Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2017, Eros, Otherness, Tyranny
In several of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates claims to be an expert on only one topic, love. He can claim such expertise because love, unlike justice, piety, or courage, is not so much a theme to be delineated, but is the motivating force that defines the life of philosophy. To be a philosopher is, as the etymology of the word suggests, to be a lover. But what kind of love is it that characterizes the life of philosophy, and how does it relate to other kinds of love? Specifically, what are the implications of the philosopher’s love of wisdom for the realization of the interpersonal forms of attachment that are necessary for ethics and politics to be possible? James McGuirk explores this question in the present study though a close reading of Plato’s Symposium and through comparative readings of Friedrich Nietzsche and Emmanuel Lévinas, in which several indictments and defences of philosophy are explored. According to McGuirk, the trial of philosophy hangs ultimately on the meaning of philosophical eros. He argues that while eros can involve impulses toward tyranny and the subjugation of otherness, it is finally understood by Plato in terms of a subtle balance, in which the acquisitiveness of eros is enframed by a more fundamental affective attunement to the Good in Being. According to this reading, eros is not only compatible with ethical and political forms of the interpersonal, it is their condition of possibility.
In several of Plato's dialogues, Socrates claims to be an expert on only one topic, love. He can claim such expertise because love, unlike justice, piety, or courage, is not so much a theme to be delineated, but is the motivating force that defines the life of philosophy. To be a philosopher is, as the etymology of the word suggests, to be a lover. But what kind of love is it that characterizes the life of philosophy, and how does it relate to other kinds of love? Specifically, what are the implications of the philosopher's love of wisdom for the realization of the interpersonal forms of attachment that are necessary for ethics and politics to be possible? James McGuirk explores this question in the present study though a close reading of Plato's Symposium and through comparative readings of Friedrich Nietzsche and Emmanuel Lévinas, in which several indictments and defences of philosophy are explored. According to McGuirk, the trial of philosophy hangs ultimately on the meaning of philosophical eros. He argues that while eros can involve impulses toward tyranny and the subjugation of otherness, it is finally understood by Plato in terms of a subtle balance, in which the acquisitiveness of eros is enframed by a more fundamental affective attunement to the Good in Being. According to this reading, eros is not only compatible with ethical and political forms of the interpersonal, it is their condition of possibility.
The appropriation of the term eros by Plato in the Symposium culminates in Socrates'/Diotima's speech. However there is a more specifi c sense of eros, which could be called philosophical eros. On the one hand, philosophical eros is the immediate consequence of the development of the dynamis by which one is capable of recognizing both the existence and the value of the Forms. On the other hand, the development of this same dynamis promotes the desire to transmit this dynamis to those regarded as a fertile ground to it. Understanding this twofold dimension of philosophical eros will shed light both on Plato's conception of philosophy and on Socrates, character of Plato's dialogues, as lover of beautiful boys.
Christopher Grau and Aaron Smuts (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Love, OUP, 2019
Given the prodigious amount of scholarship on Platonic love, this article explores a different question: the nature of Plato's love for Socrates as expressed in two dialogues, the Symposium and Phaedo, in which Plato depicts Socrates as surrounded by his lovers and disciples. By paying attention to the "outer frames" of the dialogues, that is, the relationship between the text and the reader, it is argued that Plato's love for Socrates is displayed not only in his loving depiction of Socrates but also in Plato's doing philosophy through the character of Socrates; Plato thereby shows what genuine love for Socrates would be like. Moreover, contrasted with the words and actions of other characters in these dialogues, Plato shows himself to be not just one among many of Socrates' lovers, but in fact the best.
The Symposium addresses the relation between desire, beauty and the good life, while indicating the fascination that strong teaching arouses in followers. For Plato, unlike for moderns, power, desire and ethics are interrelated. This article takes Socrates as a case study for the Platonic understanding of this interrelation and it will put into play the grounds involved in their modern separation. It focuses on the three speakers in the dialogue who were followers of Socrates as a way of addressing the role of desire in the teacher–student relation. The article demonstrates how the radical interpretive method brings to life the challenges a strong engagement with Eros risks, especially those related to Socrates’ strong and influential teaching, while addressing and exemplifying theorizing’s need for ironic intoxication.
