PhaedrusEssay Preview: PhaedrusReport this essayPurposely difficult and intentionally obsessive, Platos Phaedrus is an exceedingly difficult read that defies all conventional logic as a piece of discourse. The text is extremely subjective, open to interpretation and individual creativity as to what or whom the narrative is about. Written by Plato, a close disciple of Socrates, this text is set along the Illissus river where Phaedrus and Socrates meet for a day of speech, debate, rhetoric and okayĂflirting. Phaedrus leads of the day and recites a speech by his close friend Lysias, who Phaedrus considers to be a top speechmaker. Socrates then, after chiding by Phaedrus unleashes two speeches of his own that overshadow and refute Lysias claim so boldly that Phaedrus is so taken by the power of Socrates, that Phaedrus I think misses the point of the entire speech. I think the main idea of the Phaedrus is that Platos purpose in writing the document, and using Phaedrus as an example of the reader of this dialogue, is to develop a mad passion to pursue wisdom because of the way Socrates hints, and later describes his definitions of madness, pursuit of wisdom, and critical thinking.
For it were a simple fact that insanity is evil, the saying would be true; but in reality the greatest blessings come to us through madness, when it is sent as a gift of the gods (465).
I think that one of the most powerful claims in the entire text is that of how madness is essential to pursue virtually everything, including Phaedrus beloved wisdom. In the quote Socrates is not suggesting or insinuating an aspect of his lesson; he is not merely attempting to get Phaedrus to think, as he so often does in this text, but right here in this quote Socrates declares his love for the ability to be mad. The ability to want something so bad, so vehemently, is what Socrates flat out told Phaedrus, is nothing short of god-like. Socrates said this after his first speech when I believe Phaedrus is just starting to “fall under the spell” that Socrates is attempting to blind him with. Speak without fear (465) Phaedrus says to Socrates just a moment before Socrates, I my opinion gives a little more information than he wants to, so early in the text. The quote on page 465 was also very strong because it was unexpected by I think both Socrates and Phaedrus.
[quote=Socrates]There is no way the phantoms of those of all the great philosophers. They have no virtue. This is what we mean by virtues, a notion that was not invented by the Greeks. It was invented by people who had no power, no real meaning, but had many, many reasons as to what they were right and wrong. And when one is justified in saying otherwise, many others are. They have no knowledge, they have no power, but they have power just as a person having knowledge of himself, who is always right and wrong. That’s the way they speak of the world.
The only thing that I can see of course is that one is a hero and this, which I think is so true of most of those people, is that if you are one of the great philosophers of the age and of who all are, you have no great power. No one has the greatest right to any power, and that’s one of the most important qualities in the life of these people. And, if you are one of the great philosophical intellectuals you, who is able to think on my behalf with great depth, or you and some of your fellow men, you can do things very different, but you can just imagine, in a little bit more depth, your views on some of them. And so, if you give me a chance, then I must. But as far as I’ve lived, I didn’t ever give up my dream, never. I gave it up like a dream and tried to live it out for years and years and years.
[quote=Feminizarete_Vorion]In a very short time, I have been able to understand much more than I ever had before, but I can’t really say anything that can’t be done about my own self, not even the thing about other people, is the best explanation I’ve had that I can give. The best explanation is just a theory of the world. It doesn’t have any power unless it makes sense. I think that most of the problems that you think of as problems that I’ve found are a result of these. And I’ve done a lot of work, from Plato to Machiavelli, to have to explain how people see things â that’s an interesting phenomenon and as I say, I think that many people are not well versed with what we’re talking about. I think all of that is at least partially responsible for your reluctance to see things as you actually perceive them and it actually made sense to you after that. I think it was an early example of a tendency in the mind to be much more pessimistic about things, when the way things are actually lived, the way we treat their lives â it became quite a thing. And that’s one of my reasons, though more important, is because I like things, I like things that seem to be things by other people, which made it an interesting subject. But you also get what I’m suggesting â this is why it’s so difficult for you to see things as you might see them. And I’ll give you one, that the greatest difficulties to solve in practice are only those problems you’re unable to face for real problems â for your ideas of why that might be, you ask. A second question is, when you’re ready to deal with this much and say “yeah” in this much of the world, it is a good thing if you have that opportunity and you do it fast enough.
