O banquete

De Platão

O banquete relata a reunião de amigos da qual participaram Sócrates, Aristófanes e outros atenienses eminentes, em que se lançou uma competição para ver quem fazia a melhor definição de eros (o amor, mas também o belo) – um dos mais importantes conceitos da cultura antiga. Neste que é um dos principais diálogos de Platão, debatem-se noções de amizade, de decência, e também sobre o próprio ato de raciocinar. Não é bilíngue.

• Idioma: Português
• Editora: L&PM Pocket
• Data de lançamento: 3 de ago. de 2009
• ISBN: 9788525435033

Pré-visualização do livro

Sumário

Na caverna – Donaldo Schüler | 7

O banquete

| 20

O banquete | 21

Anexos – Donaldo Schüler

Convivas do Banquete | 145

A caverna: sair ou permanecer? | 168

Sobre o tradutor | 173

Na caverna

Donaldo Schüler

A reprodução do que ocorreu é imperfeita por dois motivos: transmissão indireta e memória. É o que diz Apolo­doro, o narrador. A tradição oral seletiva, lacu­nosa nos auto­riza a entrar no Banquete como locutores, banquete de palavras, de ideias, ideias e palavras lentamente absorvidas. De outra forma estaríamos sujeitos a uma embriaguez intolerável, arrasadora. Deixemos para amanhã o que não é possível assimilar hoje. O prazer está nos buracos, nas falhas. A fidelidade a Platão não nos preocupa. Em literatura e filosofia, a fidelidade é desastrosa por nos condenar a um servilismo estéril. De resto, como ser fiel a Platão se nem ele é fiel a si mesmo? Cada diálogo é diferente dos outros, o que condiz com o pensamento criativo. Em lugar de tentar repetir Platão, tentemos pensar a partir de Platão. Não há fidelidade maior a um inventor de pensamentos do que pensar com ele. As omissões do texto propiciam emissões nossas.

Filosofia é a arte de produzir conceitos? A filo­sofia produz mais do que conceitos. Produz vocabulário, método, gênero literário. Os gêneros não se constituem com tanta clareza. Haja vista o Banquete, um dos docu­mentos centrais da literatura ocidental. Relemos o Banquete para saber como foi construído, para compreen­der-lhe a engrenagem, para avaliar a importância das peças que o compõem.

Quem apresenta o tema é Erixímaco, é ele que determina a sequência dos discursos. O nome deriva de éryxis ou éreuxis (arroto, vômito) e makhe (combate). Eryxímakhos é aquele que combate arrotos, um arrototerapeuta. É este o nome que Platão atribui ironicamente ao médico. Eréugomai, o verbo de que deriva éryxis, tem um domínio mais amplo, significa rugir, mugir, além de vomitar, regurgitar, arrotar. A embriaguez pode degradar a linguagem a sons produzidos por animais. Sem o devido cuidado, o discurso degenera em arroto, em rugido, em mugido. O terapeuta intervém para assistir convivas inteligentes na preservação da linguagem e da dignidade humana. Platão entende que a filosofia deve contribuir para salvar a linguagem, a cidade, o homem. A Lacan interessa o que o médico queria evitar: o arroto, o soluço, a falha. Lacan, o analista, abre buracos, mina o fundamento, desconstrói para reconstruir em outras bases. A construção de Platão nos convoca antes da reconstrução de Lacan.

A Erixímaco espanta que o encômio distinga coisas corriqueiras como o sal. O corriqueiro costuma fugir de nossas reflexões. Eros teria se perdido entre ninharias? Ainda que seja assim, a filosofia não bane banalidades. Eros instalou-se na poesia, mas Erixímaco pede um tratado em prosa (syngraphein). Só assim Eros poderá ser objeto de exame. Na prosa, a procura prospe­ra. Na poesia, com seu jogo de encan­tos, não. A proposta de destacar Eros tem como resultado o esboço de vários sistemas. Que Agaton, o homenageado, recaia na rigidez da retórica acadêmica! Enfrenta-o Sócrates para desenvolver uma prosa ágil, inventiva, poética.

A sala do banquete fecha-se à maneira duma caverna. Os convivas distribuem-se como sombras. A caverna foi o útero terrestre na Teogonia hesiódica, o lugar em que se acomo­davam no conforto das trevas seres teme­rosos de enfrentar os embates da vida. Por dez anos uma caverna abrigou Zaratustra à espera de iluminação. O inventor do Banquete percebe a caverna. Sair seria ultrapassar o não saber, fronteira infranqueável. O valor da filosofia está no exercício.

