In Plato's Symposium, Plato details the events of a dinner party, a symposium from which the work takes its namesake, consisting of a group of apparently fine individuals educated. Plato tells the story of the symposium and the dialogue of those present through a framed narrative, using the character of Apollodorus, one of the party participants, to tell the story to an anonymous companion. The party is organized and held in honor of the tragedian Agathon, to celebrate his recent victory in a playwriting competition. Besides Apollodorus, the festival brings together Phaedra, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, Agothon and Socrates. At Phaedrus' suggestion, the conversation turns to the theme of Eros, the Greek god of love. Each of the individuals takes turns giving a speech praising Eros. Socrates, placed by Plato to be the protagonist of the Symposium by allowing him to speak last with the longest dialogue, presents an argument regarding Eros that differentiates himself from those of his peers. Socrates' argument is unique in that he begins his argument by questioning and refuting the claims of the previous speaker, the playwright Agathon, through a Socratic questioning style characteristic of Plato's works. Moreover, the bulk of Socrates' argument rests on a basis that is not entirely his own, but rather that of Diotima of Manitea, a character whom Socrates claims to have taught him everything he knows about Eros and love. Although each of the speakers presents a unique perspective and interpretation of Eros, the speech delivered by Socrates—although it might more aptly be called Diotima's speech—is arguably the most important speech delivered regarding Eros in the Symposium. Furthermore, the evidence Diotima uses to support his argument makes it the most convincing of those put forward by Socrates' colleagues. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Socrates presents the basis of Diotima's argument at the beginning of his speech, noting Diotima's belief that eros "of the good being always one's own" (206a). This means that people only love what is good for them. The object of love, its eternal desire, then becomes the desire to possess this goodness forever. With this, Diotima refutes Aristophanes' earlier assertion that a person will always pursue his other half. For Diotima, this person would only pursue their other half if that is what is good for them. Diotima attempts to defend this rather bold and surprising claim by raising a number of subsequent questions, the first seeking to answer what is the purpose of love. Indeed, if the object of love is to possess what is good, then what becomes the aim of love in achieving this aim? Diotima states that this goal is to bring “birth into the beauty of both body and soul” (206b). The difficulty here is to relate this somewhat abstract statement to Diotima's definition of love. Diotima believes that all human beings are pregnant, “both in body and in soul” (206c), and it is the natural process that motivates their desire to give birth in both aspects. This birth can only be a birth forged in beauty, because childbirth requires the harmony of man and woman. Likewise, the process of reproduction is divine, as it is the closest feat mere mortals can achieve to achieving immortality. In this regard, reproduction is an immortal process, as it allows mortals to continue living through their offspring, both in body and soul. Love is therefore not simply the desire for what is beautiful, as saidSocrates earlier, but rather the lack of reproduction in birth and beauty. This aspect of immortality connects the two elements of Diotima's argument. Love's purpose of giving birth to beauty justifies Diotima's earlier notion that love is the eternal need for that which is good, because reproduction provides mortals with a means of immortality, although it s It acts more as a means of the soul than of the body. For love to want to possess the good forever, it must want the immortality made possible by reproduction. The very fact that humanity has continued to reproduce throughout human history is further evidence that supports Diotima's claim. It is human nature to desire to reproduce after reaching adolescence and early adulthood. This desire to reproduce ensures the immortality of the human race. The love that allows the continued progression of humanity then undoubtedly becomes the love of what is good for oneself. Diotima then shifts his argument from love toward human beings to love that can be found in animals, stating that “in the eros of beasts…mortal nature seeks as far as possible to be eternal and immortal” (207d ). The same argument that was applied to humanity can also be applied to lesser beings, thus confirming Diotima's initial claim. Like humans, animals with much lesser intellectual capabilities have an innate desire to achieve immortality and have found the closest way to achieve this goal: reproduction. As this example shows, the idea that love is the need for what is good for oneself is universal, likely to apply not only to human beings, but also to animals and lesser creatures. further discussion of the aspect of reproduction, the means by which mortals seem to be able to obtain