Lovers of Sophia

Home > Other > Lovers of Sophia > Page 9
Lovers of Sophia Page 9

by Jason Reza Jorjani


  with Socrates’ conclusion and exclaims in exasperation and

  bewilderment:

  I swear by the gods, Socrates, I have no idea what I mean – I

  must be in some absolutely bizarre condition! When you ask

  me questions, first I think one thing and then I think something

  else.61

  This is just the kind ‘acting like a fool’ that Alcibiades retrospectively describes as the first symptom of being poisonously intoxicated by

  Socrates’ philosophy.

  61 Ibid., 116e.

  69

  lovers of sophia

  The point is that the flaws of logic in Socrates’ ‘argument’ in

  Alcibiades are so serious and so numerous that when we consider them in light of Alcibiades’ eulogy in Symposium it is grounds for the suspicion that Plato did actual y intend Socrates to be some

  sort of satyr who intoxicates with his flute tunes rather than soberly convincing people with benignly rational arguments. In this case,

  the flaws in the dialogue Alcibiades, as well as its dramatic linkage to the latter’s eulogy of Socrates in Symposium, would be intentional devices employed by Plato as a means of providing a key to unlock

  the innermost chamber of his philosophy.

  The Dionysian is an erotic energy or vision and in Symposium

  Socrates claims that “eros is the one thing in the world I understand”62

  and “eros will help our mortal nature more than all the world...this is why I cultivate and worship...[it]...and bid others do the same.”63

  Alcibiades says that only drunkards tell the truth.64 We could take

  this as a hint from Plato that only in the Dionysian intoxication of

  the dialogue Symposium, particularly Alcibiades’ eulogy, will the whole truth about his philosophy be revealed. In light of this hint,

  and Socrates’ own admission that eros is all he understands and teaches, we might reasonably assume that the wisdom unveiled by

  the enchanting lady Diotima is the closest we come to a revelation of

  Plato’s own esoteric understanding.

  She teaches Socrates that one must fall in love with the beauty

  of one body, then compare it to others and see that as the love is for the bodily form one should love all people with beautiful bodies and account any given one of little importance. This should ultimately

  lead to one being drawn to the beauty of a soul, even if in an ugly body

  – perhaps because the fascination with physical beauty is satiated

  through one’s abandonment to all its abundance. This love will foster

  nobility in one’s thoughts and words, provoking contemplation of

  the beauty of abstractions like laws and institutions. From here one

  will go on to love the beauty of knowledge and the sciences that lead

  62 Ibid., 177e.

  63 Ibid., 212 b-c.

  64 Ibid., 217e.

  70

  jason reza jorjani

  to it and from this perspective, one will see the narrowness of all

  other beauties, especial y bodily love of one person. Then one stands

  on the threshold of ultimate Beauty in-itself:

  ...an everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor goes, which

  neither flowers nor fades, for such beauty is the same on every

  hand, the same then as now, here as there, this way as that way,

  the same to every worshipper as it is to every other. Nor will

  his vision of the beautiful take the form of a face, or of hands,

  or of anything that is of the flesh. It will be neither words, nor

  knowledge, nor something that exists in something else, such as

  a living creature, or the earth, or the heavens, or anything that is

  – but subsisting of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness, while

  every lovely thing partakes of it in such sort that, however much

  the parts may wax and wane, it will be neither more nor less, but

  still the same inviolable whole.65

  I believe that Plato intends Alcibiades’ description of Socrates as a

  garishly erotic silenus that opens up to reveal images of the gods

  inside as a symbol for the relation between the Apollonian and

  Dionysian in his doctrine. It is strongly implied that before one

  realizes the beauty of the soul one must have sexual relations with

  many beautiful people at the same time. In other words, one must

  thoroughly indulge in physical love in order to see that it does not

  ultimately suffice to satiate the deepest (erotic) desires of one’s soul.

  This orgiastic imagery of lady Diotima’s “final mystery” is Dionysian

  not only on the surface, but also in that the orgy is supposed to

  result in some kind of ecstatic transcendence to an appreciation

  of divine oneness. While the pre-Platonic Dionysian vision only

  comes about occasional y, when one is driven into ecstasy by

  intoxication, music and erotic revelry, once attained, Plato’s vision

  of oneness is permanent and ever-present. According to Plato’s

  Diotima, the love of Wisdom – i.e. philosophia – is this deeper and more rapturous eroticism. Perhaps this is why Socrates, who is its

  65 Ibid., 210a – 211b.

  71

  lovers of sophia

  perfect embodiment, drives Alcibiades ‘mad’ like a ‘fool’ to strip and embrace Socrates.