Atenas é o lugar da caverna. É aí que se reflete sobre a sorte da cidade. Há uma peste, mais grave do que a que dizimou o exército grego diante de Troia, mais grave do que a que levou Péricles. Grave como a que ameaçou Tebas no gover­no de Édipo. Propósito de Platão: salvar Atenas como político, como filósofo, como poeta. Por que salvar Atenas? A cidade erguera-se como centro da intelectualidade he­lênica. No naufrá­gio de Atenas soçobraria a cultura. Essa era a tragé­dia que a vida mostrava a Platão. Combate, assim, políticos, filósofos e poetas, responsáveis pela ruína. A causa do descalabro, da peste? Esse é o objeto da investigação. Será a falta de justiça, assunto longamente discutido na República? Discutível é a eficácia das reformas pro­postas. Platão é prático. Enquanto a República é projeto, importa operar com o que existe: sofistas, políticos, poe­tas. Urgem medidas. Platão não tinha expulsado só os poetas, mas também Eros, criação de poetas.

No Banquete, Platão define a vontade de procriar como desejo de imortalidade. Eros vincula-se à dialética e à história. O discurso dos sofistas é estático, morto. Não cria nem produz, está fora da história. O discurso vivo é o que produz e se repro­duz. Reproduz-se criando outros discursos. Surge o discursar sem fim. O enunciado fecundo gera outros enunciados. O cami­nho à episteme é dialético. A dialética de Platão é erótica, o prazer não está excluído de seus processos de investigação. Os que procriam para sobreviver adiam a morte. Platão desloca a criação, da carne para o discurso. O discurso erotizado cria não a filosofia austera, mas a filosofia apaixonada.

Na época de Agaton, o teatro já não tem a força de outras épocas. Não se apregoe saudosismo. A cidade sem fronteiras se esboça. O teatro novo, atento a bana­lidades, não sabe responder às exigências dos novos tempos. Dois autores teatrais, convertidos em atores, compareceram ao banquete, provocado pela festa de um deles, Agaton. O teatro é ponte para se chegar à verdade ou é barreira? Essa é a pergunta de Platão. Modelo lhe é Édipo Rei. Contestando a cultura em que se formou, o filósofo comporta-se como parricida. Sem pai, confronta-nos com enigmas desde a Apologia. O que as palavras querem dizer? A ação teatral incita os interlocu­tores, leva-os a falar. Tanto em Édipo Rei quanto no Banquete, a verdade é a meta.

Aos olhos dos sofistas, discurso é corpo. Não barra, entretanto, o corpo acesso ao que fica além do corpo verbal. Essa é a tese de Platão. O tecido verbal da tragé­dia distancia. O falar cotidiano da comédia aproxima. Na teatralização, Platão mistura tragédia, comédia e a conversa indagativa praticada na praça. Tempo e espaço atuam transfigurados. Sem compromisso de fidelidade histórica, o diálogo inventa personagens. Nasce o herói das ideias. Sócrates chama-se o aventureiro que afronta barreiras. Pobre e cômico, expressa-se em linguagem comum. As ideias não concorrem citadas. Desenvolvem-se à vista do leitor. Sócrates, personagem silen­cioso até a conclusão, é um ausente presente como Aquiles.

O Banquete de Platão vem de linhagem antiquís­sima. Esplende na Ilíada o banquete oferecido por Aquiles à embai­xada que lhe enviara Agamênon. O resultado não foi o esperado. Mas a embaixada vale pela qualidade dos discursos: argumentos cuidadosamente elaborados, percepção de intenções veladas, eclosão de ressentimentos, lembrança de experiências antigas, reve­lação de caracteres... Homero conhece a sutileza de discursos que agregam e desagregam. O banquete não vale pela importância política ou social, não vale pelas iguarias oferecidas, vale pelos discursos proferidos.

Durante o banquete de Alcínoo, em Ogígia, a ilha dos feácios, a voz de Ulisses encanta os convivas. A pala­vra mágica do narrador dá carne e osso a gigantes, ninfas, sereias e sombras do Hades. A verdade está no ritmo, nas imagens, na articulação dos episódios, arquitetados na Odisseia. O estrangeiro domina com a força da poesia no calor do ócio.

O discurso no banquete de Hesíodo está subordinado às Musas. A verdade é doada. A origem das leis é Zeus matrimoniado com Têmis, a justiça. Falantes são homens, poetas e reis, tocados pelas Musas. Os demais não fazem mais do que aplaudir. Perdida a linguagem dos deuses (Crátilo), Platão entrega o discurso à responsabilidade de quem o profere. O filósofo vive na orfandade. Desamparado da Memória (Mnemo­syne), Platão inventa anámnesis (reminiscência) – a busca, em lugar da doação.

