In Plato's Symposium, Plato details the events of a dinner party, a symposium from which the work takes its name, composed of a group of seemingly well-educated individuals. Plato tells the story of the symposium and the dialogue of the participants through a framed narrative, using the character of Apollodorus, one of the participants at the feast, to tell the story to an unnamed companion. The festival is organized and held in honor of the tragic Agathon, to celebrate his recent victory in a dramatic writing competition. In addition to Apollodorus, Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, Agothon and Socrates participate in the party. At Phaedrus' suggestion, the conversation turns to the topic of Eros, the Greek god of love. Each of the individuals takes turns delivering a speech in praise of Eros. Socrates, chosen by Plato to be the protagonist of the Symposium allowing him to speak last with the longest dialogue, presents an argument regarding Eros that differs from those of his peers. Socrates' argument is unique in that he begins his argument by questioning and refuting claims made by the previous speaker, the playwright Agathon, through a style of Socratic questioning that is characteristic of Plato's works. Furthermore, most of Socrates' argument is built on a foundation that is not entirely his, but rather Diotima of Manithea, a character who Socrates claims to have taught him everything he knows about eros and love. Although each of the speakers presents a unique perspective and interpretation of Eros, the speech given by Socrates - although it might more aptly be called the speech of Diotima - is probably the most important fact about Eros in the Symposium. Furthermore, the evidence that Diotima uses to support her thesis makes it the most convincing among those provided by Socrates' colleagues. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Socrates presents the basis of Diotima's argument at the beginning of his speech, emphasizing Diotima's belief that eros is "of the good always being oneself" (206a). This means that people only love what is good for them. The object of love, then, its eternal desire, becomes the desire to possess this goodness forever. With this, Diotima refutes the previous statement made by Aristophanes that a person will always pursue their other half. For Diotima, this person would only pursue her significant other if it is what is good for her. Diotima attempts to defend this rather bold and surprising statement by raising a series of follow-up questions, the first of which seeks to answer what the purpose of love is. Indeed, if the object of love is to possess what is good, what then becomes the purpose of love to achieve that end? Diotima claims that this purpose is to make one “reborn in the beauty of both body and soul” (206b). The difficulty here becomes connecting this rather abstract statement to Diotima's definition of love. Diotima believes that all human beings are pregnant, “both in body and soul” (206c), and it is the natural process that drives their desire to give birth in both of these aspects. This birth can only be forged in beauty, as birth requires the harmony of both a man and a woman. Likewise, the process of reproduction is divine, as it is the closest feat mere mortals can accomplish to achieving immortality. In this respect, reproduction is an immortal process, as it allows mortals to continue living through their offspring, both in body and soul. Love, therefore, is not purely thedesire for what is beautiful, as Socrates previously stated, but rather the lack of reproduction in birth and beauty. This aspect of immortality connects the two elements of Diotima's argument. Love's purpose of giving birth to beauty is proven Diotima's earlier idea that love is the eternal need for what is good, since reproduction provides mortals with a means to immortality, albeit a more than both the soul and the body. For love to want to possess the good forever, it must want the immortality made possible by reproduction. The very fact that humanity has continued to reproduce itself throughout human history is further evidence in defense of Diotima's claim. It is human nature to want to reproduce after reaching adolescence and young adulthood. This desire to reproduce guarantees the immortality of the human race. The love that allows the continuous progress of humanity, then, undoubtedly becomes the love of what is good for oneself. Diotima then shifts her speech from talking about love towards human beings to the love that can be found in animals, stating that "in the eros of beasts... mortal nature seeks, as far as possible, to be eternal and immortal" (207d). The same argument applied to humanity can also be applied to lesser beings, further confirming Diotima's initial statement. Like humans, animals with much lower intellectual abilities have an innate desire to achieve immortality and have found the closest means to achieving this goal in reproduction. As this example demonstrates, the idea that love is the lack of what is good for itself is universal, capable of applying not only to humans, but also to animals and lesser creatures. Diotima's speech then branches out into a more in-depth discussion of the aspect of reproduction, that is, the means by which mortals apparently manage to obtain