Symposium

Summary Apollodorus relates to an unnamed companion a story he heard from Aristodemus about a symposium, or dinner party, held in honor of the playwright Agathon. Besides Aristodemus and Agathon, the guests include Agathons lover Pausanias, the doctor Eryximachus, the great comic poet Aristophanes, and the young Phaedrus. Socrates arrives late, having been lost in thought on a neighboring porch. Once they have finished eating, Eryximachus proposes that, instead of the usual entertainments, the guests should take turns giving speeches in praise of the god of Love. Phaedrus speaks first, praising Love as the oldest of all the gods and the one that does the most to promote virtue in people. Pausanias speaks next, distinguishing the base desires involved in Common Love from the purity of Heavenly Love, which only ever exists between a man and a boy. In exchange for sexual gratification from the boy, the man acts as a mentor, teaching him wisdom and virtue. Eryximachus, the third speaker, argues that Love promotes order and moderation, not only in people but also in all things. Thus, Love can exist in such fields as music and medicine. Aristophanes is the next to speak, and he presents his conception of Love in the form of a myth. Humans once had four legs, four arms, two heads, and so on, he says. Some were male, with two sets of male sexual organs; some were females; and some were hermaphrodites, with one set each of male and female sexual organs. We were twice the people we are now, and the gods were jealous, afraid we would overthrow them. Zeus decided to cut us in half to reduce our power, and ever since we have been running all over the earth trying to rejoin with our other half. When we do, we cling to that other half with all our might, and we call this Love. Agathon speaks next, giving an elaborate and flowery speech about Love, which he describes as young, sensitive, beautiful, and wise. All our virtues are gifts that we receive from this god. Socrates questions Agathon, doubting his speech and suggesting that Agathon has described the object of Love, not Love itself. To correct him, Socrates explains he once held the same beliefs until he met Diotima of Mantinea, a wise woman who taught him everything he knows about Love. According to Diotima, Love is neither a god nor a mortal but rather a spirit born of a coupling between Resource and Poverty. Love itself is not wise or beautiful and does not have any of the other attributes Agathon ascribed to it. Rather, it is the desire for all these things. As such, Love wishes to give birth to Beauty, and so Diotima associates Love with pregnancy and reproduction. Some seek to reproduce sexually, while other seek to give birth to ideas, the children of their minds. We first learn about Beauty by seeing and desiring beautiful people or objects, but our desire for Beauty can be gradually refined until ultimately we love Beauty itself, which is the highest love there is. As Socrates concludes his speech, the famous politician Alcibiades bursts in completely drunk. He complains that he has consistently tried to seduce Socrates in order to glean wisdom from him but that Socrates resists any kind of sexual advances. Shortly thereafter, more revelers arrive

and the party descends into drunken chaos. When Aristodemus wakes up the next morning, he sees Socrates, Agathon, and Aristophanes still engaged in sober conversation. Eventually, Agathon and Aristophanes fall asleep, and Socrates leaves and goes about his daily business. Analysis In the Symposium, Plato presents the love of wisdom as the highest form of love and philosophy as a refinement of our sexual urges that leads us to desire wisdom over sex. That is, we do not seek wisdom by first suppressing sexual desire and other distractions but rather by refining that desire and training it on a higher purpose. Plato sets his dialogue at a symposium, which was one of the highlights of Athenian social life, and amidst a discussion about Love to show us that philosophy is not removed from the business of everyday life. On the contrary, philosophy is the highest expression of the loves and desires that motivate us in everyday activities. If we could see things clearly, Plato suggests, we would see that our attraction to beautiful people or good music or exciting movies is really an attraction to Beauty itself and that philosophy is the most direct route to getting at what we most desire. Diotima describes love as the pursuit of beauty in a gradual ascent from the particular to the general, culminating in an understanding of the Form of Beauty. Even the most ignorant soul is drawn to beauty on some level. What most of us dont realize, she suggests, is that what attracts us to a beautiful person, for instance, is that we perceive in that person an idea of the greater Form of Beauty. That is, we are attracted not to the person but to the beauty in the person. If our love is keen enough, we will not be satisfied by beautiful people but will seek out beauty in more generalized forms: in minds, in the structure of a well-ordered state, and ultimately in the Form of Beauty itself, the most generalized form that beauty takes. Once we have come to grasp the Form of Beauty, we will have grasped the fundamental truth that the reality of our experience is just a shadow world compared with the ideal, eternal, and unchanging world of Forms. This Theory of Forms is presented in greater detail in the Phaedo and the Republic. Here, we get the hint that the way to an understanding of Forms is through a love of beauty. The dialogues structure mirrors the progression Diotima describes of pursuing beauty in increasingly refined and generalized forms. Each speech in the dialogue takes us a step closer to understanding the true nature of love. Phaedrus gives us a simple enthusiasm for the value of love; Pausanias distinguishes between good and bad forms of love; Eryximachus expands the definition to cover other fields of inquiry; Aristophanes gives us a delightful account of the urgency of love; and Agathon applies the refined art of rhetoric to understanding love. Only by first considering and seeing the limitations in these earlier speeches can we then appreciate the importance of Socrates speech. We should also note that, in Eryximachus, Aristophanes, and Agathon, we have representatives of medicine, comedy, and tragedy, all three of which are important components of a healthy life. By having Socrates trump these other three, Plato is suggesting that philosophy is more important to our well-being than these other disciplines. The original Greek text contains a number of untranslatable puns that enhance our understanding of the relationship between love, desire, and philosophy. The Greek word eros, translated as love, is also the root of our word erotic and can be used in Greek to describe sexual desire. Socrates is thus being coy when he explains that Diotima taught him everything he knows about

eros, a coyness that is enhanced when we discover that Diotima of Mantinea was the name of a well-known temple prostitute in ancient Greece. The implication is that Socrates came to Diotima seeking sex, but she instead taught him about beauty and wisdom. This implication further reinforces the suggestion that the desire for wisdom is a refinement, and not a denial, of our desire for sex. In the dialogue, Diotima becomes the model of Beauty, which every lover seeks, while Socrates becomes the model of Love, being himself neither beautiful nor satisfied but constantly seeking more. This picture of Socrates the lover further plays on the word philosopher, which literally means lover of wisdom. While the Symposium contains a great deal of explicit homoerotic content, it would be a distortion to label characters in the dialogue as homosexual or bisexual. These sorts of categories are modern inventions that do not just denote a persons sexual preference but also define a person according to his or her sexual preference. Greek society, for the most part, didnt consider sexual preference as a defining personality trait, so labeling Greeks as homosexual or heterosexual would be as odd to them as defining modern students as white sock wearers or colored sock wearers. Almost all Greek men married women and had children (Plato is a rare exception), while many Greek men also pursued less permanent sexual relations with other men. The activities thought most to display virtue and glory, such as athletics, warfare, and politics, were exclusively the realm of men, so two men could share in this virtue and glory in a way that a man and a woman could not. Consequently, malemale relationships were often romanticized, whereas malefemale relationships were viewed as purely practical affairs, which united families and produced children. These two different kinds of relationships existed alongside one another, and both were considered healthy and natural.

