Question 1: In Plato’s Symposium, he mentions about love being specifically related to form. I particularly am interested in the concept of relating love [or human emotion for affection] in consideration the realization of physical beauty in a person for whom such affection is being felt.
Love in itself is a form of emotion. However, Plato showed in his symposium, that love, among all affections, is powerful. The type of love noted as ‘eros’ tries to show an understanding of how humans develop a sense of love for another. The confusing matter in this case is how eros was used by Plato himself and the people he was referring to in his discourse as a presentation of same-gender affection. Considerably, the symposium intends to test how strong and how powerful love is to move walls and make a distinct impact on how much one is willing to lose just to be able to experience love that he thinks is most necessary for his survival eve beyond all the matters that the society thinks about homosexuality.
Question 2: Likely, the symposium pertains to the presentation of love related to affection among men specifically pointing out towards the emergence of homosexuality in the ancient Greek society. What I want to know more about is how the society then tries to justify the occurrence of homosexuality among men through utilizing the theory about love and human sexuality.
Homosexuality is not at all that accepted in ancient times. It is considered unnatural and unguided. It surprises me to know that this symposium by a famous ancient philosopher tries to tackle a sense of justification of what homosexuality is and how it should be accepted as a mere expression of human nature, the capacity of a person to love.
Critique:
The overall writing on the symposium is compelling. It does not immediately make the readers see what is being talked about in the discussion except for the repetitive mention of ‘love’ and how pure it is compared to other types of human emotions. Relatively, Plato was able to point out in his writing that people do understand love in many different ways. Nevertheless, it is understood as a strong feeling that is expressed in many terms.
The way it intends to ask the reader through making him think about the presentation of philosophies about love specifically expands the foundation on how the writing itself aims to convince the reader about the supposed acceptability of homosexuality as a mere expression of being human.
Sexuality, as an element of human nature, is considered in this discourse as somewhat as pure as love is, no matter what its form is. It is assumed that it is with this concept that the idea of a man sharing an affectionate feeling with another man is justified and is compromised among the audience of the symposium to be accepted as somewhat natural. Arguing that men are humans and should be treated as one especially when it comes to expressing their affection for another individual, not necessarily towards a woman, the symposium tries to challenge the thinking of the reader to reason out as to how come homosexuality is considered a immoral in the ancient Greek society if it does simply allow humans to be able to express themselves in a way that they understand the real value of eros, the love that puts two people together to share romantic love that they feel for each other. In this case, critical as the presentation is, it is able to establish a better concept of challenging one’s belief about homosexuality then and now.
