Scan barcode
A review by greden
The Symposium by Plato
4.0
I’ve been interested in where and how the idea of sexual sublimation developed. It seems to me that it was popularized recently by Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich, who by all appearances, borrowed it from Freud and Jung, who made this more explicit and detailed than ever before, who in turn was inspired by Nietzsche and perhaps Rousseau, but ultimately, everything can be traced back to Plato. In terms of world history, there are some ancient religious texts that talk about sexual sublimation, but nevertheless, I think Plato is really at the core of how we understand it.
In the beginning of one of the most influential books of the West, arguably therefore, the world, Plato’s Republic, Plato imagines Socrates is making conversation with a group, and asks in the typical, blunt, and apparently socially oblivious manner “How is your sex life, Sophocles? Are you still capable of making love to a woman?”
“Don’t talk about it, my good sir,” Sophocles replied, “it is with the greatest relief that I have escaped it. Like escaping from a fierce and frenzied master.”
Socrates liked that answer, and he added that freedom, peace and release from “a bunch of insane masters” --sexual desire-- is a great benefit of old age. Socrates continues to seemingly make small-talk about old age, and Sophocles says he isn’t afraid of death because he’s been just, because he has kept promises and doesn’t lie, so he’s not afraid of the afterlife Socrates infers a definition of justice, and tries to lure him into a philosophical discussion.
But Cephalus was having none of it, handing over the argument to his son, as he couldn’t be bothered with this “definition of justice” nonsense, excusing himself saying he has to go perform a religious sacrifice, getting out of dodge of Socrates' intrusive questions.
Here’s the subtle point Plato makes that escapes the attention of people… What kind of man can become a philosopher? What sort of person has the intellectual energy to pursue the “what is justice” question? Certainly not Cephalus.
Plato makes the point that the seemingly irrational and insatiable curiosity that philosophy is based on is driven by “a bunch of insane masters.” The type of intellectual energy required for pursuing knowledge is also that which makes you go mad of sexual desire. Here we can see one of the earlier narrative manifestations of the idea of “sexual sublimation,” which Plato had a keen sense of to be able to write it. It would be that Platos believed that Eros (which would be associated with the madness and passionate elements of human sensuality and love) into “higher forms of love,” say, the love for knowledge (which is philosophy), mathematics, ethical and ascetic pursuits. It is from Plato we derive the idea that “erotic energy” is the vehicle to greater states of being, and higher levels of consciousness.
I believe a lot of confusion has come from the belief that “carnal desire” is primary, that is “converted” into “higher forms of love” by Plato’s use of the word eros, which has a strong connotation to carnal sexual desire. But this is not exactly how Plato uses the world eros. For Plato, eros is more like generic desire, something like the heavenly force that wants to drag the earthly towards itself. And Eros is not primarily spiritual, nor primarily physical, it is both. Plato’s Symposium, explores the nature of Eros, the source of this sexual energy, that which is sublimated.
The Symposium consists of several speeches made at a party where the topic at hand is Eros, and the first orator is Phaedrus, who makes a case that Eros ought to be praised and that it’s one of the oldest God’s, therefore, the most fundamental ones. While before, I would have thought this is mere superstition, having recently read Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning helped me understand why these men are discussing the hierarchy of their gods, their age, their influence, their parents, their siblings, etc.
The way we organize our psyche is homomorphic to the way we organize our deities. To say that Eros is one of the oldest gods, is to say it’s one of our oldest biological drives, or put it differently, it’s most fundamental to our motivational system. You could say that in order to organize a psyche, and a society for that matter, you need a hierarchy of values. This organizing principle is what made the hierarchy of gods appealing and practical for the ancient Greeks. They’re not merely speculating some weird fairy-tale metaphysics, they are trying to understand how to organize their own psyche. In the Greek religion/mythology, the gods were at war with each other, much like Freud’s conception of the psyche of competing forces. So, the most basic of communities have just a bunch of gods and other celestial beings just doing their thing, the Greek were at a level of sophistication of putting them into a hierarchy, and the final step is to put them into a single god, monotheism, which parallels moral and psychic integration of one common ideal.
I read this with Allan Bloom’s “Ladder of Love” commentary, which was probably more insightful than Plato’s text itself for me. Bloom noted that Eryximachus' speech was awful, as he tried to explain Eros in a weird, naturalistic, scientific way. Bloom notes that specialists are unerotic, which I think is an interesting remark. The thing about erotic people is that they tend to want to view things as a whole, they want to bring everything together, whereas specialists lack the longing to do so, and as a generalization, you can say they are unerotic.
