The Speakers' Advocate

I would like to speak for a moment for the defense of the Symposium speakers who preceded Socrates. Firstly, to preface my defense, I do believe that Socrates provides the most accurate description of love. I agree that love is a joining force, an “in-betweeness”, as opposed to something which can be possessed. However, I think there is something to be said for love being linked to tasks, skills, and passions. For the philosopher, understanding love involves a Socratic view, but what of the layman? The philosophically impaired (if there is such a thing)? Just because someone doesn’t understand the workings of love, its inner nature, does not mean that person cannot still experience it. I believe the speakers were on to something in their practical rationalization of love. Why shouldn’t love be linked to a profession or skill? It seems as though Eryximachus cheapens love by equating it with a science which can be mastered, but I disagree. Love’s universal ability to reach out to all people means that it adapts to the means by which it may be best experienced by a given individual. In Eryximachus’ case, it related to medicine, for Agathon it was the arts, etc.

Even if these views lack the accuracy of Socrates’ more universal view of Eros, they should not be understood as wrong. Because for these individuals, love exists in the aforementioned ways. In my opinion, to deny love’s adaptive nature is just as heinous as limiting it to a specific mode of expression.