Overall Summary
Apollodorus relates to an unnamed companion a story he learned from Aristodemus about a symposium, or dinner-party, given in honor of the tragedian Agathon. Socrates arrives at the party late, as he was lost in thought on the neighboring porch. After they have finished eating, Eryximachus picks up on a suggestion of Phaedrus', that each person should in turn make a speech in praise of the god of Love. Phaedrus begins by saying that Love is one of the oldest of the gods, and the one that does the most to promote virtue in people. Pausanias follows Phaedrus, drawing a distinction between Common Love, which involves simple and mindless desire, and Heavenly Love, which always takes place between a man and a boy. In the case of Heavenly Love, the boy, or loved one, sexually gratifies the man, or lover, in exchange for education in wisdom and virtue. After Pausanias, Eryximachus, the doctor, speaks, suggesting that good Love promotes moderation and orderliness. Love does not restrict itself to human interaction, but can be found in music, medicine, and much else besides.

The next to speak is the comic poet Aristophanes. Aristophanes draws an engaging myth that suggests that we were once all twice the people we are now, but that our threat to the gods prompted Zeus to cut us in half. Ever since, we have wandered the earth looking for our other half in order to rejoin with it and become whole. Agathon follows up Aristophanes, and gives a rhetorically elaborate speech that identifies Love as young, beautiful, sensitive, and wise. He also sees Love as responsible for implanting all the virtues in us. Socrates questions Agathon's speech, suggesting that Agathon has spoken about the object of Love, rather than Love itself. In order to correct him, Socrates relates what he was once told by a wise woman named Diotima. According to Diotima, Love is not a god at all, but is rather a spirit that mediates between people and the objects of their desire. Love is neither wise nor beautiful, but is rather the desire for wisdom and beauty. Love expresses itself through pregnancy and reproduction, either through the bodily kind of sexual Love or through the sharing and reproduction of ideas. The greatest knowledge of all, she confides, is knowledge of the Form of Beauty, which we must strive to attain. At the end of Socrates' speech, Alcibiades bursts in, falling-down drunk, and delivers a eulogy to Socrates himself. In spite of Alcibiades' best efforts, he has never managed to seduce Socrates as Socrates has no interest at all in physical pleasure. Soon the party descends into chaos and drinking and Aristodemus falls asleep. He awakes the next morning to find Socrates still conversing. When everyone else has finally fallen asleep, Socrates gets up and goes about his daily business as always.

Overall Analysis and Themes

The prominent place the Symposium holds in our canon comes as much as a result of its literary merit as its philosophical merit. While other works among Plato's middle-period dialogues, such as the Republic and the Phaedo, contain more philosophical meat, more closely examining the Theory of Forms and intensely cross-examining interlocutors, none can match the dramatic force of the Symposium. It is lively and entertaining, with sharp and witty characterization that gives us valuable insight into the social life of Athenian intellectual circles. From a philosophical standpoint, the Symposium is also far from bankrupt. Not only does it give us some insight into the Theory of Forms in Diotima's discussion of the Form of Beauty, but it also gives us a number of varying perspectives on love. Significantly, we see Plato rejecting the romanticization of sexual love, valuing above all an asexual and all-consuming passion for wisdom and beauty. Ultimately, he concludes, the philosopher's search for wisdom is the most valuable of all pursuits. In the Symposium, Plato values philosophy, as exemplified by Socrates, over a number of other arts which are given as points of comparison: medicine, as exemplified by Eryximachus, comedy as exemplified by Aristophanes, and tragedy as exemplified by Agathon. The series of speeches in praise of Love are not simply meant as beating around the bush that leads up to the main event. They mirror Diotima's discussion of the mysteries, where she suggests that one can approach the truth only through a slow and careful ascent. Similarly, we

can see each speech, with a few exceptions, as coming closer and closer to the truth. This suggestion is reinforced by the fact that Socrates alludes to all the foregoing speeches in his own speech, as if to suggest that his words could not be spoken until everyone else had said their piece. This staggered approach to truth is also reflected in the framing of the narrative, whereby we are only able to gain access to this story through a series of narrative filters. We should note that Socrates is the exemplar of the lover of wisdom and the lover of beauty, but is neither wise nor beautiful himself. In this way, he best represents Love, which Diotima describes as a mediating spirit that moves between gods and men. Love himself never has anything, but is always desirous of happiness, beauty, and wisdom. The same is true with Socrates. Those who follow his lead will not necessarily attain wisdom, but will find fulfillment in a life-long pursuit of wisdom. The state of having attained wisdom is represented by Diotima, not Socrates, and she speaks through Socrates as a god-like and unapproachable figure. There is also some discussion as to exactly what is being discussed in the Symposium. The Greek word eros leaves the matter ambiguous as to whether we are discussing love in the normal, human, sense of the word, or if we are discussing desire in a much broader sense. The later speeches in particular tend toward this broader interpretation. Diotima gives what is perhaps a satisfactory answer by suggesting that, while all kinds of desire might be considered love, we normally restrict use of that term to one particular kind of desire, the desire that exists between two human beings. Philosophy aside, however, the Symposium still makes a terrific read. Aristophanes' myth is delightful, Alcibiades' drunken antics are entertaining, and the whole narrative shimmers with life. We also get a very clear sense of the dynamics of sexual attraction and courtship--both male-male and male-female--in ancient Athens, and we are given a beautiful portrait of one of the high-points of the Athenian scene: the symposium.

Commentary on Plato Symposium

Socrates and Aristodemus will attend a banquet at Agathon, with Aristophanes, Appolodore, Pausanias and Eryximachus. The guests decide not to get drunk, but drinking a little and discuss about love. The proposed theme of the discussion is love. Specifically, it is pronounce a eulogy of love, from left to right, the highest possible praise. Phaedra begins. According to him, the greatest good for a man is to have a lover. Love is the best guide in life, because it makes us flee the ugly actions and do only good deeds. An army of lovers would be invincible because no men would be cowardly and evil warrior. He notes that lovers do exceptional things for love. For example, Alcestis dying for her husband and rewarded by the gods, resurrected.

