By Aviram Nessim, March 9, 2024

Plato’s masterpiece, Phaedrus, contains two rather intricate definitions of love. On one hand, the concept of love is tainted by the prominent Athenian orator, Lysias, during his dialogue with Phaedrus, a young, impressionable student of rhetoric. As we will see, Lysias’ declamation places the “non-lover” on a pedestal while regarding the lover as inferior, thereby jeopardizing Phaedrus’ growth by portraying love in a damaging light. On the other hand, Socrates delivers a speech disagreeing with the words of Lysias by attempting to redefine love, and, in turn, emphasize the emancipation of Phaedrus’ soul. In this essay, my objectives are threefold. First, I will explain how Lysias’ speech was inherently destructive through its attempts to denounce the very essence of love. Second, I will explore how such a speech jeopardized both Phaedrus’ philosophical and divine potential, specifically through its attempts to hinder both. Lastly, I will explain how Socrates’ amendment of the definition of love attempts to redeem Phaedrus from the ruinous nature of Lysias’ words.

Lysias turns the concept of love into a denunciation by vehemently suggesting that it is best to avoid it altogether. However, he believes that the “non-lover” can still derive pleasurable benefits, proposing that “favors should be granted to a man who is not in love rather than one who is” (Plato, 3). Favors, in this circumstance, are a euphemism for intercourse. Lysias asserts that sexual pleasures can only be reserved for those who disregard any devotion they might have for one another. Yet, such an opinion is rooted in Lysias’ belief that those in love continuously experience negative emotions such as remorse for having engaged in a relationship; according to Lysias, for this very reason, the “non-lover” must not affiliate themself with such emotions. Moreover, Lysias claims that those in love “think they have long since given return enough to the objects of their love; whereas those unloved cannot allege neglect of their own interests because of it, nor reckon up their past labours” (Plato, 7). Here, the narrative of love is perceived with a negative connotation, illustrating how lovers continuously display regret after separating from their partner (whereas their counterparts are unable to associate themselves with any sentiment). Moreover, this quote illustrates Lysias’ perception of love as an exchange of favors while denying its inherently selfless and giving nature. Thus, the theme of entering into relationships as a “non-lover” while still indulging in romantic circumstances is the overarching theme of Lysias’ argument. In his efforts to reinforce it, Lysias repeatedly condemns the longing of love, asserting that it results in intolerable emotional repercussions.

The degree to which Phaedrus embraces Lysias’ speech is, simply put, concerning. This is because, immediately following Lysias’ speech, Phaedrus eagerly reports to Socrates about how “extraordinarily well done” and well-formulated Lysias’ speech was (Plato, 11). Socrates calmly and promptly acknowledges that a vulnerability is present in Phaedrus’ novel perception of love and, as a reply, delivers his own definition of love. Socrates begins his proclamation by insisting that throughout time “there were two kinds of madness, the one caused by sickness of a human sort, and the other coming about from a divinely caused reversal of our customary ways of behaving…and belonging to Aphrodite and Love” (Plato, 49). Socrates interprets such “madness” as a phenomenon occurring on both a human and divine level. According to him, “madness” on a divine level originates from the gods and influences both the lover and the beloved with the intention of shaping their behavior and emotions in romantic relationships. Socrates’ explanation is crucial in surmounting the harmful words of Lysias to allow the growth of Phaedrus’ soul. Ultimately, it is Socrates’ portrayal of love as a purposeful, spiritual “madness” that allows Phaedrus to embrace Socrates’ concept fully while recognizing the illegitimacy of Lysias’ argument.  

Additionally, Socrates posits that a soul situated within the human body on Earth will dramatically grow its wings upon encountering beauty. Specifically, the soul will “become winged, fluttering with an eagerness to fly upwards”; it is this very occurrence that transforms one’s soul into “a lover” (Plato, 30). Socrates reiterates, explaining that the innocent soul of Phaedrus can do the same – observe beauty and soar upwards. The speech of Lysias only succumbs itself to the human benefits of what is seen to be an objectively non-loving relationship. According to Socrates’ speech, love stems from divinity, containing something far more innate and spiritually significant than casual pleasure-generating relationships. Therefore, the arguments of Lysias bitterly drag down Phaedrus, keeping his soul confined to Earth by stunting the growth of his “wings” and limiting his ability to admire the divine beauty that love can offer on both a human and divine level. Ultimately, upon Phaedrus observing this far more authentic interpretation of love, he spares his physical body of lackluster relationships, and, more importantly, his soul from withering away.

Today’s world holds many contemporary viewpoints for approaching love. One may even see a dichotomy between viewing love as merely a human emotion and having its roots in divinity and spiritual significance, which are akin to the aforementioned beliefs held by Lysias and Socrates. In this same context, however, there are many people who resemble Phaedrus: lost yet voraciously searching for a sense of direction. Hearing the wise words of astute philosophers may help them find their way.

Works Cited

Plato (2005). Phaedrus. Penguin Books.