April 1, 2021

Symbolisms and Depictions in Plato’s Symposium

While historical recollections and reason-based analysis offer us great insight into what

people knew and believed at the time, mythology and poetry offer us a look into how people felt

and perceived the events and ideas floating around them at the time. Plato’s symposium, or

banquet offers us just that, an open space were notable figures of the time took turns expressing

themselves to their heart’s content as they challenged one another’s interpretations of god, love,

and other subjects. In a sense, each person’s depiction of the gods tells us more about their

character and personality than it does about the factuality of the specifics. As the men drank their

heart out and let loose to their line of thought and emotions, and as they let loose of their

inhibitions and give way for their hubris and passion to take over, the result is a heartfelt and

unfiltered conversation between friends at its purest form. This paper will go over some of the

notable concepts that were introduced in the symposium, with extra care given to the portrayal of

god as well as the depiction of the gods’ characters by Socrates and Aristophanes; drawing

parallels or distinctions as the two take turns expressing their take on the topic in question.

A central theme of the symposium was the meaning and purpose of love and the gods’ -

particularly Eros’, role and intent behind it. Aristophanes’s premise about love stemmed from his

proclamation that the human race originally had three genders; male, female, and androgynous.

(Symposium, 189e) According to Aristophanes, the androgynous gender, as its name implied,

had qualities of both male and female, but added that the male and female parts were fused in a

manner in which both sides were stuck to one another back to back, resulting in a creature with

four arms and four legs, and two heads -each facing one side. (190a) However, these humans

were strong and arrogant, and were insolent towards the gods to the point of trying to overthrow
them. As a result, Zeus and the other gods thought it proper to reign them down and assert their

power, as well as teach them a lesson about the consequences of unchecked vanity and hubris, by

splitting them into the two genders that are recognized nowadays. In turn, other gods took it upon

themselves to add more adjustments to the structure of humans, with Apollo being notably

accredited for repositioning the genitalia and limbs so that the two genders can face one another

as well as to facilitate procreation. For Aristophanes, this notion explains the natural attraction

between the genders, or love, as it pertains to a desire to become whole with the other long-lost

half. On that note, Aristophanes emphasizes the need for humans to seek the path of piety rather

than succumb to their troublesome primal nature of pursuing impious actions like adultery, as it

would be an attempt to return to the state which the gods opposed. Instead, Aristophanes implied

that the gods wanted a better path for their creatures by offering them the chance to not lead a

new and more pious path instead of outright killing them, and by that definition, Eros could

therefore be regarded as a leader in piety. (193a-d)

Socrates’s speech, on the other hand, offered a contrasting image to what Aristophanes

had presented. One might argue that the drunken friends took it upon themselves to challenge

and dismantle one another’s arguments and formulations as a form of entertainment.

Nevertheless, Socrates’s depiction of love also offers a very interesting take on the subject that is

worth contemplating. Socrates originally prefaced his speech by asserting that he would speak

the truth, implying a realist stance of harsh truths -as opposed to the wholesome nature of

Aristophanes’s earlier depiction. For Socrates, love was simply about the desire for an object, to

have that object, and to continue having it. Additionally, according to Socrates, love is based on

a desire to have something one does not have. Also, one is usually drawn to beautiful things,

which would suggest -according to Socrates, that love resembles the urge to have beautiful
things one does not have; in other words, love reflects one’s shortage of beautiful and good

things. Such bleak view goes in line with Socrates’s earlier proclamation that he would be

speaking truths as he viewed himself to be inadept at eulogies as he went on to dissect and

dismantle Agathon’s earlier talking points. The rationale is based on the premise that a need or

desire for something stems from one’s lack of it, and given that people desire beautiful and good

things for them, it would stand to reason that love resembles the absence of beautiful things in

one’s life, as it would stand to reason that no human would desire and love for ugly and bad

things to happen to them. Additionally, going back to Eros, Socrates referred to a speech he

heard from a wise woman, named of Diotima, about Eros. (200d) Socrates even insinuated that

he was initially of the same mind as Agathon about Eros, before Diotima refuted his

understanding of the deity in question. Socrates went on to relay the conversation he had with the

woman as she explained to him the nature of Eros. According to Diotima, there is a halfway

point between ugly and beautiful as well as between good and bad, with Eros being of that

nature. Diotima goes on to assert that Eros was also neither a man nor a god, but rather an

existence or spirit that mediates between the two, one called a daimon (or daemon). Socrates

then went on to recite the story he was told about the birth of Eros, as he recounted it based on

the speech Diotima gave him. The story talks about how Penia -the goddess of poverty, at the

night Aphrodite was born, took advantage of Poros -the god of resource, being drunk to conceive

Eros. This story explains Eros’s affiliation with beauty and love, given his association as an

attendant and servant of Aphrodite, while also asserting the nature of Eros as that of a creature

that is on neither end of an extreme, but rather in the twilight zone of being both or neither

depending on how mortals perceive him based on their intelligence.

some similarities and differences between the two. For Aristophanes, the moral lesson was about

the appropriate and right path of love to be that which emphasizes piety over strength, vanity,

and arrogance; for humans to make good and wise use of that sentiment in the way it is intended

for by the gods that created their existence. Aristophanes’s depiction of directive behind love -as

the desire to be whole by being reunited with the other compatible half, carries a similarity with

Socrates’s definition of love being a desire to have the beautiful and good things one does not

have. Both share a longing for something one does not have, but has a strong natural desire to

have. Aristophanes’s understanding, however differed from Socrates’s in equating the

implication about the emphasis on piety to be reflective of Eros’s nature -which, as Socrates

pointed from his interaction with Diotima, is akin to opining correctly without possessing the

expert knowledge required to elaborate and give an account to support it. (202a) On the other

hand, Socrates’s assertion about Eros’s nature as a mediary between godhood and mortality as

well as between beauty and ugliness not to mention good and bad, goes to show that there could

be different interpretations for the same occurrence based on the knowledge at one’s disposal.

One could also draw a parallel between Aristophanes’s deduction about Eros being a leader of

piety with Diotima’s account of Eros being a servant of Aphrodite, the latter -governed by his

peculiar nature, strives to fulfill that which is missing within itself. All in all, those depictions

and interpretations about love suggest the significance of perspective in shaping the narrative

which defines one’s inner understandings about different subjects and topic in life. One could see

Socrates’s depiction as being that of a selfish being whose existence and directives are bound by

their inescapable desire to attain that which they don’t have; while another person could interpret

that need and desire to have, to be the central key piece in defining as well as shaping a humans
character by testing their moral principles and directives as their journey of pursuit of love tells

them about themselves, whether they repeat the mistakes of their ancestral race/gender, or abide

by Aristophanes’s concept of piety, seeking an alternative, more serene path to achieve their

purpose under the eyes of the gods.