Talk:Symposium (Plato)

message: The introduction needs to mention the dialogue's controversiality, it's discussion of homosexuality, and pederastic relationships.  It's very thin on the ground currently.--Knucmo2 23:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it isn't. --D. Webb 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Are the counter arguements credible enough to be mentioned in the opening paragraph? The text quite clearly states Socrates as having a taste for young men. --Oldak Quill 23:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedastry

message: The section on 'Climax and Counterpoint' has been around since the earliest complete version of the page, but it's hard for me to see the climax as being Alcibiades' accusation of Socrates stealing away the young men. I don't pretend to be an expert in Greek literature, but it seems that the focus of Symposium is the praise and nature of Eros. Consequently, it would seem that the climax is either the conclusion of Socrates' speech or the great revelation of the nature of love by Diotima to Socrates. Alcibiades seems more like a ribald anti-climax, a sort of comic relief after the serious philosophical work has been accomplished by Socrates. Rather than go on my intuitions on my first reading of the text, though, I'm trying to turn up some criticism to substantiate what should be considered the climax, either way. This section of the article has been here too long without substantiation...
--JECompton 01:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i wouldn't call it comic counter releif- its very important to the whole thing, the nature of the path that socrates has outlined- but it isn't the climax, either.  well, the whole alcibiades thing, not just the "stealing away young men" comment . . .--Heah (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climax and Counterpoint 

message: Should this article be nominated for a clean up? The above comments have made it clear why. --Dast 16:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Honestly, i wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was cut and pasted from somewhere.--Heah (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Done, this article isn't much of a credit to wikipedia - PotatoKnight 02:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up?

message: The Phaedrus mentioned in the Socratic dialogues was not, I'm fairly certain, the Roman fabulist (born in 15 B.C.E.). I'm just saying.
"This article needs to be cleaned up" is putting it rather mildly.
Firebreeze 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's common sense. 

message: i'm currently rewriting the article; as it may take me a couple days, i'm doing it on a user subpage, User:Heah/symp.  so you can see my progress there and are more than welcome to leave comments on that talk page or on my talk page.  --Heah talk 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay its here.  I've briefly outlined each speech; in a text of this length and importance doing so seemed proper.  The "interpretations" section at the end isn't cited or anything.  I wouldn't quite call it original research, as i tried not to say anything that isn't clear and indisputable from a reading of the text, and at the very least its a whole hell of a lot better than the previous "interpretation" which just said that Plato thought loving boys was preferable to homosexuality or heterosexuality.  But my point is that that section still needs a rewrite with proper citations from secondary sources.  It should be longer, as an outline of the dialogue is kinda pointless in an encyclopedia article without some discussion of what all of this might mean.  --Heah talk 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: 'The identity of this Glaucon is uncertain; it may be either the same Glaucon as in the Republic or Plato's brother, who was named Glaucon.' 
I thought Glaucon was Plato's brother in the Republic? Am I reading this wrong?Sjjb 11:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa my bad, you're completely right.  eek!  thanks for noticing that.  Its been a while since i looked at the first books of or any commentary on the republic, and cooper's intro to the symposium mentioned only that glaucon was also a character in the republic.  I'll fix it.  thanks again and apologies for the mistake . . .  --Heah talk 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is some reason for doubting that the Glaucon of the Symposium is the same as the Glaucon of the Republic (which was clearly Plato's brother):  Apollodorus is speaking to Glaucon in 407 BC or shortly thereafter. (After all, Glaucon asks Apollodorus to relate to him the conversation between Socrates, Agathon, Alcibiades, et al., which Glaucon believes took place "recently"; but Alcibiades had not been in Athens to have had such a conversation, since 415, when (as Apollodorus points out) Glaucon and Apollodorus were still "children" (and by 406 Alcibiades was again away, not to return before his 404 BC death).)  This means that Glaucon here cannot be Plato's brother:  if he was a child in 416, then it would have been impossible for him to have participated as a young man in a conversation depicted in the Republic, whose dramatic date can be no later than 421. Isokrates 03:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glaucon?

