by Roy Jackson
In the same way that questions arise as to whether the Guardians, once attaining Knowledge of the Good, would be either willing or able to engage in the mundane world of politics, the same question arises as to whether the lover would continue to display any interest in a sexual partner once he or she has ascended to the realm of Beauty.
Alcibiades barges in
At the end of this speech, all present applaud, with the exception of the stubborn and arrogant Aristophanes, who wants to rebut Socrates. But before he has the opportunity to do so, in barges Alcibiades. A historical figure that readers of Plato’s dialogues at that time would certainly know of, for he was a famous statesman and military general from one of Athens’ most powerful aristocratic families, Alcibiades had been trained in the art of rhetoric, but he also had Socrates as one of his teachers (and lovers) and, indeed, one story tells that it was Socrates who once saved Alcibiades’ life at the Battle of Potidaea in 432 BC.
Alcibiades
At the time this dialogue was taking place, Alcibiades, in his mid-thirties, would have been at the height of his powers as a general in the Athenian army, but the readers of Symposium, coming much later, would know Alcibiades differently: his enemies in Athens, for which he had many, had successfully called for his execution on the accusation of sacrilege, which caused Alcibiades to defect to Sparta, where he acted as a military adviser. However, he was also to fall out with the Spartans, causing him to flee once more, this time to Persia where he also gave military guidance, to the detriment of Athens. Despite this, following an Athenian coup in 411 BC, Alcibiades was welcomed back to Athens and played a major part in the Peloponnesian Wars. He was assassinated in 404 BC, possibly by Spartans.
In Symposium Alcibiades rudely bursts onto the scene, exceedingly drunk to the extent he needs to be supported by a courtesan. While interrupting the flow of the argument on love, Alcibiades’ speech is not entirely disconnected from this theme and, in fact, he brings us back to the kind of physical, sensual love that began the dialogue and for which Socrates, through Diotima, had removed the interlocutors and readers from such a carnal, bodily expression of love to one of true Beauty and the Good. But Alcibiades’ own speech is also connected to Diotima’s notion of love in that the drunken general provides us with a eulogy of this kind of love as characteristic of Socrates himself. Here we have interesting contrasts: on the one hand, Alcibiades who is externally beautiful but internally an ugly and corrupt soul, while, on the other, Socrates who is externally ugly but possessing a pure and beautiful soul. Needless to say, for the philosopher, what matters is what is internal, not the superficial external aspect.
Despite his drunkenness, Alcibiades remains eloquent, and gives a speech that follows the rules of rhetoric, beginning with a general character portrayal of Socrates as someone who, while physically ugly, is nonetheless god-like in his soul. Alcibiades talks up Socrates’ virtues: his moderation and his courage, and his skill in dialectic.
‘Whenever I listen to him, my frenzy is greater than that of the Corybantes [ecstatic dancers]. My heart pounds and tears flood out when he speaks, and I see that many other people are affected in the same way. I’ve heard Pericles and other good orators, and I thought they spoke well. But they haven’t produced this kind of effect on me; they haven’t disturbed my whole personality and made me dissatisfied with the slavish quality of my life.’
Plato, Symposium, 215d-216a
Alcibiades, then, praises Socrates which, given that Socrates was executed partly for corrupting others (including his pupil Alcibiades), is a deliberate strategy on Plato’s part to defend Socrates’ legacy. Alcibiades, while praising Socrates, also reveals his sexual frustration for the philosopher, for it seems that Alcibiades saw their relationship in the same way as that described by Pausanias earlier, that is, as one that results in sexual gratification; whereas Socrates was not interested in that kind of love with Alcibiades, or with anyone else for that matter. Socrates, effectively, had ascended so far up the ladder of love as to no longer be concerned with such physical things.
What is interesting, however, is that although Socrates has ascended to the real or true Beauty, he is certainly not averse to flirting with young men, hence Alcibiades’ own frustrations and confusion as a result of misunderstanding Socrates’ intentions. But this is typically Socratic in style: like in his conversations he lures people in with a false sense of security and self-confidence, only to shatter their beliefs and cause them to question their very souls. In the same way, Socrates flirts so as to reel in these young souls and, as a result, by not meeting their expectations, he gets them to question the value of such expectations and to question what love truly is.
Alcibiades the troublemaker
Alcibiades’ mixed career means that he is praised by some in history, and condemned by others, and this division still exists today among modern scholars. Wherever he went he caused trouble, often being accused of treachery and disloyalty. Importantly here, however, is how Plato portrays him. Alcibiades is undoubtedly attractive, a good orator and charismatic individual but, for Plato, he is also a corrupted and divided soul. In many ways Alcibiades represents those who could be Guardians of Plato’s republic if they are educated in the right way but, in the wrong hands, could end up being incredibly dangerous and morally corrupting, not only for themselves, but for others.