Pausanias takes his turn. In his view the problem is ill-posed. He was asked to sing the love as if it were a single thing, then there are several types of love. We must look what kind of love is worthy of praise. Any action is neither good nor bad in itself is beautiful or ugly the way we practice it. For example, drinking in excess is an action that we are ugly, while drinking in a reasonable honors us. The same goes for love: It is wrong to yield to a man wretched and miserable way, and it is nice to give a big way to a man of value. Pausanias praises the Heavenly Aphrodite, which takes place between men who love both of body and mind, as opposed to popular Aphrodite, which takes place between people of the sexes opposite sex simply for the purpose. Love the body is less than the love of the mind, because the first is ephemeral, as soon as the flower of this body is faded he loved, he flies to pull wings, betraying all speeches and promises. While one who loves the soul is the lover all his life, because it adheres to something constant. After this speech, Eryximachus said he would consider the love of a perspective more generally. This is not only man, but characterized the relations of all beings, both animate and inanimate. And medicine has discovered that a disease can come from the presence in the bodies of two contrary principles, so hostile. Cure, this amounts to instill love and harmony in these conflicts. Similarly, the music seeks harmony (eg, between high and low) music is a kind of love music is also for the harmony and rhythm, a movement science in love. Even natural disasters (floods, frosts, epidemics ) come from a disruption in the movement love linking all these elements. Thus with Eryximachus show the multiple, or rather the immense power of universal love, universal unifier. Aristophanes is looking for his part on the origin of love: how is it that you like? Where does this feeling that drives us to unite with someone else? He used to answer this question a myth, still famous as the myth of Aristophanes. Originally, man was androgynous, both male and female, and was shaped like a sphere, which moved by tumbling, rolling on itself. Their ambition led them to want to become the equal of the gods. Zeus punished them for their temerity, not by killing but by weakening: he cut each into two halves, one male and one female. But everyone, regretting the original unity, looking for his half and wanted to join: Embrace, entwined with each other, from being a hot, they were starving and inaction because they did not do anything without each other.

Zeus took pity, place their sex so that there is enjoyment when they get together, knowing that satiety, it might bring them to stop and turn to the action and the other centers interest of existence Hence the definition of love: uniting our old nature, he tries to do one of two people and heal human nature. It is this myth that led to the conception of love as a search of his half or as a desire to feel at one, when someone found the perfect half of himself, they are just flabbergasted , struck by a feeling of friendship and love, a sense of familiarity, and they do not admit of being, so to speak, detached from each other, even for moment The two lovers ask Hephaestus to forge a single person to achieve what they have long desired: to meet, blend in with the love of two people to do more than. Love acquires great importance because our race affect happiness if we realize our love and each one met the beloved rightful and brings him back to his old nature. This highly acclaimed speech gives way to that of Agathon, which depicts love as the most beautiful of the gods, escaping old age and wanting the youth and beauty. That the following speech, that of Socrates, who manages to reach the level of that of Callicles, to overcome, and to the Banquet a masterpiece. Socrates thinks that the other guests were a praise forced rather than a true praise. By this he means that we must not seek to give all the qualities of love but praise for the qualities that really. It replaces the monologue through dialogue, questioning Agathon. This is an example of the famous Socratic dialogue, which proceeds by question and answer (the dialectic) to contact the birth of a truth he bears (or midwifery: midwifery minds ). Socrates begins by problematizing the subject: we want what we have not. But so Agathon has shown, love wants the Beautiful, but then love is thus deprived of beauty, it does not have one? . Socrates only ask the same questions Agathon Diotima, a woman of Mantinea, he was asked. Socrates to Agathon said the same thing, and asked, since love lack of beauty is an ugly thing? . Diotima cried blasphemy: what is beautiful is not necessarily ugly. Why? Take the example of the learned and the ignorant. There is a link between these two states, namely to have a true idea, but without knowing why (without being able to rely in making reason).

It is not knowledge (how indeed something we can not give a reason could it be knowledge?) Or ignorance (which reached an accidentally be not indeed be ignorance ). Also, some things are neither ugly nor beautiful, as is the case of Love. Thus, Love is not a God, (unlike what some guests that Agathon) because God can not know of missing, especially the lack of beauty. What then? He is an intermediary such as we have seen, intermediate between mortal (human) and immortal (God). Love is a great devil. In Greek mythology, the demons submit to the gods the prayers of men and men the messages of the gods. They are therefore intermediaries. This demon is born of the union of two gods: he is the son of Poros, himself the son of Metis (Goddess of cunning, resourcefulness) and Penia (lack). This relationship is that love is poor (as the son of a lack), but is still higher (the beautiful and the good) as the son of Poros. Similarly, it occupies a middle position in the field of knowledge. God is no philosopher, for it is wise to begin with. In contrast, no philosopher is ignorant, because he believes he is already wise. There is an intermediary: the philosopher, because it is not wise but wants to become. As for love, if his father is wise, its not the case with his mother. Love is a philosopher as he wants to become wise. Love is the possession of a good thing because it makes them happy. It seems that everyone is happy and so is being a magnet. So why do we say that some like and others do not like one? For every aspiration towards the good and happiness, thats what love Almighty and cunning. But one can follow the paths most varied to find happiness. For example: love affairs, sports, science. But it is not clear that these are kinds of love. It does not give the name of love as a particular form: that of men among themselves. If human beings do nothing but good, and he wants to eternity, we can say that love is related to the everlasting possession of what is good. Love thus seeks to create and give birth in beauty because procreation is from eternity and immortality that is accessible to mortal. Now the generation is possible only in the beauty in ugliness, love shrinks. Hence the paradox: to become immortal (in children), men are ready to fight, so to risk death. The man is irrational, see human beings, their irrationality fill you with confusion because of Love, they are ready for that purpose to take all the risks, more than ready for their own children to commit their fortune, ready to win a thousand efforts, willing to sacrifice their lives.

