(This one discourse I have had to read and reread and reread again. And I still don’t think I get it but I’ll take a stab at what I think is being said here in the first two speeches with as much brevity as I can muster…)

 In the first speech, Lysias’ discourse, describes how lovers are not to be trusted because they have been blinded by passion. They are fickle and will turn on you if they should see one who excites the passions even more. Lovers admit that they are insane, and jealous, so they “prevent their loves from associating with other men, for they fear the wealthy, lest their money give them an advantage, and the educated, lest they prove to be superior in intellect; and they are on their guard against the influence of everyone who possesses any other good thing.” I would stop here and agree that keeping yourself or another from good is insane. But enter the non-lovers, the ones who supposedly are not controlled by their appetites, who are the ones to be trusted? I wouldn’t say this is an accurate litmus test for character. Lysias, I think, attempts to make the case that non-lovers are inclined to true friendship by saying, “…if you yield to me, I shall consort with you,, not with a view to present pleasure only, but to future advantage only, not being overcome by passion but in full control of myself, and not taking up violent enmity because of small matters, but slowly gathering little anger when the transgressions are great, forgiving involuntary wrongs and trying to prevent intentional ones; for these are the proofs of friendship that will endure for a long time.” This would be fine and dandy if the non-lover was not a disciplined manipulator, which leads to the second speech where Socrates tells a story where the lover only pretends to be a non-lover, to get what he want from his beloved, to satisfy his own appetites. He sums his story up, quite tellingly, with the quote, “Just as the wolf loves the lamb, so the lover adores his beloved.” So then Socrates opens a huge hole in Lysias’ (and Phaedrus’) argument that you can safely grant favors to non-lovers.

I am having a hard time getting past the sexuality in this discourse because it is promiscuous and twisted. Their concept of sexual intimacy and intimacy between friends is blended together, into a worldview that is totally foreign to my own. Perhaps this is one reason why I am struggling to understand just what their concept of intimacy is. Another question that can be raised here is, sexuality aside, how can you know if someone truly wishes to be your friend, or do they just want something from you?

Natalie,

To your question, "Are we all just playing this love game for the benefit of what our own self will get out of, maybe without even being conscious of it?" I would ask, is this really what love is? I would say no, this is not love. True love has always the benefit of the beloved in mind, it is sacrificial. I liken this concept to my kids; I love them by feeding and clothing them, hugging them, listening to them, reading to them, instructing them, playing with them, disciplining them and so on. It is A LOT of work. But with the love I give them, I am a vital element in forming their hearts since I am modeling love to them, and with this they will begin to understand what love is. So now then I am rewarded when I come home from work by two little girls who run up to me to greet me with a hug and a "DADDY!" from my firstborn. Seeing what has grown in their hearts is my reward. I pray I remain steadfast.

Love is the highest virtue. Do I make mistakes? Yes, but 'love covers a multitude of sins.'

To your question, "is there always a lover and the beloved, aren't we both at the same time?" I would say this is the way it should be, or at least, such as in the case of my children who in the beginning had nothing to offer me but whole lot of noise and dirty diapers. Else would end up in some kind of co-dependent or otherwise dysfunctional relationship if the beloved were never to 'grow up.'

    Finally to your question, 'how can a person be considered a non-lover?' I would say a person who is expedient is his or her relationships is a non-lover.

    I think you are accurate to what the discourse was saying. And I would agree with your finalizing statement that in this context, love can do nothing but hurt.

 Mark

Samantha,

I think he is just setting the scene, describing the beauty and fragrance of the setting for what he will later be talking about in the third speech. This stuff was written down after the fact, not dictated on the spot, so a good part of this is the interpolations of Plato.

These Greeks didn't seem to value the love for a woman as they do for a man. They seem to blend sexual intimacy with the intimacy between friends as well, that is, promiscuity and homosexuality were both normal and intimate. This is a different mindset and worldview that is foriegn to me. Women in those times, perhaps there were exceptions, were just those who tended to the house and to the children, being merely instrumental in their value in service to the men. When we put in these terms it doesn't seem so lofty huh?

Mark

 Samantha,

I think it would be if the person was telling you the truth and not just manipulating you to get what he or she wants. I think this was Socrates' point in the second speech.

This is a good description of friendship if the speaker is being sincere, and I guess as well that time is indeed the test of the faithfulness of a friend.

Mark

Bryan,

I don't think love as we know it is being spoken of here at all. We love cheeseburgers and Monday night football, our friends, our wives, our children, and use the same word for them all allowing the context to determine the meaning.

Now the context in this dialog is sexual, with difference between the lover and the non-lover being the former is not under control of his passions and the later is. The argument is that it is safer to 'grant favors' to those who are in control of their passions for in theory they will not do something malicious and/or irrational to you. Socrates in his second speech points out the possibility of disciplined manipulators who only seem to be in control of their passions to maliciously deceive the 'beloved' to get what he wants. So I think that Socrates was saying that Lysias' had a flawed argument and with this I agree.

Mark

Aletha,

This makes it hard for me to understand as well. Blending sexual intimacy with the intimacy between friends, as these Greeks do, devalues intimacy itself, I would argue. The role of women in society, by default, is devalued since they are merely the caretakers of children and household, while the men are out being 'intimate' with each other. To me, this intimacy they speak of, is a blurred imitation of what it ought be, faithful loyalty to the family unit. (Should I expect some darts for this statement?)

 Return to Home