Socrates’ Mistaken Premise | Plato’s Phaedrus

In Plato’s dialogue, Phaedrus, Socrates gives a speech denouncing lovers. He starts by defining love as an uncontrollable and unreasonable desire for beauty found in human bodies. He then proposes a very bizarre and strange premise: lovers want their partners to be weaker and inferior to them.
With this premise, Socrates draws many wild conclusions as a result. He starts by saying that a lover would prefer to have bad character traits such as a poor intellect and cowardliness. Next, he says that a lover would want their partner to not be in shape and have a poor physical appearance. Finally, Socrates says that a lover would want their partner deprived of their family members so they can have them all to themselves.
These conclusions are all pretty debatable, but they all stem from the questionable premise that a lover would want their partner to be weaker and inferior to them. #plato #philosophy #socrates
Business Inquiries: [e-mail]
Instagram: philosophytoonsyt
ko-fi: ko-fi.com/phil...
Music by: HoobeZa

[@mertinate9151]

That premise is NOT what he argues for in the book, he gives a second speech to establish points about rhetoric. He later gives an account of love that panders to the growth of the soul. Phaedrus is literally about to pursue the “bodily love” in the book and is stopped by Socrates’ second speech

[@mercurius1488]

That premise was purposefully written to be incorrect. Thus why he immediately gives another (completely different) speech

[@mertinate9151]

YES it’s quite ironic that THIS is the position we’re holding Socrates to

[@lawlietblank6695]

Nice video as always . My thoughts “I guess he ( Socrates) meant inferior more in the light of one’s lover outshining oneself and thereby making oneself feel insecure being a bad thing. This is pretty common nowadays too , if one’s partner seems to be too good for oneself , one constantly fears them leaving you or cheating on you , in short an inferiority complex is developed. There is also the historical context of ancient Athens ( and even in places like ancient China ) where men had a taste for young boys who are usually effeminate looking and soft , they ( the boys) usually played the submissive role.”

[@emikke]

You've missed a premise that is kind of central to the dialogue, in Greece of Plato's day women and men can't be friends. Women are always the subject of a man's desire, and the wife is the lover of the man. So the whole dialogue speaks of friendship and love between men. It should also be explained that in Greece in that age, boys between 14 and when they got a full beard were considered fair game for older men with beards. Some men would go to a young teen boy's house and give gifts to the family, and to the boy, and do all sorts of things to get to have a sexual relationship with him. Phaedrus is such a young beardless boy, Lysias is just five years older than him but is considered a man, and Socrates is about 30 years older than Phaedrus. Before making the second oration, Socrates talks about form. To have a beginning, a middle and an end. Here Plato is teaching us how to write, how to take a rough text and produce something. That's something Sophists could teach you how to do. But he also includes a working definition, the definition Socrates creates refers to Lysias. He's basically telling Phaedrus that Lysias is going to be a tyrant if Phaedrus becomes his lover. The first oration of Socrates is teaching the reader, but it's also showing us persuasion, you have to make them meet you halfway before you pull them in the last distance.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thanks for the historical context, it's still pretty unknown to me.

[@aletheuo475]

The whole point of the first speech is that it is not to be taken seriously. It's a playful mockery of Lysias' self-interested rhetorical seduction. He is demonstrating what a bad speech looks like.

[@GoatZilla]

They don't want them weaker; they want them *subservient*. There's a quote from Eat, Pray, Love about the core concerns of people in relationships: "How much do you love me, and who's in charge?"

[@relhub13]

Thank you! I have felt so alone in promoting The Worst Person in the World. It is such a good film. However, I just saw "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once", and well, you should see that film immediately. It's an existential masterpiece.

[@PhilosophyToons]

I'm planning on seeing it this Wednesday!

[@123sLb123]

lovers will allways love something weaker than them, because thats the way they can help, by being stronger, thats why if you really love something you must be willing to give it up, or you are going to make sure it doesnt get stronger than you, thus making it your prisoner

[@polinvasilikou5449]

hi!! thanks for the amazing video. is there any chance you've already done the next speech from this set of speeches?

[@SethPickard]

Socrates disagrees with Lysias's speech because of the content and the rhetoric. When Socrates gives this first speech, his intention was only to correct the rhetoric within Phaedrus' speech. Although, Socrates fundamentally disagreed with this speech, as it is impious and dismisses love as divine madness (which is good). This is why he ends the speech so abruptly, and only talks about the faults of the lover, rather than the benefits of the non-lovers. Afterwards, he feels as if he has been polluted--miasma--and believes he needs to leave or cross the river as a sort of purification from such a sinful speech. His Daimon (Socrates' spirit, a lesser deity) invokes him to give a palinode to Lysias, as he fears he may have corrupted Lysias, and that he must present a speech which has the proper content and rhetoric. As you mentioned, he talks about the soul, because if we want to know why the lover should be favoured, we must understand why love is good for the human being. Therefore, we need to understand the human being, which is the union of body and soul. All in all, this speech is only meant to correct rhetoric, but not meant to be a representation of Socrates' beliefs on the matter of love.

[@luianzio]

What about Hegel and Fichte for next videos?

[@PhilosophyToons]

Haven't even ATTEMPTED to read them yet lol

[@evo1ov3]

Well the apple argument. It affirms the consequencent. Which is a formal fallacy. That's why it doesn't work. You can only deny the consequencent. Idk

[@retardedphilosopher6097]

I missed you. 🥺

[@PhilosophyToons]

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

Logic has one Problem - Knowledge. If the knowledge is not complete logic can be mistaken. REASON instead gives a reason to do or not to do, to accept to not to accept and thus ACCEPTS PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE. Logic is not wise for it can lead to error - but its used by wisdom. Reason is Wise for it considers ignorance (not knowing). Wisdom manages ignorance. Logic has power and if well used can force another to accept a position. Logic is tied to DECENCY. Reason is RELATED to wisdom but is not Wisdom. If you are interested in the details you can always ask me.

[@Pluelul]

I dont care if its mot ethical to fall in love with a robot im doing it anyways

[@PhilosophyToons]

do et

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

Does a male want his wife to be stronger than him and dump him for another male that is better when she gets the money in the house and were a rational and logical argument would bring to accept the other male? Would you want such a woman to live in regret? Are you egoistical?