Whether we say that here Plato is referring to the appetites in general, or specifically the divine madness that was the subject of the previous speech, we none the less must conclude that this appears to be a tangent from the traditional Plato of The Republic. It is this passage in relation to the whole Phaedrus dialogue that demands interpretation. I will argue why I feel that while this is a change from the theme of Plato s earlier works, none the less, Plato continues to place the same value on the appetites and on logos in the Phaedrus that he places on them in The Republic. In the analogy of the charioteer, we do have the black horse pulling the chariot towards the Good because of the passion that it feels for the beauty of the good. I argue that while passion between mortals can be mistaken for divine passion, it is not divine passion.
Divine passion is passion for truth.
Erotic passion is passion for flesh. Here, it becomes necessary to remember Plato s theory of Forms. Arguably, if Plato has given eros the status of god, then he has also given eros the status of Form. I believe this because he has raised eros outside of the changing realm of mortals, but at the same time, eros is not the Good, but the passion for the Good. The import here is that eros is not a Form like other Forms.