Socrates and Phaedrus discuss love and erotic love throughout the dialogue of Plato’s Phaedrus. The dialogue also discusses rhetoric itself and the ways in which it is and should be practiced, as well as subjects such as metempsychosis. The dialogue in Phaedrus does not allow for any introductions to explain the story. This is somewhat unusual as it comes as a first-hand dialogue, uninterrupted by nobody and nothing. It plays out almost as if we are witnessing the events ourselves. Socrates’ speeches on love display a presentation of love and erotic love, carnality, as opposing but complimentary factors in the pederastic relationships between older mentors and young boys.
The carnality of passions that Socrates speaks of within the Phaedrus is in regards to a sexual relationship between the …show more content…
Love is shown to be tainted by carnality. Thus Socrates concludes his first speech, having addressed the influences over the boy and how that can so rapidly become negative and destructive. If Socrates had gone on to argue the various merits of the non-lover – that is, the lover who does not entertain a sexual relationship with the boy – it would have aligned him with Lysias. Instead, this allows readers to desire further knowledge in relation to how the desire for good and for beautiful can possibly differ from the eros of the lover. However, if Socrates is in competition with Lysias it is only as an orator, not a philosopher, and it is therefore a “peculiar situation, since Lysias is one of the great orators of the time, while Socrates officially disavows any knowledge of rhetoric” (Nehamas & Woodruff 1995). Although through the dialogue, Socrates does not make any kind of open claim to be in competition with Lysias, it is implied throughout Socrates instead “produces a counter-epideictic speech and makes an implicit claim to have beaten the orator at his own game.” (Nehamas & Woodruff
The carnality of passions that Socrates speaks of within the Phaedrus is in regards to a sexual relationship between the …show more content…
Love is shown to be tainted by carnality. Thus Socrates concludes his first speech, having addressed the influences over the boy and how that can so rapidly become negative and destructive. If Socrates had gone on to argue the various merits of the non-lover – that is, the lover who does not entertain a sexual relationship with the boy – it would have aligned him with Lysias. Instead, this allows readers to desire further knowledge in relation to how the desire for good and for beautiful can possibly differ from the eros of the lover. However, if Socrates is in competition with Lysias it is only as an orator, not a philosopher, and it is therefore a “peculiar situation, since Lysias is one of the great orators of the time, while Socrates officially disavows any knowledge of rhetoric” (Nehamas & Woodruff 1995). Although through the dialogue, Socrates does not make any kind of open claim to be in competition with Lysias, it is implied throughout Socrates instead “produces a counter-epideictic speech and makes an implicit claim to have beaten the orator at his own game.” (Nehamas & Woodruff