabric interacted (it’s also nice to see that the methods for curing hiccups hasn’t changed in the last 3,000 years). Plato, being a student of Socrates, gives him a better part in the exchange than the others there, but I’m not sure I would want to attend a gathering with the man. The way he employs his Socratic dialogue easily paints him as being “that guy.” Nobody wants to be “that guy.” As far as the writing, Benjamin Jowett’s (1817-1893) translation of Plato’s treatise was published in the late 19th century and still holds up rather well. It’s only flowery in the intro (which takes up a third of this book), but then settles down when you get to the good stuff. All in all, not bad but not riveting either.

[jonalb-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

When I was a young man, I and my friends certainly had some strange conversations, possibly aided by some substances of questionable legality in certain countries, but we never quite managed to attain the heights of strangeness reached at this banquet/drinking party(*) held in 416 BCE when Socrates was approximately 53 years old, once again the principal figure in this "dialogue" written by Plato between 12 and 15 years after Socrates' death by poisoning in 399 BCE. Plato was 11 years old when the banquet took place, so, as in Crito and Phaedo , all the speeches are Plato's invention, though he may well have listened to stories about the banquet from participants. The general topic of the speeches: love in all of its forms.

Each of the participants in the banquet is, in turn, to deliver a speech about Love. And deliver they do...

Eryximachus, first up to bat, laments that so little poetry has been dedicated to the topic of Love. Phaedrus, in honorable Greek tradition, reaches into the past and recalls what Hesiod and Parmenides, among others, had to say. Love is the eldest and most beneficent of the gods. Then he launches into an explanation why the love between men fosters and supports honor and virtuous behavior. (A common theme at this banquet, which makes me wonder why the Christians permitted this text to survive. Thank goodness the Christian crusade against "sodomy" is ebbing into impotence.) Phaedrus unfavorably contrasts Orpheus' love for his wife with Achilles' love for Patroclus (and can't resist asserting that Achilles was the bottom, not Patroclus, because he was the fairer, beardless and younger; he doesn't use "bottom", but in the Greco-Roman world, those are the attributes of the "passive" partner in a homosexual relationship - I've heard some conversations like this at drunken parties, but Achilles usually wasn't the subject of the gossip).

Pausanias then holds forth on the distinction between noble Love, expressed for youths who are "beginning to grow their beards", and common Love, whose object is women and boys. (At this point I'd be wondering if somebody had slipped something into the wine. But I'd be listening closely.) He gives a lengthy and closely reasoned moral argument in favor of this. I wonder how it would go over in the House of Representatives?

Eryximachus, in a return engagement, is a physician and reinterprets Pausanias' moral distinctions in terms of the concepts of "healthy" and "diseased". In a process of what appears to be free association (was Plato smirking while he was writing this?), the good doctor throws in music, agriculture, astronomy, divination (OK, pass the blunt over here again), ... .

Finally, he turns the floor over to the playwright Aristophanes, who clearly had brought his private stash to the party. For he commences to explain that originally mankind had three sexes. Moreover, primeval man was round, had four hands and feet, two faces on one head, etc. etc. In his LSD dream, this primeval man was so powerful that Zeus was envious and smote primeval man in twain. With some cosmetic work by Apollo, which is described in fascinating detail, and after a few false starts, voilà , mankind as we know it. Which explains, of course, why we are always looking for our other half. Instead of being helped away to a sanatorium, Aristophanes goes on to explain how the original three sexes of primeval man fit into the picture. Enjoy! I know I did.

After this gobsmackingly strange speech (which would have had me trying to figure out where he hid his stash), the boys engage in some good natured banter, and then Agathon takes the floor. He makes a bad start, and then it goes downhill from there. Let's just say that Love had better not drop the soap in the shower when Agathon is around. (I know Plato was laughing up his sleeve on this one.)

Now it is The Man's turn - Socrates steps to the plate. He goes into his usual "Ah, shucks" routine and then starts asking Agathon questions. Please see my review of Plato's Phaedo to see how that goes. After Agathon agrees with everything Socrates says, Socrates launches into a long story, the upshot of which is: the only true love is Love of the Absolute! (This sounds more like Plato than Socrates, but no surprise there.)

Upon which Alcibiades comes staggering into the room. After a brief argument with Socrates about which of the two has the greater hots for the other, Alcibiades stumbles up to the plate. He sings the praises of Socrates' virtue, nobility, fortitude and pedagogy. This speech, if authentic, is one of the most detailed glimpses into Socrates' life we have and is fascinating.

As literature, Plato really surpassed himself in this dialogue - even the weakest speeches (from the point of view of content and wit) were most savorously eloquent. And all were entertaining, each in a very distinct way. While I personally find Plato's physics, metaphysics and epistemology to be absurd and his politics to be frightening, the man could turn a phrase and draw a convincing characterization through speech. While I am completely unconvinced by claims that the Symposium can be viewed as a novel, one can, nonetheless, read it with great pleasure as a purely literary product.

By the way, is any of that wine left?


(Re-read in Benjamin Jowett's translation.)


(*) A possibly amusing sidenote: The participants take a vote and decide "that drinking is to be voluntary, and that there is to be no compulsion" (they decided this only because so many of them were hung over from the previous evening!). One pauses at the idea that some of the brightest lights of Western culture comported themselves in their middle age like frat boys on a Saturday night... One of Socrates' many reported virtues was he could drink everybody else under the table and walk away into the dawn perfectly sober.