message: I've tried to make these sections clearer, successfully I hope. I have expanded both the summary of the opening pages, and the discussion of what these opening pages are doing. On the matter of the oral tradition that is being described, I've footnoted my own book, but if anyone has a more appropriate reference please substitute it! Andrew Dalby 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frame narrative and opening of the main narrative 

message: The article states in rather strong POV terms:  "Plato warns his reader that the story must be taken as fictional. The reader hears it third hand from a current young disciple of Socrates, who was in the nursery when the party allegedly took place. This disciple, Apollodorus, is now "refreshing" his memory by retelling it some unspecified years after he first heard about it from Aristodemus. Apollodorus repeatedly says that he is telling it to the best of Aristodemus' memory (178a)."
It is true that Plato in some cases seems to go out of his way to represent conversations within his dialogues as reports made at two or even three times removed from the originals (the main dialogue of the Theaetetus is Euclides’ report of Socrates’ report; that of the Parmenides is Cephalus’ report of Antiphon’s report of Pythodorus’; and that of the Symposium is Apollodorus’ report of Phoenix’s report of Aristodemus’).  But, in the very same passages in which he describes the ancestry of the reports, Plato takes the same pains to represent how greatly the reporters were committed to being faithful to the original conversations and how both reporters and listeners had a fairly scrupulous concern for the reliability of sources (see Symposium 173b, 172bc; Theaetetus 143a; Parmenides 126c (remember that Antiphon was Plato’s half-brother); Phaedo 57a).  We are given the distinct impression that the followers of Socrates shared a appetite for exact details (Phaedo 58cd, 88e), which would have led to the cultivation of an ability to relate “the speeches” accurately and in detail.  Also, Socrates is represented as being quite willing to remind his interlocutors of the details of a past conversation (Symposium 173b, Lysis 211b, Theaetetus 143a).  So, the mere fact that the conversation is a third-hand report isn't sufficient reason for concluding that "Plato warns his reader that the story must be taken as fictional..."  Isokrates 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a slanted oversimplification (like many things in the article, in my opinion). Do you want to try rewriting this? Andrew Dalby 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A "Fictional" Dialogue?

message: Interpretation aside, I find there to be some minor problems in the section on the speech by Aristophanes.  For instance, "Zeus thought about just blasting them to death with thunderbolts," does not in any way sound like it belongs in a discussion on a philosophical text.  Also, it seems to me to be wrong.  To my limited understanding, it was not Zeus that wanted to "blast them to death" but rather it was the celestial councils of gods that considered annihilating the race.  Zeus had the more humane idea of merely splitting each person into two (as opposed to "chopping them in half" as the current article states).  Further, it was not Zeus that turned their faces and tightened their skin.  Zeus bade Apollo to heal their wounds and reform their flesh.  I'm also not sure about the reference to clowns earlier in the section either.
I have not made any changes to the article because I do not know how much variation there is between different translations.  If the difference is large, then mine could conceivably be innacurate.  Either way, I wanted to bring these small details to the general attention.  Hopefully someone can pay them closer attention.  If I persue this text further, perhaps I will have more to contribute than a few minor details.    Physicsd00d 07:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aristophanes' Speech

message: This article, as has already been observed on this talk page, focuses on the sensual and sensational at the expense of giving a good account of the dialogue. Problems start in the introduction, which has this sentence: "Love between men and women is disparaged as procreant and lewd, and love between men and boys is praised as conducive to courage and wisdom. This dialogue cannot be overestimated as the source of the notion that "educational pederasty" was respectable among the educated classes in fifth century BCE Athens."
This is fairly inaccurate, and unsupported by citations. An IP editor deleted it, only to be reverted; in this case, I think the anonymous editor had the right idea. I'm inclined to delete the sentence, but since there's already been one revert I'd like to hear what other editors think. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article emphasizes sensationalism at the expense of philosophy 