immortality, stating that "one always leaves behind another young person to replace the old one" (207d ). This reproduction is not only exclusive in terms of reproducing new individuals through offspring, but can also occur within a single individual. This is evident from the fact that no single individual remains identical from the moment of birth until death. Although one can be said to be the same individual and the same being, the constant reproduction of one's body and soul results in countless cycles of death and rebirth within the same person. As the body physically ages, the soul and mind also age with new knowledge and mannerisms. Diotima applies the same logic to study, arguing that «oblivion is the exit of science; and study, by instilling anew a new memory… preserves science” (208a). For the purpose of achieving immortality, this constant process of reproduction leads humans to honor that which is their offspring. It is this nature that has led both humans and lesser beings to develop a nurturing and protective attitude towards their children, since their children are, in essence, their immortality. Diotima goes on to apply this same principle to other things that humans deem of high standard or value, such as honor and virtue. In doing so, Diotima cites the actions of Alcestis and Achilles, stating that they were not done out of love for Admetus or Patroclus, but rather out of an "immortal memory of their virtue" (208d). This refutes Phaedrus' earlier claim that these actions were self-sacrificial for the sake of their lover and beloved. This discussion connects to Diotima's statement and confirms the idea that love is the desire for what is good for oneself, since the desire to achievethe immortality of what humans perceive as good for them is what ultimately drives human actions. speech contains perhaps the strangest elements of his argument, in which he discusses the pregnancy found in men, stating that "they turn rather to women...procuring through the procreation of children immortality, memory and happiness (as they believe ) for all future time” (208e). Although these men act in accordance with Diotima's claim to strive for immortality, better still, she argues, are those who are pregnant not in the body, but rather in the soul individuals, "all poets and all craftsmen" (209a) according to Diotima, seek those who are beautiful in soul, so that they can procreate and be born in the soul. These individuals are capable of achieving a much greater type of immortality, since birthing in the soul, they are truly remembered forever, commemorated through fame and memory. Diotima's main argument shines through in both of these cases. Regardless of whether immortality is desired or can be achieved, it still remains an essential part of the own well-being. The search to reach it, therefore, itself becomes an act of love, seeking what is good for oneself and attempting to make this goodness last forever. Diotima's conclusion to her speech establishes a pattern of what she calls the rites of love, a seemingly complex ladder to achieving the greatest love. First of all, you love only one body. This leads to the understanding that "the beauty that is in any body is related to that of another body" (210b). This realization forces the individual to seek beauty in all bodies and to become a lover of all beautiful bodies. Following this, it turns out that the beauty of duty is much more substantial than the beauty of the body. This argument is in agreement with Diotima's earlier statement that the birth of the soul is a greater feat than the birth of the body. An individual, seeking love in the soul, is open to seeing “the beauty in activities and laws… and the beauty of the sciences” (210c). The last rung of Diotima's ladder of love requires the individual to give birth to “many beautiful and magnificent speeches and thoughts” (210d). This, according to Diotima, allows the individual to give life to true virtue, earning the favor of the gods and becoming one of the few truly immortal. Although this scale initially presents itself as a complex and somewhat convoluted means of quantifying love, this strange scale works to defend Diotima's initial statement about the true meaning of love. Only through continuous effort in the search for what is good for oneself can one climb the ladder of love proposed by Diotima. Love, then, at every rung of this ladder of love, is just that: an effort to obtain what is good for oneself and hold on to it until the constant cycle of immortal reproduction changes the individual to pursue a higher rung. on the ladder. Diotima presents a rather convincing argument in favor of love being “of the good that is always one's own” (206a), but it is not without a number of critical flaws that might lead one to doubt her entire argument. In particular, Diotima's fundamental argument on which she develops the rest of her thesis, the idea that love is always the search for what is good for oneself, may also be her greatest weakness, since the argument could easily be made from the opposite position. that what one perceives as good for oneself may not always be truly good. Clouded by the fog of judgment and denial that is also a common aspect of human nature, one may not realize that the pursuit of perceived goodness is actually causing harm to the.