Sócrates, no final do diálogo Fedro, conta a história de Teuth, inventor das artes e da escrita. Teuth rogou uma audiên­cia com o rei para mostrar seus inventos. Com res­peito à escrita, o inventor afirmou que essa descoberta tornaria os egípcios mais instruídos por amparar a memória e o saber. O rei expressou opinião contrária, sustentando que a escrita causaria esquecimento. Iniciadas na escrita, as pes­soas passariam a confiar em caracteres exteriores com prejuízo à reminiscência, exercício interior. Na opinião do rei, Teuth estaria oferecendo a seus discípulos, em lugar da verdade, uma aparência do saber. A escrita tornaria os homens eruditos e não sábios de fato.

Mnemosyne ou anámnesis? Mnemosyne, casada com Zeus e mãe das Musas, deve ser removida porque petrifica. A poesia memorizada é dom. Em lugar da entre­ga, o trabalho, a anámnesis, a memória criativa. Os dotados de anámnesis reinventam a poesia. Nas veredas de anámnesis, Eros devém.

E logos (discurso)? O discurso, mesmo escrito, deverá preservar a espontaneidade criativa da oralidade. Encaminhando ao desejo de desvendar os segredos da verdade, Platão erotiza o discurso. Precedido por Górgias, Platão não foi o primeiro erotizador consciente do discurso. Mas o Eros teorizado por Górgias agigan­tou-se escravizador. O Eros de Platão li­berta. O erotismo discursivo de Platão acontece na travessia dialética do corpo verbal. Paródico na construção dos discursos, Platão se alista na marcha da discursividade inventiva.

Platão tem motivos para construir sobre Hesíodo as análises feitas no Banquete, diálogo em que as muitas faces de Eros são cuidadosamente examinadas. Ao prolongar a excur­são pelos textos, Eros é submetido a corajosas modificações. Em lugar da exposição oral, Platão escolhe a escrita. Há escrita para decorar e escrita

Avaliações de O banquete

[jonfaith · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[alexanme-1 · Nota: 2 de 5 estrelas]

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

[mavaddat-1 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

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

[selfcallednowhere · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

Entertaining and thought-provoking, although it did get a little confusing toward the end.

[lord_boris-1 · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

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

[jen6e6moore · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[marq_7 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

I was unprepared for how funny this book is. A group of friends extremely hung over from the previous night's partying decide that tonight, instead of going all out to get drunk again, they would send away the flute girl, drink in moderation and each would make a speech on the topic of love. Socrates makes the most profound speech but no sooner has be finished when the party is crashed by another band of drunken revellers and the extremely inebriated Alcibiades joins the party. Requested to add his speech on love, he claims unfairness on account of his state and instead of making a speech in praise of love, he speaks in praise of Socrates.

[jonalb-1 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[blake.rosser · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

Starts out slow, with mostly irrelevant speeches on the nature of Love. The first half or so is remarkable just for the interesting description it gives of Ancient Greek homosexual practices. It gets much more interesting once Socrates takes the floor, immediately ripping the false rhetoric of the hypocritical sophists in favor of Truth. His theory of love is interesting but is not at all what we think of as romantic love. . . it is more like love of truth/beauty/god and culminates in a mystical nirvana-like experience for the true lovers. The most interesting part of the dialogue comes at the very end, when the drunken Alcibiades crashes the party and gives a speech on Socrates, which is far more revealing of Socrates the Man than any other Platonic dialogue I've ever read. Regardless of what you think of this dialogue overall, I think it´s worth the read just for the last few pages of historical description. And regardless of how you feel about Plato perverting Socrates' teachings for his own political purposes, the Symposium proves that he truly admired his mentor as possibly the greatest man who had ever lived.

[audacity88_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

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

[nielsengw_1 · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[p_s_patrick · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

Symposium treats us to various philosophies of Love, which are put forward after a dinner party. The final and authoritative speach on the subject is given by Socrates. Plato manages to fit a bit of humor and discreet mockery in too, which makes it all the more entertaining. Translation by Hamilton.

[loma_2 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

Greek text with excellent and engaging english translation on facing pages accompanied by amusing engravings

[antao-3 · Nota: 2 de 5 estrelas]

(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?

[richardderus · Nota: 2 de 5 estrelas]