Diotima distinguished fertility of mind and body. She notes that the soul can be fruitful: they are poets, artists, inventors, who have children much more beautiful, one of their works, what they share, they are children more beautiful, more lasting! . Love is looking for the absolute beauty. Yet it is not immediately attainable. She can be reached at the end of a long process, during which educates love, to go through various stages to a higher kind of beauty. The steps of this journey. First of all, love is love of a beautiful body. This is the first step, the lower stage of love. Love and understands that the beauty of this body is found in others, it is also love of beautiful bodies in the plural. This is progress. Love then turns to something more spiritual, deeper: it is love of beautiful souls. Then he turned to what makes the beauty of these souls know. It is love of knowledge. After this climb, we reach the absolute beauty, which is eternal, not on it is not beautiful and ugly at one point to another, has no face and no one in particular being . Diotima gives only a negative definition of absolute beauty (she says she is not, not what it is). Socrates recapitulates the rise, we must begin with the beauty of our world to move towards that beauty, rising as always on the basis of levels, from one beautiful body to two, and then two bodies to all bodies, then beautiful bodies to beautiful pursuits and occupations with beautiful science, until, on the basis of science, we finally arrive at the science that is the unique know of no other beauty than that beauty and unique that we know, coming at the end, what is beautiful in itself.

4. Discours dAristophane Thse dAristophane: A mon avis, en effet, les hommes nont absolument pas conscience du pouvoir dAmour, car, sils en avaient conscience, ils lui auraient lev les temples les plus imposants, dress des autels, offert les plus riches sacrifices; et non, comme aujourdhui, o rien de tel nexiste son sujet, tandis que lexistence en est tout ce quil y a de plus ncessaire! Le discours se veut une initiation au pouvoir de lAmour. Autrefois la nature de lhomme ntait pas celle daujourdhui. Premirement, lespce humaine comportait en effet trois genres; non pas deux comme prsent, mais, en outre de mle et femelle, il y en avait un troisime, qui participait de ces deux autres ensemble, et dont le nom subsiste de nos jours bien quon ne voie plus bien quon ne voit plus la chose elle-mme: il existait alors en effet un genre distinct, landrogyne qui, pour la forme comme pour le nom, participait des deux autres ensemble, du mle comme de la femelle; ce qui en reste prsent, ce nest quune dnomination, tenue pour infamante. (p. 70) Platon note bien quentre la nature primordiale et le prsent il existe un processus de dgnrescence. Hlas, la description de landrogyne est impregne de lantromorphisme grec: [] chacun de ces hommes tait, quant sa forme, une boule dune seule pice, et avec un dos et des flancs en cercle; il avait quatre mains et des jambes en nombre gal celui des mains; puis, sur un cou tout rond, deux visages absolument pareils entre eux, mais une tte unique pour lensemble de ces deux visages, opposs lun lautre; quatre oreilles; parties honteuses en double; et tout le reste comme cet aperu permet de le conjecturer! (p. 70-71) Le mle tait un rejeton du soleil [yang], la femelle, de la terre [yin]. Landrogyne tenait de la lune, parce quelle participe des deux [principes]. Lavancement de landrogyne se fait en tournant en boule, comme une roue. Landrogyne avait beaucoup dorgueil, ce qui le poussa attaquer Dieu. Zeus dcide de le couper en deux, pour le faire plus faible. Landrogyne navait besoin de personne, il pouvait saccoupler lui-mme. Lamour gurit la nature humaine, en refaisant landrogyne primordial. Forte tendance dexpliquer les dviations en utilisant des mythes. Dfinition de lamour: [] au dsir et la recherche de cette nature dune seule pice, quon donne le nom damour. (p. 79) De nouveau, sur la chute: [] auparavant [] cest ce que je dis, nous tions un tre unique; mais maintenant, cause de notre injuste conduite, notre unit t dissoute par le Dieu, de la mme faon que, par les Lacdmoniens, lunit arcadienne. (p. 79-80) La menace de Zeus de couper les hommes encore une fois en deux prophtie du rtrecissement moderne (hyperspcialisation)?!? Conseil pour le bonheur: le moyen pour notre espce de parvenir au bonheur, ce serait, pour nous, de donner lamour son achvement, cest--dire que chacun et commerce avec un aim qui soit proprement le sien; ce qui est pour chacun revenir son antique nature. (p. 81)Somme tout, lAmour chri par Aristophane est une voie de reconstitution de landrogyne primordial.

Scurta analiza a Banchetului lui Platon Pentru a aborda analiza Banchetului, noi ne putem opri la discursul lui Socrate. Este foarte sigur ca alte cinci discursuri contin o mare parte de adevar, pe care Platon il retine pentru propria sa teorie. Dar trebuie sa recunoastem de asemenea ca aceasta parte de adevar fiind lamurit degajata in discursul lui Socrate, uneori cu referinta la opiniile unora sau altora, acest ultim discurs trebuie sa demonstreze valabilitatea doctrinei platoniene despre Iubire. Avem deci nevoie sa analizam doar aceasta parte a Banchetului. O studiere a iubirii se imparte evident in doua parti: se va determina mai intai natura sa, mai apoi se va spune care sunt efectele sale: acesta-i planul lui Aghaton. Nu e suficient totusi de a afirma necesitatea de a defini, apoi, imediat dupa, sa ne marginim la laudarea meritelor a ceea ce trebuie sa definim. Care este deci natura iubirii ? A. Iubirea este scopul iubirii. Trebuie mai intai sa privim in fata aceasta intrebare despre natura iubirii intr-o maniera foarte generala. Dragostea este prin esenta dragostea de ceva, sau nu ? intrebarea pusa e analoga la aceasta, a carei ocazii ne este precis furnizata prin posibilitatea de a interpreta prima intrebare intr-un mod gresit: un tata sau o mama, in calitate de tata si de mama nu au nevoie ei de ceva, sa stie de la un fiu sau de la o fiica? De asemenea vom spune , dragostea e neaparat dragostea de ceva. Daca iubirea este iubirea de ceva, de ce anume ? aceasta noua intrebare trebuie sa fie examinata cu aceeasi generalitate ca si precedenta. Poti sa raspunzi spunand ca iubirea doreste ceea ce iubeste si, ca daca ea doreste, inseamna ca ei asta-i lipseste. Aici nu-i o simpla verosimilitate, dar o consecinta necesara de premise puse: un om mare si puternic, de exemplu, nu va dori sa fie mare si puternic, caci el de acum este astfel. E posibil ca un observator superficial sa pretinda totusi ca dorinta poarta deseori ceea ce ai sau sa fi eu sanatos sau bogat, asta nu ma-mpiedica sa doresc sa fiu sanatos, sa doresc sa fiu bogat. Dar va trebui atunci sa raspunzi ca ceea ce-ti doresti, de a fi sau de avea , in continuare, sau de a fi inca ceea ce esti acum. Iubesti deci ceea ce n-ai acum, sa stii pastrarea de sine in viitor de care sa te bucuri acum. 43213xgq65rrq9y Insa iubirea, se spune, e iubirea frumosului si nu a uratului. Daca iubirea este iubirea a ceea de ce esti lipsit, trebuie neaparat de admis ca iubirea e lipsita de frumusete, ca prin urmare, contrar a ceea ce spune Aghaton, nu este frumoasa. Exista o serie irezistibila de consecinte asupra identificarii frumosului si binelui. Dar din faptul ca iubirea nu este frumoasa, nici buna, nu rezulta sa fie neaparat rea. Se va spune deci despre iubire ca este ceva intermediar intre frumos si urat, intre bun si rau: incepand de aici personajul lui Diotime intra in scena. Dar toata lumea oare nu e de acord sa recunoasca ca iubirea e un mare zeu? Insa cum asta ar fi posibil, caci zeii poseda tot ce-i frumos si bun si ca iubirea, din contra e lipsita de frumos si de bine? Nu poti spune totusi ca iubirea este nemuritoare. Mai ales ca mai inainte, trebuie sa vedem in ea o fiinta intermediara, intermediara intre nemuritor si vesnic. In alti