  The erotic dynamic between male and female Guardians in

  the Republic reiterates the alchemical y transformative potential of sexual energy that Diotima teaches in Symposium – especial y in its insistence on the fact that as lovers, men and women philosophers

  will never possess each other, just as they will not possess any other forms of private property: “...all the women should be common

  to all the men...” This frees eros from the chains of jealousy, envy, emulation, greed and violence and allows it to become a powerful

  means of transcendental seduction to wisdom. Here is the key

  passage, which we should read in light of the one from The Seventh Letter quoted above – about wisdom flashing forth only amidst the intimacy of a communal life of intense seekers:

  Then the women guardians must strip, since they’ll clothe

  themselves in virtue instead of robes, and they must take

  common part in war and the rest of the city’s guarding, and must

  not do other things...And the man who laughs at naked women

  practicing gymnastic for the sake of the best, ‘plucks from his

  wisdom an unripe fruit for ridicule’ and doesn’t know – as

  it seems – at what he laughs or what he does... all the women

  should be common to all the men... They will live and feed

  together, and have no private home or property. They will mix

  freely in their physical exercises [for which the Greeks always

  stripped naked] and the rest of their training, and [so] they’ll

  be led by an inner natural necessity to sexual mixing with one

  another...possessing nothing private but the body...they will then

  be free from faction.66

  Through the pure eros inherently involved in “the pursuit of wisdom”

  lovers become to each other symbols of Beauty-in-itself. Instead of

  dissipating in the flesh of the other, erotic desire is directed towards this form by its attraction to the beloved, and transcends to this

  66 Ibid.,

  Republic: 457a–458d; 464e.

  72

  jason reza jorjani

  form through the (earthly) beloved. Yet the form of Beauty is itself a mere construct used to attain the discipline and attunement that

  allows one to have a vision
of the “first principle”. Plato says the latter is beyond “reality”, thus it is not only beyond Becoming but also

  beyond Being. It is the why or the Good for-the-sake-of-which there is a mixture of Being and Non-Being in the receptacle to produce

  the Becoming of the world.

  What defines a caress – as opposed to touching, grasping,

  holding and taking – is an absorbed languor that almost forgets

  itself. It abandons the intellect’s intentional deliberation and delivers itself over to the presence of the other’s body as experienced through one’s own. The seat of consciousness moves from the mind to

  stomach, and one feels compromised and vulnerable amidst the

  world. The “shiver of pleasure” brings forth embodiment but if one

  becomes reflexively conscious of it and begins to seek it as a goal

  one loses sight of the Being of the other, who instead becomes an

  object of one’s subjectivity. If this occurs eros is defeated for one can never possess the transcendent Beauty of the other as ‘object’. All of one’s grasping and penetrating, and ultimately even one’s climax of

  pleasure, become pervaded by the torturous refusal of surfaces.

  The analogy is that the body, like the world itself, is a phenomenon

  in which Being shines forth and is sheltered as a Becoming – where form limits a Being which would otherwise be so blinding that it would escape us all together, and thereby allows it to scintil ate in its coming to presence. Heraclitus recounts how while we go about lost

  in our worldly business every day, the world itself escapes us. Like a fish that does not see the water it is swimming in we fail to recognize that we are, and marvel that we are. He says so poetical y: Men forget where the way leads...And they are at odds with that with which they most constantly associate. And what they meet

  with every day seems strange to them... We should not act and

  speak like men asleep.67

  67 Kahn,

  The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 31.

  73

  lovers of sophia

  The forms are Plato’s answer to Heraclitus’ exasperated and paradoxical question: “How can one hide from that [Sun] which

  never sets?!” Only through rigorous abstraction can we gain enough

  distance from the world which we “meet with every day” that we can

  then look back at the world in wonder, look at the phenomenon of existence in which Being and becoming are necessarily reciprocal

  manifestations of each other. This looking back is the Platonic

  reversal, which takes place once the philosopher has attained to the

  form of forms. In the Phaedo, Plato writes:

  I thought that... in the contemplation of true existence, I ought

  to be careful that I did not lose the eye of my soul; as people

  may injure their bodily eye by observing and gazing on the

  sun during an eclipse, unless they take the precaution of only

  looking at the image reflected in the water, or in some analogous

  medium... I was afraid that my soul might be blinded altogether

  if I looked at things with my eyes... and I thought that I had

  better have recourse to the world of idea and seek there the truth of things...68

  Nietzsche argued that Greek tragedy originated in the chorus (not

  the dramatic action) and it was in its most ancient form nothing

  but the chorus. People of Dionysian spirit desire the truth of nature

  in its most unforgiving reality and when they achieve this through

  intoxication they are transformed into satyr-like beings that speak

  with an oracular wisdom, which flows from comprehending the

  heart of existence through union with it. This is the chorus in its

  most ancient form. In tragedy, it becomes a realized projection of

  the desire of the civilized mass of spectators to regain this primordial state. The action is, in turn, a ‘vision’ of the chorus. Original y the only subject of drama was the suffering and redemption of Dionysus.

  Moreover, this drama was not actual y present but was imagined, literal y as a vision of the chorus who in their intoxication were the servants of Dionysus. In music, dance, and words they conveyed

  this invisible epiphany of their god. The introduction of actors and

  68 Hamilton,

  Collected Dialogues of Plato, Phaedo: 99d–100a.