Right now I’m reading Ian McGilchrist’s Master and his Emissary, and he pointed out how the left-brain hemisphere dominance is connected to this close-minded, specialization, without a desire to bring everything together. Autistic people portray typical left-brain hemisphere dominance, symptoms of which are problems reading facial expressions, problems with empathy, etc, and they are notoriously unerotic. So we could make a connection here between the right-brain hemisphere and eroticism, which is, I will admit, not a new connection to be made, though interesting nonetheless, to note that there is a connection between “wholeness” and eroticism like Plato alluded to.
Eros seems like some ungraspable “one thing,” but Plato describes it loosely as something that desires wholeness, immortality, perfection, and of crucial importance, something beautiful. Eros seems to me something highly individual, and I think Nietzsche’s “will to power” is Eros, stripped away from the beautiful as the ideal, as Nietzsche rejected the, say, Platonic form of the perfect beauty in the world.
I suppose Plato’s account of Eros covers a lot of things, and although sex was heavily discussed, I am not entirely sure how Plato thinks Eros is so predominantly focused on it. He alluded that it’s a search for immortality, which could explain the reproductive part, but there’s so much missing. For example, why is it that the taboo and the forbidden are charged with such erotic intensity? Bloom writes that Eros is connected to philosophy (e.g. sublimated at a great conversion rate) by the willingness to think forbidden thoughts, which is what connects philosophy with eroticism. Alright, that’s interesting, but why is Eros connected with the forbidden in the first place? Why ought it be forbidden to seek perfection, wholeness, immortality, and the beautiful?
My best guess is by using Plato's myth of the split-body curse, in which the gods cursed human beings into split beings as a punishment for their pride, I suppose this "erotic desire" is a defiance against the curse of the gods, in some way. They want to restore this unity, regain their pride, and then challenge the gods in the power struggle. And so this "defiance" is ultimately forbidden by the gods. Something I've thought about a lot is that there is a great erotic charge in the rebellious. In the bending and warping and breaking of the "Tyrannical Father."
This brings me to Socrates' speech, which makes the case that Eros is not a god after all, it’s a halfway being between a god and a mortal. Desire cannot be “good,” because it implies a lack. You cannot desire something you have. Bloom reveals the genius of Plato’s writing by making Socrates embody Eros, the most erotic of them all, as he is the person who is the most aware of his lack of knowledge. Eros is something in the middle between not knowing and knowing, between god and man, and between lacking and riches. And so Eros is not merely lacking, but it’s not merely fulfillment. If, for example, it was merely lacking, then Socrates would have lacked knowledge, but also lacked the knowledge of his ignorance. Socrates is in the middle, thus, erotic.
I don’t know if Plato is optimistic or pessimistic, I think both. On one hand, he gives us the idea of sexual sublimation, the Ladder of Love, the idea of Platonic love, and that the erotic forces of the mind and the body are deeply intertwined and of the same source. He also portrays the ideal as the beautiful. On the other hand, he says Eros is lacking, and we’re bound to be on a quest for an impossible task, true wholeness, true perfection. This incessant lacking, longing, is not only inevitable but desirable and virtuous, in some way. Plato provides us with a myth in this book that shook the entire Western world to its core, namely the myth that we once were whole beings, and the gods punished us due to our pride, and split us apart into two, male and female, and ever since we’re seeking to find and embrace our “soul mate,” and try to merge our bodies with them, as a desperate attempt to regain this wholeness of being.
This myth resonates deeply with us and is highly reminiscent of the Biblical Fall of Man, where everything was good and dandy in the Garden of Eden, and then they ate the Tree of Knowledge, which made them aware of their ignorance, (remember, how Eros is the middle between ignorance and knowledge, like Socrates) and thus they are thrown out of the garden and into the world of Eros, into the world of incompleteness, longing and desire. I made the connection between the Tree of Knowledge and Eros just now, woah!
Anyway, the idea of the “perfect, whole, blissful” past is something common across many, many mythologies and religions, as it seems to strike a chord within us. And this perfect past is something we try to restore, through Eros. Though, in Plato, the original state was that of pride, so you can say that Eros is that which wants to carve ourselves out from reality, and be whole in of ourselves, a highly individualistic, and egoic pursuit, in a way.
Plato’s Symposium deals with the fundamental questions of our lives. It’s confusing, yet enlightening. Highly recommend Allan Bloom’s commentary.