termeni, ea nu e un mare zeu, ea e un mare geniu. Un demon de acest gen este un intermediar intre zei si oameni : de la unii la altii nu poti avea o comunicare imediata, demonii sunt atunci acolo, pentru a transmite mesajele si ofrandele zeilor. Pentru a aduce de asemenea oamenilor ordinele zeilor si remuneratiile pentru ofrandele primite. Ei indeplinesc functia de intermediar intre sfera divina si sfera muritoare si astfel dau universului unitatea si legatura sa. La un om sau altul, genii dau cunostinte si asta ii face sa fie pe drept geniali. Inspiratia geniala lipseste la ceilalti care nu poseda acest contact cu divinul, acela nu va fi decat un fauritor in domeniul sau si nu un geniu. Aceste gene sunt intr-un numar mare si iubirea este unul dintre ei. Care este originea acestui geniu. Pentru a o intelege trebuie sa revenim la nasterea lui Eros pentru a verifica calitatile proprii naturii sale. In ziua nasterii Afroditei, zeii facura un mare ospat. Printre comeseni se gasea Poros (spiritul castigului, belsugului) fiul lui Metis (intelepciunea). La sfarsitul mesei Penia (saracia), veni la usa pentru a cersi cate ceva. Ea zari pe Poros si isi dadu seama in mizeria sa de a avea un copil de ala el si ea concepuse iubirea. Toate calitatile dragostei se explica prin aceasta origine. Cum el a fost generat in timpul sarbatorii nasterii Afroditei, el ramane insotitorul sau si servitorul sau. Afrodita e frumoasa si e o frumusete a naturii ca iubirea sa fie amoroasa. In calitate de fiu al Peniei (saracia) el e mereu sarac, el nu este nici gingas, nici frumos cum se crede, dar murdar; el merge cu picioarele goale, n-are locuinta, n-are niciodata alt pat decat pamantul dur, culcandu-se sub frumoasa stea, sub porti sau pe drumuri, mereu localizat in aceeasi saracie lucie. Din alta parte, fiindca se trage de la tatal sau, el sta mereu la panda la ceea ce-i frumos si bun, el e indraznet, inaintand cu iutime, plin de ardoare, vanator abil, combinand necontenit vreun artificiu, dornic de a sti si priceput in gasirea mijloacelor de a ajunge, utilizand toata existenta sa in eforturi filosofice, va sa zica, in vederea obtinerii intelepciunii. Surprinzator de abil ca vrajitor, magician, sofist. Aceasta enumerare in forma succesiva a calitatilor opuse iubirii in calitate de fiul lui Poros si a Peniei (ca si dorinta amoroasa), conduce la o determinare sintetica a naturii sale, ca si analiza generala, convinsa in prima parte, se gaseste astfel desavarsita. Natura sa, vom spune noi, nu este nici muritoare, nici eterna, dar in cursul uneia si aceleiasi zile, ea este stinsa, apoi revine la viata. Tot ceea ce el gaseste mediocru de a dobandi i se scurge din maini. Astfel ca el nu este niciodata fara resurse si niciodata fara belsug. gr213x3465rrrq De asemenea privind stiinta si ignoranta, el este intr-o stare intermediara. Ratiunea consta in aceea ca oricine este intelept (si acesta e si cazul zeilor) nu poate avea dorinta de a deveni intelept si prin consecinta nu mediteaza, nu face eforturi pentru a sti, n-are dorinta sincera de a cunoaste. Aceasta e valabil si pentru ignoranti, ei nu cunosc starea lor si ei nu doresc sa dobandeasca ceea de ce nu se cred lipsiti si nu gandesc ca au necesitate. De altfel cunoasterea este printre cele mai frumoase lucruri care exista si spunem ca e frumos ca iubirea este iubirea. Deci iubirea, datorita aceleasi origini, e prietena intelepciunii. Asta e natura iubirii, asta e esenta sa. B. Efectele dragostei Trebuie acum sa ne-ntrebam asupra efectelor iubirii, asupra rolului ei in viata umana. E foarte evident de altminteri ca aceasta determinarea rolului iubirii ne va ajuta sa intelegem mai bine natura. Se va incepe prin a face aceasta cercetare dintr-un punct de vedere general, astfel incit sa descoperim o formula, care ne va arata apoi aplicatiile. Cuvintul iubire e utilizat de obicei