  74

  jason reza jorjani

  drama is an Apollonian objectivization – in dreamlike epic imagery

  – of the Dionysian state of the chorus.

  Nietzsche goes on to explain that all of the heroes of tragedy

  are masks of what was original y none other than Dionysus. The

  simplicity and clarity of their lines and characters are merely the

  glimmers of an Apollonian surface of light behind which there looms

  an infinite background of darkness from out of which they arise (as

  consolations). In tragedy, the hero’s suffering or demise (original y

  the dismemberment of Dionysus) is dramatized in order to show

  that it is a mere phenomenon and the eternal life behind it remains

  untouched and persists (original y, Dionysus’ rebirth). This suffering and redemption, dismemberment and rebirth, is an expression of

  the truth of the Dionysian mysteries: that individuation is the source of all suffering and redemption is to be found in the intoxication that al ows one to plunge into the primordial unity of al (Dionysus returning to the womb for rebirth).

  Plato ends the Symposium with the image of two dramatists,

  Agathon the tragedian and Aristophanes the comedian, discussing

  their art forms with Socrates. Plato tel s us that Socrates was arguing that the same person should be able to write both tragedy and

  comedy. In The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche argues that Apollonian-Dionysian tragedy suffered its demise at the hands of the purely

  Apollonian ‘Socratism’ of Euripidean ‘comedy’. Could it be that Plato, who began his life as a tragic poet like Agathon, is actual y inventing a new artistic genre that seeks to rejuvenate the tense balance of both the Apollonian and Dionysian? This may be why the conversation

  is metaphorical y set just before dawn as if to anticipate the birth of something new. Agathon and Aristophanes, Tragedy and Comedy,

  both fall asleep and after respectful y covering them, Socrates gets

  up and leaves the symposium to start a new day.

  Perhaps the archetypal “forms” or “ideas” are to Plato’s new art of

  Philosophy what (according to Nietzsche) the Apollonian imagery

  of tragedy is to its dark, hidden and primal Dionysian background?

  In this one and only dialogue of intoxicated honesty are we being

  told to look at the forms like the little statuettes of gods against the 75

  lovers of sophia

  background of the silenus that envelops them? We again come face

  to face with the Platonic reversal. Let us look back at Socrates’ first discussion with Alcibiades in which he evokes the injunction of the

  God Apollo. “...Trust in me and in the Delphic inscription and ‘know

  thyself’” he says, and then continues:

  ...Now, how can we get the clearest knowledge of our soul?

  If we knew that, we’d probably know ourselves as wel ...If the

  inscription...advised... “See thyself,” how would we understand

  such advice? ...I’m sure that you’ve noticed that when a man

  looks into an eye his face appears in it, like in a mirror...So if

  an eye is to see itself, it must look at an eye...Then if the soul,

  Alcibiades, is to know itself, it must look at a soul... 69

  In light of the development of Socrates
’ relationship with Alcibiades

  in Symposium as one of erotic seduction, and in light of the passages in Phaedrus and Republic, we see how this Apollonian commandment is written in the blood of Dionysian rites. Philosophical knowledge

  is only possible through dialogue because, as Plato says, the form of forms “is not knowledge” but lies beyond it. It is ultimately

  unknowable by the intellect, and thus unknowable in isolation.

  This is why Plato does not write his secret doctrine. It can only be

  discovered through “...the skill in the science of love which thou

  hast given me …philosophical discussion directed towards love in

  singleness of heart.” The philosophical dialogue with the other on the same quest for wisdom, when at its peak of intensity, is inherently

  erotic in its maddening Dionysian transcendence of subjectivity and

  attainment of union. We can only find ourselves inside the other. The

  Soul, Plato tel s Alcibiades, is in the eye of the other . The orgiastic erotic ascension towards the form of the Beautiful in Symposium, and the common marriage of the Guardians in pursuit of the form

  of Justice in Republic, is like the flirtatious dance of Maenads around their vision of the god whose dismemberment is a symbol of the

  il usion of individuation, and whose rebirth symbolizes the death of

  the Self who finds itself inside the other. “Know Thyself!” whispers

  69 Ibid.,

  Alcibiades: 132c-d; 133a-b.

  76

  jason reza jorjani

  Apollo, through the lips of Dionysus... “Make Music Socrates!”

  whispers Dionysus, through the lips of Apollo.

  5. The Pharmakon of Occidental Rationalism

  If there is anything to the interpretation that I have been forwarding, and which now draws to its close, then Plato remains the most

  deceptively complex thinker in the history of Philosophy. We should

  expect as much from the philosopher who proposed to rebuild

  society on the foundation of a ‘noble lie.’ In “Plato’s Pharmacy”

  Derrida focuses his study on Plato’s use of the ambiguous Greek word

  pharmakon, which can mean drug in the sense of “poison” or in the sense of “medicine”. He argues that when Plato condemns writing in

  the Phaedrus, he attempts to deny the positive meaning of the word.

 

‹ Prev