The Symposium summary

We start our journey into the Symposium with the first dialogue, presented by Phaedrus – a figure known for his intellectualism and fiery rhetoric. To set the scene, imagine the relaxing yet intellectually stimulating atmosphere of a symposium: an ancient Greek gathering for exchanging ideas and festive celebrations. It’s in this context that Phaedrus steps forward to open the series of encomia, or laudatory speeches dedicated to exploring the nature of something. Today, that something is eros, the ancient Greek term encompassing love and desire.

Phaedrus, who comes from a wealthy Athenian family, is known for his clever argumentation and his interest in both natural science and philosophy. And his tendency toward intellectualism is clearly evident in his speech – it’s not just casual musings, but well-rehearsed, thoughtfully prepared expositions. The approach he’s taking is one that connects ancient myths with poetic references; in doing so, he sets the stage for the dialogues that follow.

As his discourse gets underway, Phaedrus makes a bold assertion: eros is the oldest of all the gods, and a powerful force that wields immense power over both human and divine affairs. But his claim isn’t only speculative – he backs it up with examples from myth and legend, drawing from stories of figures like Alcestis, Orpheus, and Achilles. Such tales don’t just serve as illustrations but as proof of the transformative and sacrificial power of love. For example, Alcestis’s willingness to die for her husband transcends the emotional realm; it enters the space of the divine, and highlights love’s capability to inspire incredible acts of selflessness. This, to Phaedrus, is the ultimate power of love. 

Now, it’s important to mention that Phaedrus’s interpretation of these myths isn’t without its quirks. By challenging traditional narratives, such as the relationship dynamics between Achilles and Patroclus, he offers alternative perspectives that provoke both thought and debate. 

For instance, in the traditional narrative of Greek mythology, Achilles and Patroclus are usually depicted as two close friends united by their shared experiences in battle and life. But Phaedrus indicates a more intimate bond – perhaps even one of eros. Of course, this interpretation is not universally accepted. But that’s where the nature of the symposium comes in; it allows for more nuanced and exploratory approaches for endless intellectual discussion.

Phaedrus moves his argument forward by switching gears – he begins to examine the concepts of shame and honor in the context of love. On one hand, he argues that love tends to instill a deep sense of shame when it comes to dishonorable acts. But on the other hand, he explains that it also compels people toward honorable deeds. This dichotomy actually aligns with the traditional values of ancient Greek society, where honor and bravery were held in high esteem – especially in the context of how soldiers were supposed to conduct themselves. Phaedrus goes as far to suggest that if love were to guide an entire army, its power would be unstoppable. This brings love into the social and moral realm, transgressing the personal and intimate contexts we normally associate with it.

Phaedrus’s speech doesn’t just represent a collection of philosophical ideals – it also lays the groundwork for the dialogues to come. This is particularly evident in terms of what he didn’t talk about, especially his decision to only scratch the surface in differentiating between shameful and honorable acts. Additionally, his reliance on accepted societal norms sets the stage for further exploration by the other speakers in the symposium.