intr-un sens restrins si este aplicat numai lucrurilor frumoase. Dar sensul cuvintului in realitate e mult mai desfasurat. Iubirea nu-i cercetarea unui scop stabilit. Ea nu-i cercetarea unei simple parti care-ti lipseste. Noi vom avea o definitie satisfacatoare plecand de la ideea ca iubirea este dorinta lucrurilor bune, a fericirii. Aceasta dorinta se exprima prin dorinta bogatiei n afaceri sau in chiar a exercitiilor trupesti, sau dorinta sincera de a sti. Noi iubim ceea ce contribuie la fericirea noastra, la bucuria noastra. Dorinta astfel participa la bine si la bunatate, chiar daca noi stim unde se gasesc. Si totusi noi nu folosim in acele cazuri termenii de iubire si de amant. De fapt, cine iubeste, iubeste lucrurile bune? De fapt noi iubim ca ele sa ne apartina si chiar pentru totdeauna. Dragostea rimeaza cu eternitatea. Daca am reusit sa gasim ceea ce ne apartine, noi suntem fericiti. Deci posesia binelui il face pe om fericit. In sens larg deci, putem spune ca iubirea este dorinta comuna a tuturor oamenilor care poseda binele. Dar vom considera acceptarea cea mai obisnuita a cuvantului iubire: definitia generala nu va fi de loc infirmata. In acest sens mai ingust, iubirea este iubirea a ceea ce-i frumos. Sau, vom spune, cel ce iubeste lucrurile frumoase, ce iubeste el? El iubeste ca ele sa-i apartina. Daca ele ii apartin ce se va intampla pentru el. aceasta intrebare ne-a aparut mai intai foarte incurcata, dar in prezent, e posibil de inteles in ce sens trebuie de raspuns. Ceea ce facem imediat pentru iubire in general, este ultimul scop al dragostei, priceput cu semnificarea ingusta care este semnificarea uzuala, si astfel vom putea defini functia noastra in viata. Iubirea, vom spune acum, este procreatie in frumusete, dupa corp, dupa spirit. Trebuie acum sa dezvoltam aceasta formula, obscura la prima abordare, si sa aratam prin ce efecte se manifesta, intr-un mod general functia iubirii. Se vor indica mai intai conditiile. Insa exista pentru toti oamenii, o rodnicie a corpului si a sufletului, si deoarece noi suntem originali la o anumita varsta de la dezvoltarea corporala si spirituala, natura noastra vrea sa procreeze. Dar asta ii imposibil in uratenie; e posibil, din contra, in frumusete. In rest, aceasta rodnicie si aceasta procreatie sunt ceva divin, caci ele introduc in animalul muritor un principiu de vesnicie; este imposibil deci ca ele sa se produca unde exista o discordanta, caci intre urat si divin exista o discordanta, iar intre frumos si divin din contra un acord. Initiatoarea unui destin, muncitoarea unei eliberari, iata deci ce este frumusetea in raport cu toata generarea, in general. Iata de ce, cu cat fiinta fertila se apropie de frumusete, el este atunci mai bucuros de aceasta fericire care-l face mai luminos si el procreeaza sau produce. Iar cu cat se apropie de urat, fata sa devine posaca; el e plin de tristete, el se face ghem, el se indoieste pe el insusi si nu produce dialog; dar, retinand in el dovada rodniciei sale, el poarta cu greu povara. De acolo vin, spre cel care e fertil si deja umflat de dorinte, aceste elanuri de pasiune care il retin pe langa frumusete, pentru ca scopul in care rezida aceasta frumusete poate pune sfarsit durerilor care sunt o urmare a rodniciei. Concluzia e ca iubirea nu-i adevarata iubire a frumusetii, dar astfel sa-l zicem mai mult se zice mai tare, iubirea generarii din frumusete. Iubirea este intr-adevar iubire de posesia eterna a bunului, si pe de alta parte generarea, producerea, sub vreo forma ca ceasta, sau, pot singure sa dea fiintei muritoare eternitatea. Iubirea este deci dorinta de nemurire. Ideile continute in aceasta prezentare sunt mai apoi dezvoltate si verificate prin exemple. Este vorba, in primul rand, despre generarea conform corpului si descrierii generale a scopului dragostei este justificata prin ceea ca noi vedem efectele sale pe animale. In toate aceste acte a lor care sunt relative la dragoste si la educatia tinerilor se manifesta efortul naturii muritoare pentru a se produce, pe cat ea o poate, eterna si nemuritoare. Insa ea o poate numai pentru ca fara, incetare la fiinta veche ea succeda una noua. Noi zicem bine, este adevarat, de la fiecare

animal individual ca el este acelasi in viata sa si-n existenta sa. Noi zicem bine, despre un om care este in acelasi om de la copilaria sa pana la momentul cand el a devenit batran. Partile sale integrante cu toate acestea nu au ramas aceleasi si el nu are nevoie de a se reinnoi in unele, atata timp cat el se stingea in altele, tot atat de bine in parul sau, decat in carnea sa, in oasele sale, in sangele sau, un moale in intreg corpul sau. C. Dragostea si generarea O remarca, a carei subiect este, la drept vorbind, strain la dezvoltarea primitiva, vine a se adauga la aceasta demonstrare. Nu numai in corp se realizeaza acest lucru neintrerupt de renovare, dar de asemenea in suflet. Manierele acestei fiinte, obiceiurile sale, opiniile sale, dorintele sale, bucuriile sale, durerile sale, temerile sale, nimic nu ramine pentru totdeauna la fel la fiecare individ, dar fiecare dintre aceste lucruri se naste si moare la rindul sau. Inca mai surprinzator este cazul cunoasterilor noastre, dar inca fiecare individual este supus la aceeasi lege. Ceea ce se numeste studiu nu se raporta de fapt decat la o cunoastere care se explica: ce este intr-adevar cel face sa uite in afara de fuge unei cunoasteri. Studiul vine in cazul acesta pentru a crea o noua cunoastere in locul celei care a fost si ea pastreaza astfel cunoasterea, protejand identitatea sa. Concluzia care se desprinde este deci ca iubirea este producerea, ca ea este unicul mijloc pe care-l poseda animalul muritor pentru a participa la nemurire. Conceptia generala a iubirii va fi acum examinata sub un alt aspect, acel al generarii conform spiritului. Demonstratia va fi condusa in aceeasi maniera: faptele pentru a explica sunt in primul rand expuse; apoi principiul general este amintit: sfarsitul dragostei, aceasta este nemurirea; in concluzia acestui principiu este de dusa explicatia faptelor. Oamenii sunt posedati de dorinta de a-si face un nume, de a lasa in urma lor in amintirea semenilor, o amintire nemuritoare. La aceasta amintire, plus inca a copiilor, ei sunt pregatiti de a sacrifica bunurile lor, linistea lor, insasi viata lor. Pentru aceasta nemurire a virtutii, nu e nimic ca toti sa se straduiasca sa fie mai buni, caci ceea ce ei iubesc este nemurirea. Ei nu se intorc spre femei, ca acei care sunt fecunzi de-a lungul corpului, ei nu-si imagineaza ca vor atinge nemurirea amintirii prin procrearea copiilor; dar muritorii intr-adevar devin inca de la tanara lor varsta fecunzi potrivit sufletului, de asemenea chiar de atunci momentul a venit de a procrea si de a le produce, ei cauta printr-o parte si din alta frumusetea in care ei vor putea produce; caci ei nu o vor face niciodata in uratenie, cu toate acestea puterea lor fecundatoare se exercita mai degraba in suflet decat in corp, pentru lucrurile carora ei apartin sufletului, a poseda germenii sau de a le fructifica, ca intelepciunea si toata specia virtutii, de un fason general, si tot particular cumpatarea si justitia, care sunt prin raport la administrarea statelor si familiilor, forma cea mai frumoasa a intelepciunii. Printre acesti oameni privilegiati sunt toti creatorii, artistii, si intre artizani cei care sunt inventatori. Aceasta nu inseamna ca acela care este fecund dupa suflet nu va iubi corpurile frumoase: el le va iubi desigur de preferinta celor urate. Dar cand el va gasi un suflet frumos, nobil si de familie buna, el va simti pentru el o afectiune intensa. Ii vor veni o multime de discursuri despre virtute, despre ceea ce trebuie sa fie un om de bine. In sfarsit el se va apuca sa-l instruiasca. Aceasta este intr-adevar prin contactul sufletului frumos, prin relatia sa ca germenii semanati in spiritul pe care il purta in el dupa mult timp vor fi pusi la zi si vor produce o frumoasa opera. Alimentand acest urmas spiritual, aceste doua fiinte vor forma o uniune mai intima ca acea ce rezulta din generarea copiilor potrivit firii omenesti si prietenia lor va fi mai frumoasa si vesnica. Nu e nimeni cine nu ar prefera asa copii celor a oamenilor, caci fiind

