. Spinning .

While I cannot say that I have understood all the lessons put forth on speaking, writing, and love of both man and philosophy in this first complete reading of Phaedrus, I am interested in both the arguments used for the positions and  admiring of the manner in which Plato has managed to combine topics within a single piece that are separate and yet held in unity by these arguments.

The thread that holds them together is, to me, both logical and technical.  The progression of a natural discussion between two friends, Phaedrus and Socrates, allows for the subject to wander into separate but related areas.  The opening discourses about love and the admonishment to look at both sides of lover and beloved, as well as the good and bad elements of each, is a precurser, it would seem, of the logic Socrates uses in his speech on rhetoric versus dialectics.  Knowing truth, knowing audience, knowing the opposites and the similarities of all that is to be presented, is a form of philosophy that follows a logical progression and as well appeals to the reader (or preferably, the listener, as Socrates holds oratory over the written word). 

This also must be pondered: the immediacy of conversation that does allow for argument thus proving or disproving the presentation; the knowledge of the speechmaker of his subject and of the display of that subject so as to appeal to all in a fair and just manner without manipulation by clever prose; and the fault in the writing of perhaps not have the advantage of active editing that discourse allows. 

Phaedrus is something that I do need to reread to glean all the nuances of Socrates’ examples and subtle sarcasm.  It is also something, I believe, that could claim a permanent place on the shelf as a refresher and constant and continual teacher, so I will be ordering a copy of this work for future purpose.

Socrates. "The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly."

Hmmm.  If I take little else from Phaedrus, this statement shall live with me the rest of my days.

Not the best time to hear it, as my own  self doubts are in the high point of their normal cycle.  But words to take to heart and if possible, turn them around to the good.  For as Boethius had said, the misfortune teaches and is therefore of great benefit to the wise man.  I’m also beginning to question my grammatical skills, and as with Faulkner’s great lesson on the tenses and differences of the verbs lay and lie, bad and badly seem to be suddenly mixed up and misused in my mind.  Even after understanding the principle and rules, within a very, very short time, I have forgotten it again. 

Black habits and clunking rosaries echo in memory; haunt me still.

But on to see what Socrates has to say, as he seems to have completed his discourse on the subject of love and moved onto the oratory and written speech patterns of the time.

I must admit that Phaedrus is not easily read.  There are many different concepts going on, and I get the feeling that they are not clearly defining merely love, and at that, not merely love of man (or woman), but instead, a lover of higher things such as knowledge and truth. 

In defining love as a madness, Socrates accepts the arts and philosophy as the beloved of those who seek it, or are driven by it to honor and treat it as a lover would a partner.  The glorifying of it, the intent to know it fully, the falling slave to its call is similar to the relationship of lovers.

Maybe Phaedrus is a bit beyond my realm of understanding, but I am determined to inch my way along the length of speechs and am heading now into the final discourse between Socrates and Phaedrus.  These question and answer dialogues usually reveal a clearing up of some of the long speeches that come before.

It is difficult to get through this without discussion, and I find myself questioning my thoughts as I have only myself with whom to argue.  This, of course, despite the best intentions and efforts at playing Devil’s Advocate taints somehow the argument and thus the meaning when, unconsciously seeking affirmation of opinion, the opposite is merely seeking disapproval.

"And there is a law of Destiny, that the soul which attains any vision of truth in company with a god is preserved from harm until the next period, and if attaining always is always unharmed. But when she is unable to follow, and fails to behold the truth, and through some ill-hap sinks beneath the double load of forgetfulness and vice, and her wings fall from her and she drops to the ground, then the law ordains that this soul shall at her first birth pass, not into any other animal, but only into man; and the soul which has seen most of truth shall come to the birth as a philosopher, or artist, or some musical and loving nature; that which has seen truth in the second degree shall be some righteous king or warrior chief; the soul which is of the third class shall be a politician, or economist, or trader; the fourth shall be lover of gymnastic toils, or a physician; the fifth shall lead the life of a prophet or hierophant; to the sixth the character of poet or some other imitative artist will be assigned; to the seventh the life of an artisan or husbandman; to the eighth that of a sophist or demagogue; to the ninth that of a tyrant-all these are states of probation, in which he who does righteously improves, and he who does unrighteously, improves, and he who does unrighteously, deteriorates his lot."

I read into this, Socrates’ description via metaphor, a rendering of the soul and immortality.  Further, in the naming of the heights or levels of attainment of knowledge, a return to earth to seek the higher planes of truth and wisdom, with an eventual goal of perfect understanding.

It screams to me of theories of reincarnation, and to some degree, it follows my own beliefs–or rather, I the words of Socrates.  I’ll go along with the reading on my own, but do need to research further the other observations and interpretations that have been made–and I’m sure that there are many, many of them.  And I am also sure that they come much closer in meaning to this discourse.