(October 28, 2021 at 10:29 pm)emjay Wrote:(October 28, 2021 at 10:19 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: It was only only one suggestion. Symposium. The book is a collection of speeches on love given by different members at a party. The best speeches are those of Aristophanes and Socrates.
I've started on it but to be honest it feels completely different from the others and nowhere near as clear, especially as it's so much couched in the mythology of the day.
What translation?
Quote:Maybe I just don't know enough about love, but I'm just finding it really hard to follow and over my head... more like reading Shakespeare, which has never been my forte or interest. Do you like it for the ideas or the language? And is it perhaps an acquired taste/skill to read it (as reading Shakespeare is... you have to be familiar with the language of the day, and in this case also the mythology of the day)... more so than the other dialogues? Another thought is that the other dialogues I've been reading have all been on similar and related themes, since they've been part of the same curriculum, so that could also account for why they comparatively seem far easier to understand.
An important distinction needs to be made among Plato's early, middle, and late works.
The early dialogues are called "aporetic" dialogues. Remember Socrates liked to show people they knew less than they really knew. (Called a state of "aporia.") Meno and Apology-- which you have read-- are early dialogues. Notice in Meno how the issue of whether virtue can be learned is never really settled. The question is explored, but you are left dissatisfied at the end. That's intentional. Plato wants to start the conversation, not finish it. Euthyphro is a good early dialogue too. Maybe required reading for all atheists.
Phaedo, Republic, and Symposium are middle works. In these dialogues, Plato keeps the aporetic vibe going throughout, but he spends more time trying to resolve the issues than in his early works. He doesn't want to just raise the question and send the reader off packing. He wants to argue his particular thinking on the matter. In the Republic, as Belacqua says, he wants to explore the just soul. He uses the analogy of the state to arrange the soul into parts reason/spirit/desire-- rulers/warriors/producers. Arguably, after book 4 he starts commenting on politics proper. Book 4 itself is my favorite book from the Republic.
Yeah... I'm rambling... but I am curious about the Symposium translation you're reading.