nemuritor ei insusi asigura celor pe care le lasa in urma lor, nemurirea personala a amintirii. Marii poeti, Homer, Hesiod, marii legislatori, Lycurgue, Solon sunt dati ca exemplu. D. Dragostea avant spre absolut. Dar totul cea fost zis pana-n prezent nu este in realitate decat o etapa spre incheierea initierii a misterelor iubirii si spre contemplarea suprema, si nu este la fel sigur ca acel ce a urcat, cum se convine, toate treptele a acestei pregatiri sa fie in stare de a fi initiat. Se convine in primul rand de a determina, aceste trepte succesive, pe care va trebui de urcat intr-un mod continuu, ca treptele unei scari marcand ceea ce, in fiecare din ei, constituie o propedeutica in vedere de noi descoperiri ulterioare. In prima parte a acestei expuneri Platon revine, dar cu mai multa precizie si metoda despre ceea ce a fost zis mai inainte si noi nu gasim aici noi indicatii despre natura iubirii. La prima etapa pentru initiere trebuie sa fie inca din tinerete o tendinta spre corpurile frumoase. El nu va iubi mai intai de toate si va cauta sa produca in acest subiect frumoase discursuri. Dar el va cugeta dupa aceea ca frumusetea care este intr-un corp este sora frumusetii care este in celelalte corpuri si, daca trebuie de cautat frumusetea in forma sa plastica, aceasta ar fi o mare prostie de a se atasa decat la iubirea unui frumos corp, fara a remarca ca frumusetea corporala este una si aceeasi in toate corpurile frumoase. Cand el se ridica pe treapta urmatoare el concepe frumusetea sufletului fiind superioara frumusetii corpului. Prin consecinta, daca el intalneste un suflet bine dotat, de asemenea insotit de o frumusete trupeasca mediocra el se va multumi, devenind dragastos, el se va stradui sa produca discursuri care sa faca tinerii oameni sa fie mai buni. Initierea va fi astfel necesara pentru a determina pe cineva sa considere frumusetea in actiuni si in drepturi, si el isi va da seama ca frumusetea, de la unele la altele nu se schimba de natura si, iarasi ca frumusetea corpului n-are decat un pret mic. La sfarsitul spectacolului actiunilor calauza trebuie sa intoarca spiritul discipolului sau spre stiinte si lui ii trebuie sa vada aici inca, o frumusete comuna pentru toate. Astfel el s-a eliberat putinul cu putinul din robia sa in ceea ce priveste frumosul individual, este vorba de dragostea unui singur copil frumos sau a unui singur om sau dragostea unei singure actiuni, el inceteaza de a fi mizerabil si plin de limite gandite. Dar ochii intorsi spre vastul ocean al Frumosului si tot la aceasta contemplare, el face dimpotriva a naste in multime de discursuri frumoase si minunate si meditatiile sale infloresc intr-o aspiratie inepuizabila spre intelepciune. Dar noi aici parveniti la etapa suprema la ultimul efect al dragostei bine asezata. Crescut si fortificat in aceste regiuni superioare, acela care primeste initierea termina prin a observa o oarecare stiinta, una care este cea a frumusetii. Atunci el isi atinge scopul. Invatatorul sau l-a ghidat in misterele dragostei la punctul unde noi suntem: dupa a avea contemplat frumoasele lucruri in decursul ascensiunii neintrerupte care vin de a fi descrise, ajungand la sfarsitul initierii amoroase, el va zari brusc o frumusete supranaturala a unei naturi admirabile, aceeasi de la care au fost instituite toate lucrarile precedente. Aceasta frumusete e vesnica, nu e supusa generarii, nici distrugerii, nici cresterii, nici descresterii. Ea nu este frumoasa sub un raport si urata sub

altul. Ea nu-i va aparea ca neavand nimic din frumusetea sensibila si trupeasca, nici din acea de discursuri sau de stiinte, nici ca existand in alt lucru, nici de pamant, nici de cer. Dar ea este insasi in ea insasi si prin ea insasi in unitatea si eternitatea formei sale si toate lucrurile frumoase participa la aceasta realitate transcendenta, dar aceasta participare are loc in asa fel ca nici generarea, nici distrugerea de alte lucruri nu fac a simti la realitatea absoluta nici cresterea, nici diminuarea, nici o modificare. Aceasta este numai la acest moment, cand este permis omului sa contemple astfel Frumosul in sine, caci viata merita intr-adevar traita. Dupa aceasta frumusete nici o alta frumusete nu mai conteaza. Indeosebi frumusetea trupeasca. Omul caruia i-ar fi permis sa contempleze astfel frumosul al lui insusi, in independenta sa, in puritatea sa, fara amestec, si nemaifiind acoperit de murdarie, de frumuseti zadarnice, pieritoare, de a contempla deci intr-un cuvant frumusetea divina, ea insasi, in unitatea formei sale si cu ochiul spiritului, acest om ar putea in sfarsit sa se uneasca la ea ar trai o viata care n-ar fi desigur mizerabila, dar fericita. Singur el ar fi capabil sa procreeze nu imagini de calitate, dar calitatea insasi pe care el a atins-o. in sfarsit, lui i se procreeaza adevarata calitate, si o hraneste ca el sa apartina din fiinta astfel prieten a zeilor, si daca este un om pe acest pamant care ar trebui sa posede nemurirea, ii este bine