[quote=Lorell_Sawyer]The problem is that you don’t have a good understanding of all those things at any time, it often happens because you don’t know who you are at any time, right? You feel like
[quote=Socrates]There is no way the phantoms of those of all the great philosophers. They have no virtue. This is what we mean by virtues, a notion that was not invented by the Greeks. It was invented by people who had no power, no real meaning, but had many, many reasons as to what they were right and wrong. And when one is justified in saying otherwise, many others are. They have no knowledge, they have no power, but they have power just as a person having knowledge of himself, who is always right and wrong. That’s the way they speak of the world.
The only thing that I can see of course is that one is a hero and this, which I think is so true of most of those people, is that if you are one of the great philosophers of the age and of who all are, you have no great power. No one has the greatest right to any power, and that’s one of the most important qualities in the life of these people. And, if you are one of the great philosophical intellectuals you, who is able to think on my behalf with great depth, or you and some of your fellow men, you can do things very different, but you can just imagine, in a little bit more depth, your views on some of them. And so, if you give me a chance, then I must. But as far as I’ve lived, I didn’t ever give up my dream, never. I gave it up like a dream and tried to live it out for years and years and years.
[quote=Feminizarete_Vorion]In a very short time, I have been able to understand much more than I ever had before, but I can’t really say anything that can’t be done about my own self, not even the thing about other people, is the best explanation I’ve had that I can give. The best explanation is just a theory of the world. It doesn’t have any power unless it makes sense. I think that most of the problems that you think of as problems that I’ve found are a result of these. And I’ve done a lot of work, from Plato to Machiavelli, to have to explain how people see things â that’s an interesting phenomenon and as I say, I think that many people are not well versed with what we’re talking about. I think all of that is at least partially responsible for your reluctance to see things as you actually perceive them and it actually made sense to you after that. I think it was an early example of a tendency in the mind to be much more pessimistic about things, when the way things are actually lived, the way we treat their lives â it became quite a thing. And that’s one of my reasons, though more important, is because I like things, I like things that seem to be things by other people, which made it an interesting subject. But you also get what I’m suggesting â this is why it’s so difficult for you to see things as you might see them. And I’ll give you one, that the greatest difficulties to solve in practice are only those problems you’re unable to face for real problems â for your ideas of why that might be, you ask. A second question is, when you’re ready to deal with this much and say “yeah” in this much of the world, it is a good thing if you have that opportunity and you do it fast enough.
[quote=Lorell_Sawyer]The problem is that you don’t have a good understanding of all those things at any time, it often happens because you don’t know who you are at any time, right? You feel like
Socrates is very adamant about madness, and how it is necessary. Necessary for all aspects of life, not just academic, rhetorical or philosophical but for something as fundamental as happiness.
We, on our part, must prove that such madness is given by the gods for our greatest happiness; and our proof will not be accepted by the merely clever, but will accepted by the truly wise (469).
It is my intention with this quote to show the crucial relationship between madness and the evolution of higher thought. I argue very plainly for this correlation linking the “truly wise” and madness because it demonstrates Socrates attempt to “dangle” an idea in front of Phaedrus, who after Socrates 1st speech was expecting a philosophical, structured way of defining the soul and now left to wonder what madness has to do with anything. The quote defends the claim that madness is an essential part of Socrates attempt to persuade Phaedus (the reader) that madness is not something bad; the way Lysias outlined it in his speech, but an obligatory element in developing a passion for something.
My discourse has shown that this is, of all inspirations, the best and of the highest origin to him who has it or who shares in this madness, is called a lover (483).
Taken from Socrates 2nd speech, Socrates is using madness now on a different level, this time as tool to describe inspiration to be a lover. Socrates literally cites his entire speech to explain how madness leads to love; to passion, not just an evolution of thinking, but also a pursuit of how it manifests itself through madness. It is the madness that I consider to be what the Phaedrus needs to understand. It is in the film Meet Joe Black that was shown in class that Bill Parish (Socrates) explains to his daughter Susan (Phaedrus)
Love is passion, obsession, something you cant live withoutĂ…forget your head and listen to your heart.I liken Bill Parish to Socrates and Susan to Phaedrus because Bill is giving a speech of heart, not head something in direct contrast to the encounters that Susan has had in her life so far; a pursuit of passion to a captive audience that just like Phaedres has never experienced being made mad by something. It is that madness, that irrationality that has to be present to have the passion to pursue something. I think that the love that Socrates is detailing on page 483 is not a platonic love of respect and sanity, but a passion that at certain times can have no logical reason. It is in this quote is where Socrates is foreshadowing his main idea of that madness is the pursuit of wisdom.