Rating: 2* of five, all for Aristophanes's way trippy remix of GenesisWhile perusing a review of [Death in Venice] (dreadful tale, yet another fag-must-die-rather-than-love piece of normative propaganda) written by my GoodReads good friend Stephen, he expressed a desire to read The Symposium before he eventually re-reads this crapulous homophobic maundering deathless work of art. As I have read The Symposium with less than stellar results, I warned him off. Well, see below for what happened next.Stephen wrote: "Damn...can you do a quick cliff notes summary or maybe a video lecture? I would much rather take advantage of your previous suffering than have to duplicate it."THE SYMPOSIUMSo this boring poet dude wins some big-ass prize and has a few buds over for a binge. They're all lying around together on couches, which is as promising a start to a story as I can think of, when the boys decide to stay sober (boo!) and debate the Nature of Luuuv.Phaedrus (subject of a previous Socratic dialogue by Plato) gives a nice little speech, dry as a popcorn fart, about how Love is the oldest of the gods and Achilles was younger than Patroclus, and Alcestis died of love for her husband, and some other stuff I don't remember because I was drifting off, so got up to see if I would stay awake better on the patio. It was a little nippy that day.So next up is the lawyer. I know, right? Ask a lawyer to talk about love! Like asking a priest to talk about honor, or a politician to talk about common decency! So he pontificates about pederasty for a while, which made me uncomfortable, so I got up to get some coffee. I may have stopped by the brandy bottle on the way back out, I can't recall.So after the lawyer tells when *exactly* it's okay to pork a teenager, the doctor chimes in that luuuuuv is the drug, it's everything, man, the whole uuuuuuuniiiiiveeeeeeeeeerse is luuuuv. Who knew they had hippies in those days? I needed more brandy, I mean coffee!, and the text of my ancient Penguin paperback was getting smaller and smaller for some reason, so I went to look for the brandy get the magnifying glass so I could see the footnotes.Then comes Aristophanes. Now seriously, this is a good bit. Aristophanes, in Plato's world, tells us why we feel whole, complete, when we're with our true love: Once upon a time, we were all two-bodied and two-souled beings, all male, all female, or hermaphroditic. When these conjoined twins fell into disfavor, Zeus cleaved them apart, and for all eternity to come, those souls will wander the earth seeking the other half torn from us.Now being Aristophanes, Plato plays it for laughs, but this is really the heart of the piece. Plato quite clearly thought this one through, in terms of what makes us humans want and need love. It's a bizarre version of Genesis, don'cha think?So there I was glazed over with brandy-fog admiration for the imagination of this ancient Greek boybanger, and I was about to give up and pass out take my contemplations indoors when the wind, riffling the pages a bit, caused me to light on an interesting line. I continued with the host's speech.Now really...is there anything on this wide green earth more boring than listening to a poet bloviate? Especially about luuuuv? Blah blah noble blah blah youthful yakkity blah brave *snore*Then it's Socrates's turn, and I was hoping Plato gave him some good zingers to make up for the tedium of the preceding sixteen years of my life. I mean, the previous speech. It was a little bit hard to hold the magnifying glass, for some reason, and it kept getting in the way of the brandy bottle. I mean, coffee thermos! COFFEE THERMOS.I'm not all the way sure what Plato had Socrates say, but it wasn't riveting lemme tell ya what. I woke up, I mean came to, ummm that is I resumed full attention when the major studmuffin and hawttie Alcibiades comes in, late and drunk (!), and proceeds to pour out his unrequited lust for (older, uglier) Socrates. He really gets into the nitty-gritty here, talking about worming his way into the old dude's bed and *still* Socrastupid won't play hide the salami.Various noises of incredulity and derision were heard to come from my mouth, I feel sure, though I was a little muzzy by that time, and it is about this point that the brandy bottle COFFEE THERMOS slid to the ground and needed picking up. As I leaned to do so, I remember thinking how lovely and soft the bricks looked.When I woke up under the glass table top, the goddamned magnifying glass had set what remains of the hair on top of my head on fire.The moral of the story is, reading The Symposium should never be undertaken while outdoors.

[bleached_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

A thought-provoking and intense yet short read, The Symposium was still far from what I had first anticipated. I had expected the philosophical nature of the piece, however, placing that upon the intricacies of love and homosexuality was shocking and delightful. I wouldn't expect less from Plato, one of the greatest human minds, and am always fascinated by his work. The Symposium is no exception.

[takeitorleaveit_1 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

this may be where the term 'Platonic relationship' came from being that Socrate's and his old rich attractive Greek buddies love to sit around and talk but not fuck because they know beauty is not especially the opposite of being ugly but it seeks something that the other doesn't have. or is that love? oh love, the talk-about or symposium as it was once called, really shows that love is in the eye of the beholder but Socrates is a man to be loved. I like the hom0-yet-no-homo vibe of it all because I too enjoy the company of men yet strictly in a conversational way although I can apperciate their beauty too. This is as important to the feminine movement as 'The City of Ladies is' for the...what should we call it...androgynous movement? grand!it made me feel like i've never been born and I was having a re-birth while reading it.I'm now androgy thanks to Plato and crew!!!

[benedict8-2 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

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

[gillis3sarah · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

This is the first book I've read by Plato, and I really enjoyed it. I had to read it for my English class, and I was really surprised at how funny it was. It also gave great insight on the meaning of love and its merits.

[poquette_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

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 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

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 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

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 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

This one is soooo much fun.