ARISTOFAN: Trebuie ns mai nti s lmuresc care este natura omeneasc i la ce prefaceri a fost ea supus. Iat, cndva, demult, noi nu eram alctuii cum suntem acum, eram cu totul altfel. n primul rnd, oamenii erau de trei feluri, nu de dou ca acum, de fel brbtesc i de fel femeiesc, ci i de un al treilea fel, care era prta la firea fiecruia dintre cele dou. ns din acesta a rmas doar numele, fiina lui a pierit din lume. Fptura aceasta omeneasc din vremurile acelea era un brbat-femeie, un androgin, iar alctuirea lui, ca i numele, inea i de brbat i de femeie. Din el, cum spuneam, a rmas doar numele, iar i acesta numai ca porecl de ocar. n al doilea rnd, cele trei feluri de oameni de pe atunci se nfiau, toate trei, ca un ntreg deplin i rotund, cu spatele i cu laturile formnd un cerc; aveau patru mini i tot attea picioare; singurul lor cap, aezat pe un gt rotund, avea dou fee ntru totul la fel, care priveau fiecare nspre partea ei; patru urechi, dou pri ruinoase i toate celelalte pe msur. Fpturile acestea mergeau, inndu-se drept i putnd s se mite nainte i napoi, ca i noi cei de acum, iar cnd doreau s alerge se foloseau de toate cele opt mdulare ale lor i se nvrteau n cerc, dndu-se de-a rostogolul, ca nite saltimbanci care fac roata aruncndu-i picioarele n sus i apoi revenind cu ele pe pmnt. Iar felurile acestea de oameni erau n numr de trei i alctuii cum am spus pentru c cel brbtesc i avea obria n soare, cel femeiesc n pmnt, cel brbtesc-femeiesc n lun, luna innd i de soare i de pmnt. i tocmai de aceea erau rotunde i rotitoare aceste fpturi, att ele nsele ct i felul lor de a merge, pentru c semnau cu astrele care le zmisliser. i erau nzestrate cu o putere uria, iar mndria lor era nemsurat, astfel c s-au ncumetat s-i nfrunte pn i pe zei. [] Vznd aceasta, Zeus i ceilali zei au stat la sfat, s hotrasc ce este de fcut cu fpturile acelea. i erau foarte descumpnii: pe de o parte nu puteau nici s le omoare, nici s le trsneasc, cum au fcut cu Giganii, strpindu-le neamul (pentru c astfel ar fi trebuit s se lipseasc de cinstirea i de jertfele pe care ei le aduceau), iar pe de alt parte nici nu puteau s le mai rabde trufaa ncumetare. Zeus, dup o lung i grea gndire, a spus: Cred c am gsit un mijloc care, pstrnd seminia oamenilor, dar slbind-o, s pun capt denrii lor. Chiar acum o s-i tai n dou pe fiecare dintre ei, i n felul acesta vor deveni mai slabi i totodat, sporindu-le numrul, ne vor fi nou mai de folos. Vor merge drepi, pe cte dou

picioare. Iar dac, totui, nu se vor potoli i vor strui n trufia lor, o s-i mai tai nc o dat n dou, ca s nu mai poat merge dect srind ntr-un picior. i, dup ce a vorbit aa, i-a tiat pe oameni n dou, aa cum se taie nite fructe de sorb, ca s le pui la uscat, sau nite ou fierte, cu un fir de pr. Apoi, i-a poruncit lui Apolon ca tuturor celor astfel despicai s le ntoarc faa i jumtatea de gt n partea tieturii, pentru ca oamenii, avnd mereu sub ochi dovada despicrii, s se poarte mai cu msur. De asemenea, Zeus i-a poruncit lui Apolon s vindece toate rnile rmase.Iar Apolon aa a i fcut, le-a ntors feele i, adunnd din toate prile pielea ctre ceea ce astzi numim pntece, i-a tras marginile cum a-i trage de bierile unei pungi, strngndu-le n jurul unei singure deschizturi, fcut n mijloc, care a cptat numele de buric. i, dintre cutele rmase, pe cele mai multe le-a netezit, dnd form pieptului prin ntinderea pielii cu o scul asemenea calapodului de care se folosesc pielarii ca s netezeasc cutele pieilor. A lsat doar cteva chiar pe pntec, n jurul buricului, ca s le rmn un semn de amintire a strvechii pedepse. i astfel, trupul dintru nceput al omului fiind despicat n dou pri, fiecare jumtate a nceput s tnjeasc dup cealalt i s se mpreuneze cu ea: cuprinzndu-se cu braele i inndu-se strns mpletite din dorul de a se retopi ntr-o singur fiin, ncepuser s piar de foame i, ndeobte, de neputin de a mai face orice altceva, pentru c niciuna nu vroia s fac nimic fr cealalt. [] Aadar, din acest ndeprtat trecut exist dragostea nnscut a oamenilor unul pentru altul, dragostea care ne aduce napoi la starea noastr dinti, ngduindu-ne ca, din doi, s redevenim iari unul, i aducndu-i astfel firii omeneti tmduire. [] Iar dragostea nu este altceva dect un nume pentru dorina noastr ptima de a fi din nou ntregi. ntregi cum am spus c eram dintru nceput i nu desprii n propira noastr fiin, despicai, pentru ncumetarea noastr, de ctre Zeus, aa cum spartanii au desprit n dou neamul arcadienilor. Este aadar de temut ca nu cumva, dac vom grei fa de zei, s fim despicai nc o dat, ca nite arice, astfel nct s umblm, asemeni oamenilor care se vd din profil, n basorelief, pe pietrele de mormnt, tiai de sus n jos pe linia nasului. Iat de ce trebuie s-i dm fiecrui om ndemnul de a arta zeilor deplin cucernicie, pentru ca astfel i ei, vzndu-l pe Eros drept crmuitor i cpetenie, s scpm de asemenea soart i s dobndim numai ceea ce Eros poate s ne dea. Nimeni dintre noi s nu-i stea mpotriv lui Eros: ar nsemna s ne atragem ura zeilor. Bine este astfel, s ne aflm cu el n bun prietenie i mpcare: atunci vom izbuti s gsim, pentru a-l iubi, pe acela care este cu adevrat al nostru.