Papyri - Scientific Journal
MARIA KLI, Dr of Philosophy, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens ***_ The concepts of Eros and Love do not often appear in the political philosophy. In the political philosophy of modernity and the contractarian theories, the human being is conceived in biased categories such as those of loneliness, enmity and property. These anthropological qualities are related to the political terms according to which modern societies were constituted. Individualism, sovereignty, competition and egoistic action comprise the factors of the modern societies, which were developed in opposition to the values of the classic political theory of the democratic polis, as much as to those of communitarianism and solidarity. The anti-democratic and one-dimensional constitution of the political, came with the constitution of the modern materialistic and positivistic model of knowledge, which shaped the understanding of the human being in terms of identity and objectivity; it caused, on the one hand, the split between the subject the object, and on the other hand, between the subject of knowledge and the subject of will. This kind of knowledge was developed through the normalizing mechanisms of adjusting to the society as such. On the other side, the revolutionary movements of the past and the communitarian tradition, disregarding the singularity of the subjectivity, and the need of the human being and societies for multiplicity, restricted their struggles to the efforts for the imposition of the same, attempting to exclude difference. Nevertheless, ignoring the complexity which is connected to the human consciousness and affectivity, they limited their imperatives to the alteration of the material conditions. Keeping in mind all the aforementioned complications, Eros is chosen as a topic and as a method of healing, in the form of the ontological force of constituting expanding units of life, creation and balancing the forces of destruction within the being and the cosmos, as it was presented by Plato and Freud, but also in the form of compassion, power of empathy, that exceeds the egoistic closed-mindedness, and allows the self to take care of the other, as it appears in Buddhism and other spiritual traditions. These two principles comprise the ontological and ethical dimensions of the phenomenon, and purpose of this text is to connect them with the political dimension. The context of the transition from the ethical to the political is set with an interpretation of the Ethics of the Other as it is met in the phenomenological analysis of Levinas. The approach that will be explicated in general, follows Hardt’s and Negri’s suggestion of a revolutionary reinvention of Love in the form of a political imperative. Eros is charged with the mission of Love, according to the present suggestion, for this is what constitutes subjectivity as multiplicity and as a becoming, and this appears also to be the mechanism which constitutes the community. Love is the wealth and the ingenuity of the poor. Love is learning through which we can change habits, instituting, thus, a new ethics that is not folding back to the self but opens up to the other.
Papyri - Scientific Journal vol.5, 2016
The concepts of Eros and Love do not often appear in political philosophy. In the political philosophy of modernity and the contractarian theories, the human being is conceived in biased categories such as those of loneliness, enmity and property. These anthropological qualities are related to the political terms according to which modern societies were constituted. Individualism, sovereignty, competition and egoistic action comprise conditions of modern societies, which were developed in opposition to the values of classical political theory of the democratic polis, as much as to those of communitarianism and solidarity. The anti-democratic and one-dimensional constitution of the political, emerged with the constitution of the modern materialistic and positivistic model of knowledge, which shaped the understanding of the human subjectivity in terms of identity and objectivity; therefore, it caused the split, on the one hand, between subject and object, and on the other hand, between subject of knowledge and subject of will. This kind of knowledge was developed through the normalizing mechanisms of adjusting to society as such. On the other side, the revolutionary movements of the past and the communitarian tradition, disregarding the singularity of the subjectivity, and the need of the human being and societies for multiplicity, restricted their struggles to the efforts for the imposition of the 'same', excluding the 'difference'. Nevertheless, ignoring the complexity which is connected to the human consciousness and affectivity, they limited their imperatives to the alteration of material conditions. Keeping in mind all the aforementioned complications, Eros is chosen as a topic and as a method of healing, in the form of the ontological force of constituting expanding units of life, energy of creation which balances the forces of destruction within the being and the cosmos, as it was presented by Plato and Freud. It is also perceived as the form of compassion, and power of empathy, that exceeds the egoistic closed-mindedness, and allows the self to take care of the other, as it appears in Buddhism and other spiritual traditions. These two principles comprise the ontological and ethical dimensions of the phenomenon, and the purpose of this text is to connect them with the political dimension. The context of the transition from the ethical to the political is set based on an interpretation of the Ethics of the Other as it is met in the phenomenological analysis of Emmanuel Levinas. My analysis of the topic follows Hardt’s and Negri’s suggestion of a revolutionary reinvention of Love in the form of a political imperative. According to the present analysis, Eros is charged with the mission of Love, for this is what constitutes the subjectivity as a multiplicity and as a becoming, and this principle appears to be also the mechanism which constitutes the community. Love is the wealth and the ingenuity of the poor. Love is learning through which we can change habits, instituting, thus, a new ethics that is not folding back to the self but opens up to the Other.