immortality, stating that "it is always leaving behind another young person to replace the old" (207d). This reproduction is not only exclusive in terms of the reproduction of new individuals through their offspring, but can also take place within a single individual. This is evident from the fact that no individual remains the same from birth to death. Although one can be said to be the same individual and being, the constant reproduction of one's body and soul results in countless cycles of death and rebirth within a single person. As the body ages physically, the soul and spirit also ages with new knowledge and new ways. Diotima applies the same logic to study, asserting that “forgetting is the exit from science; and study, infusing anew with new memory…preserves science” (208a). In an effort to achieve immortality, this constant process of reproduction causes humans to honor those who are their offspring. It is this nature that has led humans and lesser beings to develop a caring and protective attitude towards their children, because their children are, in essence, their immortality. Diotima then applies this same principle to other things that humans hold to high standards or values, such as honor and virtue. In doing so, Diotima cites the actions of Alcestis and Achilles, asserting that they were not performed out of love for Admetus or Patroclus, but rather for an "immortal memory of their virtue" (208d). This refutes Phaedra's earlier assertion that these actions were self-sacrifice for the sake of their lover and beloved. This discussion agrees with Diotima's assertion and justifies the idea that love is the desire for what is good for oneself, because the desire to achievethe immortality of what humans perceive to be good for them is what ultimately motivates human actions. her speech contains perhaps the strangest elements of her argument, in which she discusses pregnancy found in men, stating that "they turn rather to women... procuring for themselves through the procreation of children immortality, remembrance and happiness (as they believe) for all the future”. time” (208e). Although these men act in accordance with Diotima's claim to strive for immortality, better yet, she asserts, those who are pregnant are not physically, but rather in the soul. These individuals, “all poets and all artisans” (209a) according to Diotima, seek those who are beautiful in the soul, so that they may procreate and be born in the soul. These individuals are capable of achieving a much greater kind of immortality, because by giving birth in the soul, they are truly remembered forever, commemorated by fame and memory. Diotima's main argument shines through in both of these cases. Whatever immortality one desires or is capable of achieving, it nevertheless remains an essential element of one's well-being. The pursuit to achieve it then becomes an act of love itself, seeking what is good for oneself and trying to make that goodness last forever. Diotima's conclusion to her speech establishes an overview of what she calls the rites of love, a seemingly complex ladder to achieving the greatest love. First of all, we only love one body. This leads to the understanding that “the beauty which is in any body is linked to that which is in another body” (210b). This awareness compels the individual to seek beauty in all bodies and become a lover of all beautiful bodies. Following this, we discover that the beauty of the ought is much more substantial than the beauty of the body. This argument is consistent with Diotima's earlier assertion that the birth of the soul is a greater feat than the birth of the body. An individual, seeking love in the soul, is open to seeing “the beautiful in activities and laws…and the beauty of the sciences” (210c). The final rung of Diotima's ladder of love involves the individual giving birth to "many beautiful and magnificent speeches and thoughts" (210d). This, according to Diotima, allows the individual to give birth to true virtue, gain the favor of the gods, and become one of the few truly immortals. Although this scale initially presents itself as a complex and somewhat convoluted way of quantifying love, this strange scale serves to defend Diotima's initial claim about the true meaning of love. It is only through a continuous effort to seek what is good for oneself that one is able to climb the ladder of love proposed by Diotima. Love, then, at every rung on this ladder of love, is just that: an effort to obtain what is good for oneself and to hold on to it until the constant cycle of immortal reproduction changes us. to pursue a higher rung on the ladder. Diotima makes a rather convincing argument that love is "the good being always one's own" (206a), but it is not without a number of critical flaws that might lead one to doubt its entire argument. Most notably, Diotima's fundamental argument upon which she develops the rest of her argument, the notion that love is always the pursuit of what is good for oneself, may also be her greatest weakness, as the argument could easily be advanced from an opposing position. that what we perceive as good for us may not always really be good. Obscured by the fog of judgment and denial which is also a common aspect of nature.