Frisbee C. C. Sheffield
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199286775
- eISBN:
- 9780191713194
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286775.003.0008
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Philosophy
This chapter explores the relationship between Socrates and his predecessors, and gives a significant philosophical role to all the speeches of the dialogue. It argues that Socrates' speech is ...
More
This chapter explores the relationship between Socrates and his predecessors, and gives a significant philosophical role to all the speeches of the dialogue. It argues that Socrates' speech is continuous with his predecessors, and completes and resolves some of the issues raised in the previous speeches. In this way, the previous speeches can be compared to Aristotelian endoxa. The contrast between Socrates and his predecessors also exemplifies the contrast between the two sorts of lovers described in the lower and higher mysteries of Socrates' speech. Reading the speeches in light of this contrast provides a further reason to think that the previous speeches are for the sake of our philosophical education, in much the same way as the lower mysteries were taught to Socrates for the sake of the higher. The philosophy of the Symposium, in other words, is extended throughout the dialogue and is not limited to Socrates'speech.Less
This chapter explores the relationship between Socrates and his predecessors, and gives a significant philosophical role to all the speeches of the dialogue. It argues that Socrates' speech is continuous with his predecessors, and completes and resolves some of the issues raised in the previous speeches. In this way, the previous speeches can be compared to Aristotelian endoxa. The contrast between Socrates and his predecessors also exemplifies the contrast between the two sorts of lovers described in the lower and higher mysteries of Socrates' speech. Reading the speeches in light of this contrast provides a further reason to think that the previous speeches are for the sake of our philosophical education, in much the same way as the lower mysteries were taught to Socrates for the sake of the higher. The philosophy of the Symposium, in other words, is extended throughout the dialogue and is not limited to Socrates'speech.
Susan B. Levin
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- August 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199919802
- eISBN:
- 9780199378159
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199919802.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Ancient Philosophy, History of Philosophy
This chapter argues that the Symposiumdebunks medicine’s claim to be the preeminent technê. At the same time, the dialogue contributes importantly to Plato’s unfolding argument that philosophy alone ...
More
This chapter argues that the Symposiumdebunks medicine’s claim to be the preeminent technê. At the same time, the dialogue contributes importantly to Plato’s unfolding argument that philosophy alone rightly apprehends phusis(nature) and eudaimonia(flourishing). The Symposiumoffers Plato’s critique of medicine largely through Eryximachus’ articulation of what he, qua medical expert, views as the nature of the cosmos and human beings. Eryximachus’ speech in the dialogue shows how an expressly framed approach to thriving might look if medicine’s unquestioned confidence in its role as arbiter of nature and flourishing were taken to its natural extreme. Not only can the error of this approach be shown only from a vantage point other than medicine’s own, but Plato must challenge medicine’s ability to handle these matters as he defends philosophy’s preeminence.Less
This chapter argues that the Symposiumdebunks medicine’s claim to be the preeminent technê. At the same time, the dialogue contributes importantly to Plato’s unfolding argument that philosophy alone rightly apprehends phusis(nature) and eudaimonia(flourishing). The Symposiumoffers Plato’s critique of medicine largely through Eryximachus’ articulation of what he, qua medical expert, views as the nature of the cosmos and human beings. Eryximachus’ speech in the dialogue shows how an expressly framed approach to thriving might look if medicine’s unquestioned confidence in its role as arbiter of nature and flourishing were taken to its natural extreme. Not only can the error of this approach be shown only from a vantage point other than medicine’s own, but Plato must challenge medicine’s ability to handle these matters as he defends philosophy’s preeminence.