Also interesting to note that you derive the text, that men are assumed to be bi-sexual by default. And that pedophilia was seen as normal. If you don't think culture can shift your sexual orientation, I'd suggest reading Plato, and Plutarch. I feel silly giving Plato ratings on Goodreads, but if I have to, I guess I really liked it reading it, though the depth and Plato's genius is amazing.
In the beginning of one of the most influential books of the West, arguably therefore, the world, Plato’s Republic, Plato imagines Socrates is making conversation with a group, and asks in the typical, blunt, and apparently socially oblivious manner “How is your sex life, Sophocles? Are you still capable of making love to a woman?”
“Don’t talk about it, my good sir,” Sophocles replied, “it is with the greatest relief that I have escaped it. Like escaping from a fierce and frenzied master.”
Socrates liked that answer, and he added that freedom, peace and release from “a bunch of insane masters” --sexual desire-- is a great benefit of old age. Socrates continues to seemingly make small-talk about old age, and Sophocles says he isn’t afraid of death because he’s been just, because he has kept promises and doesn’t lie, so he’s not afraid of the afterlife Socrates infers a definition of justice, and tries to lure him into a philosophical discussion.
But Cephalus was having none of it, handing over the argument to his son, as he couldn’t be bothered with this “definition of justice” nonsense, excusing himself saying he has to go perform a religious sacrifice, getting out of dodge of Socrates' intrusive questions.
Here’s the subtle point Plato makes that escapes the attention of people… What kind of man can become a philosopher? What sort of person has the intellectual energy to pursue the “what is justice” question? Certainly not Cephalus.
Plato makes the point that the seemingly irrational and insatiable curiosity that philosophy is based on is driven by “a bunch of insane masters.” The type of intellectual energy required for pursuing knowledge is also that which makes you go mad of sexual desire. Here we can see one of the earlier narrative manifestations of the idea of “sexual sublimation,” which Plato had a keen sense of to be able to write it. It would be that Platos believed that Eros (which would be associated with the madness and passionate elements of human sensuality and love) into “higher forms of love,” say, the love for knowledge (which is philosophy), mathematics, ethical and ascetic pursuits. It is from Plato we derive the idea that “erotic energy” is the vehicle to greater states of being, and higher levels of consciousness.
I believe a lot of confusion has come from the belief that “carnal desire” is primary, that is “converted” into “higher forms of love” by Plato’s use of the word eros, which has a strong connotation to carnal sexual desire. But this is not exactly how Plato uses the world eros. For Plato, eros is more like generic desire, something like the heavenly force that wants to drag the earthly towards itself. And Eros is not primarily spiritual, nor primarily physical, it is both. Plato’s Symposium, explores the nature of Eros, the source of this sexual energy, that which is sublimated.
The Symposium consists of several speeches made at a party where the topic at hand is Eros, and the first orator is Phaedrus, who makes a case that Eros ought to be praised and that it’s one of the oldest God’s, therefore, the most fundamental ones. While before, I would have thought this is mere superstition, having recently read Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning helped me understand why these men are discussing the hierarchy of their gods, their age, their influence, their parents, their siblings, etc.
The way we organize our psyche is homomorphic to the way we organize our deities. To say that Eros is one of the oldest gods, is to say it’s one of our oldest biological drives, or put it differently, it’s most fundamental to our motivational system. You could say that in order to organize a psyche, and a society for that matter, you need a hierarchy of values. This organizing principle is what made the hierarchy of gods appealing and practical for the ancient Greeks. They’re not merely speculating some weird fairy-tale metaphysics, they are trying to understand how to organize their own psyche. In the Greek religion/mythology, the gods were at war with each other, much like Freud’s conception of the psyche of competing forces. So, the most basic of communities have just a bunch of gods and other celestial beings just doing their thing, the Greek were at a level of sophistication of putting them into a hierarchy, and the final step is to put them into a single god, monotheism, which parallels moral and psychic integration of one common ideal.
I read this with Allan Bloom’s “Ladder of Love” commentary, which was probably more insightful than Plato’s text itself for me. Bloom noted that Eryximachus' speech was awful, as he tried to explain Eros in a weird, naturalistic, scientific way. Bloom notes that specialists are unerotic, which I think is an interesting remark. The thing about erotic people is that they tend to want to view things as a whole, they want to bring everything together, whereas specialists lack the longing to do so, and as a generalization, you can say they are unerotic.