message: Why, after all this discussion, and all the valid points made, is the Introduction still so poorly written and strangely skewed toward (homo)sexuality?  The first paragraph ends with "It is largely taken for granted in the conversation (and is stated explicitly by some of the speakers) that the most noble form of love is that between a man and a boy; other forms of love, including heterosexual love, are discussed more briefly and generally with less favour."  I haven't read the Symposium in many years, but my memory seems to very strongly suggest that this is an outright falsification.  As I remember, one comes away from the Symposium with the distinct impression that what Plato is trying to tell us, through the dialectical development of the conversation of his dramatis personae, is that the highest form of love is not a form of physical or romantic love at all, for either a male or a female, but rather, that through a series of psychological transformations, what a 21st Century person versed in modern psychology might call "sublimation" or "canalization of libido," the seeker comes to the highest form of love, which is a love of the Good, the True and the Beautiful, the three of which are seen to be, in these higher states of consciousness, brought about through contemplation as well as dialectical discourse, synonymous.  
The sexual politics is picked up once again in the second and final paragraph of the introduction, making it seem to anyone coming in on it that this is the most important issue that the Symposium addresses, or perhaps at least the most important reason this dialogue should command our attention.  This is a philosophical discourse by Plato, not some titillating piece of soft porn.  I am new as a member to Wikipedia, so I don't have my sea-legs yet, but please, somebody, change this terrible Introduction!! Kairon Paideia 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few small changes to begin to address your concerns, including eliminating the sentence you objected to. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is unbalanced

message: I was curious about the line that describes Diotima as a well-known prostitute, when the article about her says she is a seer/priestess. Is this true? Or is this some form of vandalism. I would appreciate a source if anyone knows this. (I am not particularly well-versed in philosophy/history so forgive me if this is an obvious or stupid question.) Thanks.P337 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diotima is described in the Symposium as being a priestess (or a wise woman). There are contradictory opinions on whether she was a real person or an imaginary 'foil'. You might want to get hold of Mary Ellen Waithe's book, "Diotima of Mantinea," History of Women Philosophers, Volume I/600 BC- 500 AD, 83-116. (Waithe thinks Diotima was a real person.) For what it is worth, I have found no references whatsoever that claim that she was a prostitute. Anarchia 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I recommend that that part be removed. Does anyone disagree? I was also unable to find any other source that corroborates this.P337 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diotima, prostitute?

message: Just because Aristophanes' speech is the most remembered doesn't mean that Plato INTENDED it that way.  That are numerous examples in literature about a work of art coming out other than the author intended.  Two examples from Shakespeare: Henry IV part 1 was supposed to be about the king, with Falstaff as a minor character who commented on the action from the sidelines.  However, it very soon became "The Falstaff Play" and nobody cared who played the king.  In "Much Ado About Nothing" the story was supposed to be Claudio's unjust accusation against Hero, but nowadays it is the comic Beatrice-and-Benedict subplot that gets everybody's attention.  Plato intended for Socrates to dominate the discussion, but it did not turn out that way.
CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The climactic speech? 

message: The article is sorely missing a section on how the symposium was understood and interpreted in the time after it was written, up to today. -- 92.229.185.125 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the later history of the dialoge? 

message: The content of this section as it is, may produce the impression that what we are reading in the Symposium is a real conversation that took place in a real historical symposium. I have read the Walter Hamilton translation, and this scholar says "that the conversation which takes place at it is fictitious cannot seriously be doubted". If there is not any contrary opinion based in a reliable secondary source, I will proceed to change this section in a way that reflects this position.--Auró (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the content in a way that the two theories, fictitious content/historical content are exposed, because the reference from Andrew Dalby seems to be a serious one. (I have realized that this comment I made in October 2012 is unsigned, so I proceed to sign.)--Auró (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Context" section

message: The second paragraph of the "Context" section deals with the oral tradition. This is in fact more related to literary form than context. My proposal is to migrate this paragraph to the "Literary form" section, which I will do if there are no objections.--Auró (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Auró (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary form/context sections 

message: It seems to me that "context" is a more general concept than "participants", and then its relative order should be reversed, which I will do if there are no objections.--Auró (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been more ambitious. I have changed the former section title from "context" to "introductory narrative", and added a new section "Historical context".--Auró (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants/context sections order 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Symposium (Plato). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206020136/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/plato,2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/plato,2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added the following short, neutral, and well-referenced sentence to the lead:
Springee removed it, saying 
Relationships between older and younger men is, inarguably, a major focus of the work, as anyone who has read it can tell you. A neutral overview of it cannot dance around this without being in violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the sentence does follow the article body. Some excerpts from the body:
*
*
*
*
*
Furthermore, here is a sentence from an introduction to  Paul Woodruff's translation of the Symposium. I didn't hunt around for an edition that said something like this, I did a search on Amazon and clicked on one at random:
*
WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway happy to talk more if anyone has further objections but I'll go ahead and restore the sentence. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning same-sex love in the lead