I think the answer to this is pretty obvious. Most people who read Plato seem to read him as philosophy: that is to say, their reading focuses on the ideas put forward by Socrates and his interlocutors. I read Plato this way myself when I was reading him within the institutional setting of the university. The important thing was to know what Socrates had said, and to analyze his ideas as ideas. A particular set of mental tools are employed in this exercise. The mind seeks a certain level of coherence, it demands a high standard of evidence, and it parses text as a series of propositions, syllogisms, and conclusions which it judges according to the laws of logic. Fair enough. According to this sort of reading, the question of Socrates' sexuality is ambiguous. He certainly talks about homoeroticism: he describes how a young man should deal with the homoerotic advances of lovers, exhorting his listeners to Platonic friendship and to the contemplation of Beauty rather than the satisfaction of their libidinous desires. His second speech in the Phaedrus would seem to suggest that he had some personal stake in this discussion, but then it is in the context of a demonstration concerning the art of rhetoric, and Socrates himself seems to feel that the speech is somewhat fanciful when he is discussing its relative merits with Phaedrus. The Symposium presents a similar problem; Socrates criticizes the encomiums of the other attendees, and then goes on to present an argument which he claims to have had from a woman, Diotema. The fact that Socrates appears to have gone to this women in order to get spiritual advice, and that the advice given concerns the love of boys might not mean anything: perhaps he was simply styling his own discourse to the purposes of the gathering, which seemed to be primarily concerned with male love. Certainly, nothing is proved beyond a shadow of doubt. The question must remain open.
I'll grant this. From a purely philosophical point of view, acknowledging the risks of applying a modernistic hermeneutic to texts that are significantly culturally removed, and taking into account the inconclusiveness of the considerations outlined above, it is certainly possible, but by no means certain, that Socrates may have experienced some degree of same-sex attraction.
But there is another way of reading Plato: as literature. A literary reading of the Phaedrus and the Symposium leaves the question rather more settled. The literary reader does not merely ask “What did Socrates say?” She asks, “What sort of character is Socrates? What was Socrates like?” She naturally pays a great deal more attention to the bits of text that seem extraneous to a philosophical reader: the section of the Symposium where all of the other guests complain about Socrates' long-windedness, the bit where Alcibiades twits Socrates before he tells his story of the philosopher's marvelous sexual fortitude, the squabble with Phaedrus about whether Socrates will make a speech or not, and the part where he insists that they had better keep discoursing for fear that the grasshoppers will laugh at them if they take a nap. She tries to picture the attitudes, the characters, the personalities, the sarcasms, ironies, jokes and emotions of the various speakers. I would like to suggest that such a reading answers the question with a resounding affirmative: Socrates was not merely familiar with the attractions of homoeroticism, he was sooo gay. I invite you to try the experiment, and see if you do not come to the same conclusion. Indeed, this aspect of Socrates' personality seems to leap from the page with such vibrancy that one is forced to wonder why such a concerted effort has been made to argue that the matter is ambiguous. Why deny what seems the most reasonable, obvious and natural interpretation of the text?
So Socrates was chaste AND one of the western world's greatest thinkers? How dare it be construed that there are worthwhile and satisfying pursuits to be had in the void of an active sex life.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm being facetious.
This was very interesting. I shall ponder it some more.
ReplyDeleteAs a Catholic man with SSA, I first of all must commend you much on your writings. I appreciate that you do not automatically think we all need "reparative therapy" and that you seem cognizant of the possiblity of various approaches towards Catholic/Christian holiness including but not limited to the very fine group Courage for example (such as personal spiritual direction, which I find extremely valuable,but always of course including the Sacraments first and foremost).
ReplyDeleteHaving said that I must somewhat challenge one assumption seemingly being made here. Just because the interaction between Socrates and companions was arguably a bit "campy" and silly does not make them "sooo gay" (or SSA as I prefer to say)any more than if in a modern setting a group of men were laughing and campily joking with one another, whatever their background might happen to be. And it definitely happens with straight men too.
It seems like you are possibly reading a modern stereotypical idea about men with SSA into an ancient piece of literature, and I think that is perhaps on shaky ground at best.
I do not care in the least, and I am sure you do not either, what the orientations or inclinations of Socrates or other ancients were, and you rightly say that it is their ideals and teachings that matter for us today.
So why then speculate? Why not rather just appreciate the writings for what they are, and not read 21st century Western thinking into them? And, for the clear record, not all of us from SSA backgrounds are particularly "campy" anyway. Just some thoughts from a fellow sojourner.
God bless you and your work.