Right now I’m reading Ian McGilchrist’s Master and his Emissary, and he pointed out how the left-brain hemisphere dominance is connected to this close-minded, specialization, without a desire to bring everything together. Autistic people portray typical left-brain hemisphere dominance, symptoms of which are problems reading facial expressions, problems with empathy, etc, and they are notoriously unerotic. So we could make a connection here between the right-brain hemisphere and eroticism, which is, I will admit, not a new connection to be made, though interesting nonetheless, to note that there is a connection between “wholeness” and eroticism like Plato alluded to.
Eros seems like some ungraspable “one thing,” but Plato describes it loosely as something that desires wholeness, immortality, perfection, and of crucial importance, something beautiful. Eros seems to me something highly individual, and I think Nietzsche’s “will to power” is Eros, stripped away from the beautiful as the ideal, as Nietzsche rejected the, say, Platonic form of the perfect beauty in the world.
I suppose Plato’s account of Eros covers a lot of things, and although sex was heavily discussed, I am not entirely sure how Plato thinks Eros is so predominantly focused on it. He alluded that it’s a search for immortality, which could explain the reproductive part, but there’s so much missing. For example, why is it that the taboo and the forbidden are charged with such erotic intensity? Bloom writes that Eros is connected to philosophy (e.g. sublimated at a great conversion rate) by the willingness to think forbidden thoughts, which is what connects philosophy with eroticism. Alright, that’s interesting, but why is Eros connected with the forbidden in the first place? Why ought it be forbidden to seek perfection, wholeness, immortality, and the beautiful?
My best guess is by using Plato's myth of the split-body curse, in which the gods cursed human beings into split beings as a punishment for their pride, I suppose this "erotic desire" is a defiance against the curse of the gods, in some way. They want to restore this unity, regain their pride, and then challenge the gods in the power struggle. And so this "defiance" is ultimately forbidden by the gods. Something I've thought about a lot is that there is a great erotic charge in the rebellious. In the bending and warping and breaking of the "Tyrannical Father."
This brings me to Socrates' speech, which makes the case that Eros is not a god after all, it’s a halfway being between a god and a mortal. Desire cannot be “good,” because it implies a lack. You cannot desire something you have. Bloom reveals the genius of Plato’s writing by making Socrates embody Eros, the most erotic of them all, as he is the person who is the most aware of his lack of knowledge. Eros is something in the middle between not knowing and knowing, between god and man, and between lacking and riches. And so Eros is not merely lacking, but it’s not merely fulfillment. If, for example, it was merely lacking, then Socrates would have lacked knowledge, but also lacked the knowledge of his ignorance. Socrates is in the middle, thus, erotic.
I don’t know if Plato is optimistic or pessimistic, I think both. On one hand, he gives us the idea of sexual sublimation, the Ladder of Love, the idea of Platonic love, and that the erotic forces of the mind and the body are deeply intertwined and of the same source. He also portrays the ideal as the beautiful. On the other hand, he says Eros is lacking, and we’re bound to be on a quest for an impossible task, true wholeness, true perfection. This incessant lacking, longing, is not only inevitable but desirable and virtuous, in some way. Plato provides us with a myth in this book that shook the entire Western world to its core, namely the myth that we once were whole beings, and the gods punished us due to our pride, and split us apart into two, male and female, and ever since we’re seeking to find and embrace our “soul mate,” and try to merge our bodies with them, as a desperate attempt to regain this wholeness of being.
This myth resonates deeply with us and is highly reminiscent of the Biblical Fall of Man, where everything was good and dandy in the Garden of Eden, and then they ate the Tree of Knowledge, which made them aware of their ignorance, (remember, how Eros is the middle between ignorance and knowledge, like Socrates) and thus they are thrown out of the garden and into the world of Eros, into the world of incompleteness, longing and desire. I made the connection between the Tree of Knowledge and Eros just now, woah!
Anyway, the idea of the “perfect, whole, blissful” past is something common across many, many mythologies and religions, as it seems to strike a chord within us. And this perfect past is something we try to restore, through Eros. Though, in Plato, the original state was that of pride, so you can say that Eros is that which wants to carve ourselves out from reality, and be whole in of ourselves, a highly individualistic, and egoic pursuit, in a way.
Plato’s Symposium deals with the fundamental questions of our lives. It’s confusing, yet enlightening. Highly recommend Allan Bloom’s commentary.
Also interesting to note that you derive the text, that men are assumed to be bi-sexual by default. And that pedophilia was seen as normal. If you don't think culture can shift your sexual orientation, I'd suggest reading Plato, and Plutarch. I feel silly giving Plato ratings on Goodreads, but if I have to, I guess I really liked it reading it, though the depth and Plato's genius is amazing.