I brought up a discussion to talk about the different perspective of eros in Symposium in two branches, one from the perspective from Socrates and Diotima, and the other from Phadrius and Pausians. Speech said by Socrates was a dialogue with Diotima. The implication of Diotima’s speech aids the love more than sensual. At first Diotima and Socrates eros arises as a daemon. Grandmother of Eros, Metis: beautiful, invention and composed of components of gift. This pedigree contributes Eros a combination of opposite characteristics. Being ‘true to … him’ (Symp. 203c). Contradicting, ‘he … the truth’ (Symp. 203d). Eros is not a god, nor a human, and yet he links the earthly with the heavenly spheres. Diotima illustrates: ‘God with man does not mingle: …show more content…
Pausanias‘ talk narrows on the ideas of double (eros) and homosexual. Unlike Diotima’s sight on eros, Phaedrus, had confirmed the settled approach that eros was once a god. ‘Evolving … verse’ (Symp. 178b). In Diotima’s talks, eros appears as strength in human standing contrary to the symposiasts’ approach that love is indefinite god handing out blessings. Even Socrates, before his enlightenment by Diotima had thought eros ‘great…(Symp.201e). Phaedrus explains eros as arousing shame in human. This feeling bear out by Alcibiades when hearing the discourse of Socrates ‘… feel ashamed’ (Symp. 216b). Relationship of male and youth is also discussed in Symposium. Pausanias talks about the ‘noble’ pursuit needed the lover to chase the boy as long as a time of testing had to go by before a relationship was secured by sexual act. The truth of young male having a mentor who looks after them admits that the relationship is improper. Erastes (adult male) had to convince his status so that the eromenos (youth) was certain of ‘the attainment …excellence (Symp. …show more content…
Human takes the action of the handling depending on the participants. Assuredly, eros of Aphrodite fares the unfavorable granted to Pausanias for admirer whom admire soul compare to the body. From the counseling of Aphrodite ‘which … life,’ homosexual eros dominants, and this area is not without conflict and complexity (Symp.185bc). Pausanias argument is reasonable in the sense that it expands the law of society and city for the inhabitant including the hazard of homosexual relationships. Pausanias referred the heroic movement of Aristogeiton, Harmodius in the assassination of Hipparchus (Symp.182cd) In short, Phaedrus explained on the feelings of shame evoked when couples can’t maintain the basic rules. Also, lover would die than displaying the shame in front of the admirer by betraying the status in warfare. Pausanias acclaims the two sides of Eros, good and bad through the example of Aphrodite. Love can be in a box of true and false visible features. The homosexual are also classified in two eros by the handling of the eromenos. If the relationship goal is ‘virtue’, then the relationship may be excused. Lastly, Diotima and Socrates passage emphasizes the moral of eros. Eros is mentioned as daemon, which starts the relationship among positive and negative, human and godly, the understandable and