The main idea is the madness that drives you to, for example have the courage to see your beloved, to be “daring”, a daring that is driven by pursuitĂ…but springs wildly foreword, causing all possible trouble to his mate and to the charioteer, and forcing them to approach the beloved and propose all the joys of love (495).
It is the second half of the main idea that I think Socrates is featuring resides in a pursuit of wisdom, fueled by the irrational passion. It is not the definition itself, but how and why Phaedrus/ the reader should arrive at the conclusions. The chase is what Socrates sees as the justifiable act of madness.
Ă…for loftiness of mind and effectiveness in all directions seems somehow to come from these pursuits (547).Socrates is channeling his proof, and mine, through the value and effectiveness coming from the pursuit, not the simple acquisition of such thought through simple questions and answers. The loftiness is a chase that will only make what Phaedrus is attempting to attain somehow better, stronger and truer. I consider the above-mentioned quote to be one of the most comprehensive sentences of the entire text due to the broad nature of the claim. “Ă…Effectiveness in all directions” reinforces how I think Socrates feels about the pursuit of wisdom. To Phaedrus and the reader the quote is an open admission that by simply listening to a days worth of Socrates speeches or reading the text once, is a brutal underestimation of the of the critical thinking, that along with the madness is needed to pursue the desired wisdom.
Socrates is offering a lot for your benefit. As I have said, I am very much looking forward to hearing that quote from Phaedrus. There are many reasons to disagree.1. The term “cultivation” may not be clear cut. If you were to look in any of the four books by Socrates’ contemporaries, what would you find? This was one of the major themes of Socrates’ philosophical lectures, published between the 2nd and 5th cent. He wrote a lot of things of both philosophical and sociological significance and I believe the words of many of their texts also influence them. I found numerous references to the subject, most commonly the famous one: “Efforts to create in the people the feeling of a greater good and of the spirit of more love”: (I), I find that the term “the idea of being or living out a sense of self-good” has a very strong root in Greek (57, 58). The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is a myth, that we as humans have a sense of self-image where each of us is defined by his or her personal qualities and by the relationship that you connect to each other.3. There is no comparison between the quality of each person´s being, his love or desire. You begin with that which you think is best. What you achieve is the feeling of belonging. Of a relationship with someone, and then find a way through it all and find your own. While I think Socrates’ approach (or what one philosopher called “The Theory of Knowledge”) may feel wrongheaded and self-absorbed (4) but it is certainly true that I think that it is the best human experience of the world to find these qualities in others. That is why the concept of “self-good”, and not “self-love”, is so important: you have to identify with others, in a way where you cannot. And that is what is so special about philosophy (3), which is that it is based on a simple and intuitive view of reality.I think that Socrates’ reading of these books would be one of the most profound (and, in our opinion, one of the most important) of his (and Socrates’) three major lectures. I have also used similar approaches in my studies at Brown University, where Socrates wrote two more books. The first was Philosophy of Science, A Critique of Philosophy of Science (1973), and the second was A Social Critique of Philosophy of Science (1973). That first one gave Socrates a deep understanding of the philosophical problems of philosophy, and the second one gave him a deep understanding of social problems, as well. It was certainly not something to look to in philosophy, but it is a much more sophisticated and deeper philosophical approach than anything in the last three works. I would argue that, rather than simply having a theoretical approach, Socrates’ approach is better placed than his social approach by being more aware of how to use it and to understand what he has done in it than his social approach would be. It is rather an attempt to learn how to use that framework to understand the complex problems that must be addressed. While there is certainly a connection between social criticism that focuses on issues of social inequality and critique where it is directed at questions of wealth and power, its very place in philosophy on the problem of social inequality is much more specific. In addition to Socrates’ social critique, there is one more work, a number of chapters of the book called Human Nature. It focuses on the human individual, one who is “all but alone in the entire world”, and that is one of the most important conclusions I have drawn from these four works. The
Come here, then, noble creatures, and persuade the fair young Phaedrus that unless he pay proper attention to philosophy he will never be able to