Love - Ancient Perspectives, 2021
In his classic paper on "The Individual as an Object of Love in Plato" Gregory Vlastos denied that according to Plato's Diotima in the Symposium a human individual can ever be the proper object of one's erotic desire, because what one (should) be enamoured with is the Form of Beauty. For the true Platonic lover, the beauty of an individual is only the starting-point for one to understand that beauty can reside also in more abstract levels. Hence, Vlastos argues that the beloved individual is for his lover only a means to an end, so that the lover recollects and attains to true Beauty, and that this is morally objectionable. The systematic Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus (412-485 AD) had already given an answer to this accusation. I will first present the altruistic side of Eros as an ontological entity in Proclus's metaphysical system. My guide in this will be Socrates, as well as the Platonic Demiurge from the Timaeus and Republic's philosopher-king. It will be shown that, according to Proclus's interpretation of various Platonic texts, Vlastos was wrong to accuse Plato of the abovementioned "instrumentality" on the erotic field. However, my paper will close with a critical engagement with Proclus too, since I discern that in his view of Platonic love another sort of instrumentality, one which is akin to Stoic ethics, arises. Vlastos was wrong, but we do not need to be wholeheartedly sympathetic to Proclus.
Cambridge Companion to Plato, 2022
One of the ways in which Plato has captured the popular imagination is with the claim that the philosopher can feel erôs, passionate love, for the objects of knowledge. Why should Plato make this claim? In this chapter, I explore Plato’s treatment of philosophical erôs along three dimensions. First, I consider the source of philosophical erôs. I argue that it is grounded in our mortality and imperfection, which give rise to a desire for immortality and the immortal. Second, I turn to the object of philosophical erôs. I suggest that it is an arresting response to beauty, through which we come to value the ideal properties of the forms. Finally, I address the nature of erôs. I claim that it is a focusing desire, that overrides other concerns and causes us to overwhelmingly focus on its object. I conclude the chapter by considering the problem Vlastos famously raises for Plato’s account of erôs: can it do justice to disinterested, interpersonal love? In agreement with Vlastos, I claim that one who comes to grasp the forms will cease to feel interpersonal love; however, I also suggest that erôs can give rise to philia, beneficent concern with the wellbeing of others.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Prados Martínez, F. y Gutiérrez Soler, L.M. (2024): “El sillar con volutas del Museo Íbero de Jaén: propuesta de reconstrucción de un nuevo monumento de Giribaile (Vilches, Jaén)”. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 50(1): 181-202, 2024
Editorial QyDado, 2023
Self Publication, 2024
Transmission: The Journal of The Awareness Field., 2021
PACIFIC HISTORICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2024, 2024
European Surgery, 2004
Sustainability, 2024
American Journal of Veterinary Research, 2004
Molecular and Cellular Biology, 1989
Germinal: Marxismo e Educação em Debate, 2018