Phaedrus Introduction

The introduction to Phaedrus helped me understand the context of the work as well as some important ideas that will be presented in the dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus. Compared to Gorgias, I found it interesting that Socrates is only speaking with one other philosopher compared to the three he spoke with in Gorgias. In addition, I thought it was interesting that the age of Socrates and Phaedrus was mentioned in the introduction and found myself wondering what effect this will have on their conversation together. Another odd element of the introduction was the clarification of the fact that Socrates and Phaedrus were not in love with one another. I am curious to see if I pick up any hints of them being in love with one another when I read their conversation because I did not have the feeling that Socrates was in love with any of the men he spoke with in Gorgias.

I noticed several common themes from the introduction that will appear in Phaedrus that were discussed in Gorgias, although it is clear that they will presented in a different manner. The question over the art of oratory seems to be appearing again as the introduction explains how both Socrates and Phaedrus share a love for words but their love differs because Socrates favors philosophy and Phaedrus favors speeches. The idea of virtue presents itself again too in a different way as Socrates speaks about basing speeches on knowledge and truth. As a philosopher, he is obsessed with the idea of truth. Just like we discussed in class last week, it is apparent that Socrates is thinking in terms of black and white again. Good and bad speeches are discussed without any mention of the possibility that a speech could fall somewhere in the middle of good and bad. According to Socrates, a good speech is one that is truthful, framed for the audience, and presented by a speaker who is not too attached to the work.

I thought the idea of being unattached to one’s work was particularly odd because I think of modern authors and orators as very attached to their works. While Socrates mentions that we should not be satisfied with being identified by anything we write, I feel that many modern thinkers and authors would disagree. Instead, I think they would often say that their work identifies them completely. For example, J.K. Rowling speaks about the Harry Potter novels as saving her life because she had fallen to such a low point prior to their success. She said, “I was set free because my greatest fear had been realized, and I still had a daughter who I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became a solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.” Because this “big idea” saved her life, I don’t think she would ever be able to completely detach herself from her work like Socrates suggests one should be able to do.

A feeling of competition seems to be present again because Socrates pressures Phaedrus into sharing the Lysias speech even though Phaedrus is obviously reluctant. Just like in Gorgias, it is clear that Socrates is trying to establish himself as the best thinker/rhetorician by challenging others and then one-upping them after they speak. After Phaedrus shares his speech, Socrates gives his speech about the same topic but makes sure it is better than Phaedrus’. Socrates also presents himself in the beginning by identifying with Phaedrus’ views and appearing to agree with him when he is actually attempting to achieve different points.

The idea of the soul being divided into three parts, one rational and two irrational reminded me of the concept of a conscience and guilt. I think Socrates used this imagery to explain virtue vs. pleasure again in a different way. In the conversation, I think he will present the idea that men can only be their personal best selves if they follow the rational part of their soul and avoid the temptations of pleasure that the irrational parts of the soul present.  The idea of love and sex might also fit into this metaphor because sex is often associated with pleasure and temptation. Take for example the controversy of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. In this case, President Clinton was clearly identifying with the irrational part of his soul and giving into the temptation of pleasure by having an affair with her despite his role as President and commitment to his wife. I believe Socrates would have a good deal of criticism to offer to someone in this position who choose to not live in a virtuous manner. 

Questions for discussion:

1.     Do you agree with Socrates’ statement on page xviii that, “we always need to move on and should never be content to be identified with anything we have written?”

2.     Do you think the age difference between Socrates and Phaedrus has any effect on their conversation? And do you think the speculations of love interest have any effect?