The purpose of the Symposium is to determine what exactly Love is, and Socrates explains his own views through the teachings of Diotima. While Diotima takes the position that to be in Love means you must be in active pursuit of something, I disagree. Instead of acting as just a verb, Love can also serve as a noun.
The first problem arises when trying to figure how to label Love. Is he a god or a mortal? Diotima describes Love as a mixture of the two. He is not a god, but he is not a pure mortal either. Because of his mother, Poverty, Love is always poor, dirty, and in a state of need. However, he also strives to be wise like the gods. This confirms that he cannot himself be a god—if he were, then he would not strive for wisdom because he would …show more content…
However, I believe that Love and the act of pursuing are mutually exclusive. In general, Socrates says that we must work to acquire all knowledge and wisdom in our lives. Until we reach full understanding, we will be reincarnated to continue our studies. Once we reach the point of full comprehension and live out our lives, we will retire to live with the gods in the afterlife. If your soul has spent multiple lives working to figure out a problem, and you then solve the problem, would you not lovingly reminisce on the hours of painstaking searching? Even if we have developed our knowledge as far as it can go, we do not stop appreciating it when we have reached completion. While the need and desire for basic Love can be considered a bodily fault, the desire for happiness resides with the soul. Happiness and Love are directly related. I do not believe our soul would be content with the absence of the Love for wisdom. Because of this, Love is not able to be defined as just the pursuit of …show more content…
While it is true that we can love things of which we have a need for, we can also love things that we do not require. For example, fathers love their sons. There is not another word, such as content or happy with, that encompasses the full meaning of Love. And so the father loves the son. However, the father does not require to possess the son; he already claims him as his own. In this case, the father loves something that he already has, and does not have a present need for. This also extends further into loving something that you do not wish to possess. Osho (born Chandra Mohan Jain), an Indian spiritual leader, is well known for his input on the possession of love. He explains, “If you love a flower, don’t pick it up. Because if you pick it up it dies and it ceases to be what you love. So if you love a flower, let it be. Love is not about possession. Love is about appreciation.” We have multiple instances in our lives where we claim to love something, but do not wish to control it. For instance, we can also love an art, such as painting. We find Beauty and answers in a piece of artwork, and come to love the display. However, we do not wish to take the painting with us. We are content with loving the painting and the emotions it gives us from
The first problem arises when trying to figure how to label Love. Is he a god or a mortal? Diotima describes Love as a mixture of the two. He is not a god, but he is not a pure mortal either. Because of his mother, Poverty, Love is always poor, dirty, and in a state of need. However, he also strives to be wise like the gods. This confirms that he cannot himself be a god—if he were, then he would not strive for wisdom because he would …show more content…
However, I believe that Love and the act of pursuing are mutually exclusive. In general, Socrates says that we must work to acquire all knowledge and wisdom in our lives. Until we reach full understanding, we will be reincarnated to continue our studies. Once we reach the point of full comprehension and live out our lives, we will retire to live with the gods in the afterlife. If your soul has spent multiple lives working to figure out a problem, and you then solve the problem, would you not lovingly reminisce on the hours of painstaking searching? Even if we have developed our knowledge as far as it can go, we do not stop appreciating it when we have reached completion. While the need and desire for basic Love can be considered a bodily fault, the desire for happiness resides with the soul. Happiness and Love are directly related. I do not believe our soul would be content with the absence of the Love for wisdom. Because of this, Love is not able to be defined as just the pursuit of …show more content…
While it is true that we can love things of which we have a need for, we can also love things that we do not require. For example, fathers love their sons. There is not another word, such as content or happy with, that encompasses the full meaning of Love. And so the father loves the son. However, the father does not require to possess the son; he already claims him as his own. In this case, the father loves something that he already has, and does not have a present need for. This also extends further into loving something that you do not wish to possess. Osho (born Chandra Mohan Jain), an Indian spiritual leader, is well known for his input on the possession of love. He explains, “If you love a flower, don’t pick it up. Because if you pick it up it dies and it ceases to be what you love. So if you love a flower, let it be. Love is not about possession. Love is about appreciation.” We have multiple instances in our lives where we claim to love something, but do not wish to control it. For instance, we can also love an art, such as painting. We find Beauty and answers in a piece of artwork, and come to love the display. However, we do not wish to take the painting with us. We are content with loving the painting and the emotions it gives us from