So this, to some extent, answers our earlier question: would someone who has attained knowledge of the Good, of Beauty, of true Love be either able or willing to ‘return’ to the physical world of interpersonal relationship? In the case of Socrates who, after all, represents the ideal philosopher, the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. One does not, as a result of enlightenment, retreat in isolation, but instead ‘goes down’ and instructs others, despite the fact that this may result in confusion, anger, frustration among others, as well as endangering the life and reputation of the philosopher himself.
Key term
Symposium (pl. symposia). A drinking party, but also a place for intellectual stimulation and networking.
Dig deeper
Cooksey, T. L. (2010), Plato’s ‘Symposium’: Reader’s Guide. London: Continuum.
Gill, C. (trans.) (1999), Plato: The Symposium. London: Penguin.
Fact check
1 What is a symposium in Ancient Greece?
a An academic conference
b A drinking party
c A religious retreat
d A theatre
2 Who, in Symposium, is the guest of honour?
a Socrates
b Alcibiades
c Aristophanes
d Agathon
3 Who gives the first speech in Symposium?
a Pausanias
b Eryximachus
c Socrates
d Phaedrus
4 Who gives the third speech in Symposium?
a Pausanias
b Eryximachus
c Phaedrus
d Aristophanes
5 Who, in Symposium, said: ‘It’s only lovers who are willing to die for someone else’?
a Socrates
b Eryximachus
c Phaedrus
d Pausanias
6 Who had an attack of hiccups in Symposium?
a Socrates
b Eryximachus
c Aristophanes
d Pausanias
7 What was the name of the comedy written by Aristophanes?
a The Clouds
b The Sun
c The Wind
d The Earth
8 Who was Diotima?
a A lover of Socrates
b A prostitute
c A prophetess
d A dancer
9 What is the name of the man who barges into the symposium drunk?
a Diotima
b Aristophanes
c Agathon
d Alcibiades
10 What does the Greek word eros mean?
a Love
b Hate
c Anger
/>
d Despair
10
Gorgias
The previous two chapters considered the topic of love and friendship but, as we also saw, this is closely tied to the importance of giving a good speech. This essentially applies to any topic: if we are to understand what something is then we do this through conversation, through dialogue and, it logically follows, if the dialogue is poorly constructed then it will be much more of a struggle to get at the truth, and this, the art of rhetoric, is the primary concern of the dialogue Gorgias.
Gorgias
Gorgias was written near the end of Plato’s ‘early period’, quite possibly around the same time as Protagoras, and both deal with similar themes. It is also significant in that it was written very soon after the death of Socrates, to the extent that Plato’s anger at the execution of his mentor comes across within this dialogue. The structure of the work can be divided into three parts or three linked dialogues within the overall work: Socrates–Gorgias, Socrates–Polus and Socrates–Callicles. This corresponds with Book I of Republic (which may have been written earlier than the rest of the dialogue) with Gorgias/Cephalus, Polus/Polemarchus and Callicles/Thrasymachus in terms of their views, age and so on. In fact, readers will find it helpful to read Book I of Republic first before then reading Gorgias, and you will see how the latter elaborates upon the former.
Socrates as a character is more forthcoming, more quick to criticize the Sophists, and this was also evident in his attack on the Sophist Protagoras in the dialogue of the same name. Gorgias is sometimes provided with the subtitle of ‘Concerning Oratory’, for Gorgias himself was a Sicilian teacher of oratory. Gorgias was the teacher of Agathon, who makes his grand speech in Symposium (see Chapter 9), which is lacking much in the way of philosophical rigour. One might suspect that Gorgias is an easy target for Socrates, for the former’s teaching of oratory results in the production of interlocutors in Plato’s works who have been educated to produce bombastic rhetoric, rather than true philosophical and meaningful content. Gorgias is extremely important, then, because he represents, perhaps more than any of the other Sophists in the dialogues, the kind of rhetorician that Plato saw as dangerous and irresponsible: if Socrates is the angel of philosophy, then Gorgias is the fallen angel Satan.
Gorgias’ form of discussion differs in one crucial aspect from that of Socrates: whereas Socrates, as has been shown, looks for the essence of something, for example, what beauty truly is; Gorgias uses examples to try to illustrate what something is. What Socrates shows in this dialogue, and so many others for that matter, is that giving specific examples is insufficient because there are always exceptions to the rule. For something to have an essence means that it is universally the case.
What, then, do we know about Gorgias? He was born in Leontini in Sicily in around 485 BC, and so he is Italian rather than Greek although, as stated in Chapter 1, he was nonetheless ‘Hellenic’. As a Sophist, he would travel and teach for money in various cities. He would also feature in speech competitions, which helped to solidify his reputation as a great orator. In 427 BC he came to Athens with other delegates to ask for protection for his city against the aggressive neighbouring Sicilian city-state of Syracuse. It turns out that Athens also proved to be profitable for Gorgias, given the demand for great orators, and so he decided to remain in the city where he acquired considerable wealth from teaching many of the nobles of Athens (of which many appear in Plato’s dialogues) as well as a reputation as the greatest of Sophists. He died in Larissa in the Thessaly region of Greece in, it is said, around 380 BC, which meant he led a very long life indeed for that time.
