The End of Love?

Questioning Technocracy in Plato’s Symposium

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_29_6

Keywords:

techne, telos, eros, Plato, Diotima

Abstract

Plato’s Symposium contains two accounts of eros which explicitly aim to reach a telos. The first is the technocratic account of the doctor Eryximachus, who seeks an exhaustive account of eros, common to all things with a physical nature. For him medical techne can create an orderly erotic harmony; while religion is defined as the curing of disorderly eros. Against this Socrates recounts the priestess Diotima finding a telos, not in technical exhaustiveness, but in a dialectical definition of eros in the light of the good. What is common to all human beings is the desire to be in eternal relation to the good. All technai are forms of poiesis, by which things pass from being to not being. The erotic harmony recommended by Eryximachus, no less than the Aristophanes” recommendation of eros as “of a half, or of a whole’, is subject to the question whether “it happens to be good’. A self-harmonisation produced by techne can no more evade the sovereignty of good, than can projects of self-completion with a beloved in our likeness.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ANDERSON, D. (1993). The Masks of Dionysus: A Commentary on Plato’s Symposium. Albany, State University of New York Press.

BARNES, J. (1979). The Presocratic Philosophers. London, Routledge.

BRILL, S. (2006). Medical Moderation in Plato’s Symposium. Studies in the History of Ethics Nov/2006. Available at: http://www.historyofethics.org/112006/112006Brill.shtml.

CORRIGAN, K.; GLAZOV-CORRIGAN, E. (2004). Plato’s Dialectic at Play: Argument, Structure, and Myth in Plato’s Symposium. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press.

COSTA, M. (2006). For the Love of God: The Death of Desire and the Gift of Life. In: BURRUS, V.; KELLER, C. (eds.). Toward a Theology of Eros: Transfiguring Passion at the Limits of Discipline. New York, Fordham University Press, p. 38-62.

CRAIK, E. (2001). Plato and medical texts: Symposium 185c-193d. Classical Quarterly 51, p. 109-114.

DIELS, H.; KRANZ, W. (eds.) (1960). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 6ed. Berlin, Weidmann. (1ed. 1903)

DORTER, K. (1969). The Significance of the Speeches in Plato’s Symposium. Philosophy & Rhetoric 2, p. 215-234.

DOVER, K. (1980). Plato. Symposium. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EMLYN-JONES, C. J. (1976). Heraclitus And The Identity of Opposites. Phronesis 21, p. 89-114.

FINE, G. (1993). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

EDELSTEIN, L. (1945). The Role of Eryximachus in Plato’s Symposium. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 76, p. 85-103.

GREEN, J. (2015). Melody and Rhythm at Plato’s Symposium 187d2. Classical Philology 110, p. 152-158.

GUTHRIE, W. K. C. (1965). A History Of Greek Philosophy. Vol. 2: The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HUNTER, R. (2004). Plato’s Symposium. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

IRWIN, T. (1977). Plato’s Heracleiteanism. Philosophical Quarterly 27, p. 1-13.

LUDWIG, P. W. (2002). Eros and Polis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

MACPHERRAN, M. L. (2006). The Religion of Socrates. University Park, Penn State University Press.

MCCABE, M. M. (1994). Plato’s Individuals. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

MURDOCH, I. (1993). Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals. New York, Penguin.

MURDOCH, I. (1998). The Fire and the Sun: Why Plato Banished the Artists. In: CONRADI, P. (ed.). Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature. New York, Penguin, p. 386-463.

NEHAMAS, A. (1973). Predication and Forms of Opposites in the Phaedo. Review of Metaphysics 26, p. 461-491.

NUSSBAUM, M. (2001). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

NUTTON, V. (2005). Ancient Medicine. London, Taylor & Francis.

O’BRIEN, D. (1967). Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle. Classical Quarterly (New Series) 17, p. 29-40.

PICKSTOCK, C. (1998). After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy. Oxford, Blackwell.

ROBIN, L. (1929). Plato. Le Banquet. Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

SCOTT, G.; WELTON, W. (2009). Erotic Wisdom: Philosophy and Intermediacy in Plato’s Symposium. Albany, State University of New York Press.

SHEFFIELD, F. (2006a). Plato’s Symposium: The Ethics of Desire. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

SHEFFIELD, F. (2006b). The Role of the Earlier Speeches in The Symposium, Plato’s Endoxic Method? In: LESHER, J.; NAILS, D.; SHEFFIELD, F. (eds.). Plato’s Symposium: Issues in Interpretation and Reception. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, p. 23-46.

SNYDER, J. M. (1984). The Harmonia of Bow And Lyre in Heraclitus Fr. 51 (DK). Phronesis 29, p. 91-95.

TRIVIGNO, F. V. (2017). Diagnosing the Speech of Eryximachus in Plato’s Symposium. In: DESTRÉE, P.; GIANNOPOULOU, Z. (eds.). Plato’s Symposium: A Critical Guide. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 48-69.

WARDY, R. (2002). The Unity of Opposites in Plato’s Symposium. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 23, p. 1-61.

WEIL, S. (1957). Intimations of Christianity among the Ancient Greeks. New York, Routledge.

Archai 29 (2020 [2])

Downloads

Published

2020-03-28

How to Cite

Krinks, P. (2020). The End of Love? Questioning Technocracy in Plato’s Symposium. Revista Archai, (29), e02906. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_29_6

Issue

No. 29 (2020): Archai 29 (2020 [2])

Section

Dossier

License

Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.

1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.