A long and pleasureless life
Gorgias lived to be well over 100 and when he was asked how he managed to live for so long he said it was ‘by renouncing pleasure’. In fact he could well have lived longer than he did if he had not decided his own fate by choosing to stop eating.
Little of his writings survive, although he is known to have written at least four major works: The Encomium of Helen, Defense of Palamedes, On Non-Existence and Epitaphios. Together these works act as a manual for rhetorical structure and also call for extreme relativism to the extent that Gorgias is often referred to as ‘the Nihilist’. The Encomium of Helen, which exists in its entirety, is a reference to Helen of Troy in Greek legend and, as this is an encomium, this is a speech in praise of Helen of Troy in response to accusations that she was an evil woman. Here, then, Gorgias sets himself up with a major challenge by arguing for something that is essentially unpopular, paradoxical and even absurd, for, among the Greek populace, Helen of Troy, though being considered the most beautiful woman in the world, was also considered evil incarnate: the woman who ‘launched a thousand ships’, the start of the Trojan War, which resulted in the tragic death of so many Greek heroes and Helen’s own treachery. Yet Gorgias sets out to defend what seems the indefensible. What Gorgias intends to show here is just how powerful language can be. However good or bad you may be, whatever good or evil you have done, Gorgias is saying that that is irrelevant. What matters most is whether it is possible to persuade others as to whether or not you are good or bad.
Gorgias the celebrity
Gorgias was such a celebrity and became so rich from his performances that he had a life-size statue of himself made of gold, which he presented to the Delphic oracle.
It is said that Gorgias had so much power with words that he could hypnotize an audience. Importantly, Gorgias never laid claim to be presenting what is true, because he believed that there was no such thing as truth, only the art of persuasion. What matters is not so much the content of the speech, what it actually means, but rather achieving the end result.
Gorgias the charismatic
When Gorgias arrived in Athens he went to the agora (the main gathering place) with a fellow orator by the name of Tisias. Gorgias cut a striking figure, robed from head to toe in purple, and the two engaged in a verbal sparring match that amazed the audience. The Sophist Flavius Philostratus (c. AD 170–247) wrote in Lives of the Sophists that Gorgias demonstrated ‘oratorical drive, innovatory audacity, inspired gestures, sublime tone, the ability to pause effectively and resume dramatically, poetic expression and tasteful decoration’ (I 9, 2). Given that Philostratus wrote this some 600 years later, we can’t trust such an account, but it nonetheless suggests that Gorgias was certainly a challenge to Socrates.
Another of Gorgias’ great works, On Non-Existence (or On Non-Being) is, alas, now lost, and so we only have paraphrases of it from other scholars. This is an attack on Parmenides’ concept of Being (see Chapter 1) and begins with the premise that nothing exists! Second, even if you wish to proclaim that things do exist, Gorgias argues that you cannot know for sure that these things actually exist. Third, and finally, that even if anything does exist and you can know it, you will not be able to communicate it to others. Essentially, words do not actually correspond to real things, for nothing is real, and words, therefore, are simply ways of getting what you want. You can see why this would be so much an anathema to the likes of Plato, who argues for the Forms, and yet Gorgias provides a wonderful platform for which Plato can perform his own argument in response to this nihilism as well as a feather in Plato’s cap if he can demonstrate just how powerful Socratic dialectic can be against Gorgias’ rhetoric if the latter can be persuaded by the philosopher.
Helen of Troy
Helen was the daughter of the great god Zeus and the mortal Leda, Queen of Sparta. She becomes the wife of the King of Sparta, Menelaus. The accounts of the story of Helen are most famously recounted in Homer’s works Iliad and Odyssey, although it appears in various other accounts, including Euripides’ play Helen. Accounts do differ, naturally, but in most of the stories it is told that when Helen was young (some say as young as seven, others that she was of childbearing age), with a reputation for outstanding beauty, she was abducted by Theseus, the ageing King of Athens, and Pirithous, King of Larissa. Like Helen, these were both the offspring of g
ods and so they believed their noble status entitled them to be married to the semi-divine. Helen, therefore, was an ideal choice here, and Theseus intended to marry her, while Pirithous wanted another daughter of Zeus, Persephone. Theseus took Helen to Athens, which resulted in Sparta invading Athens to get her back, which was successful. Helen then married Menelaus and they ruled Sparta for some ten years until a Trojan prince called Paris made a diplomatic mission to Sparta with the intention of seducing Helen. Paris had been promised the most beautiful woman in the world by the goddess Aphrodite and, upon seeing Helen, he took this as Aphrodite’s promise and took Helen back to Troy with him. Stories differ as to whether or not Helen went willingly, but it resulted in Menelaus summing his allies against Troy, resulting in the ten-year Trojan War, hence the expression that Helen was the ‘face that launched a thousand ships’ (the expression actually comes from a play by Christopher Marlowe, The Tragicall History of Doctor Faustus). At times Helen seemed to be on the side of the Trojans, at other times on the side of Menelaus, hence the reputation she has for duplicity.