Finally, I got my voice back! (Ironically, considering the importance in your post of voice and my problem the last couple of days with my account working). Shaeeda, your post is interesting and enlightening; I've been puzzled about the poem since the moment I read it.

Quoting Michael Gagarin, in the section of the poem, Socrates presents a "parody of poetic criticism" so as to show that the exercises of poetic interpretation that he and Protagoras have taken part in are pointless. His tale that the Spartans are really the wisest of me is clearly not to be taken seriously and perhaps a critique or humorous jab at Protagoras' account of the history of the sophists at 316d-317c).

Shaeeda, you say "If we take seriously that there is more to be taken from Socrates' quote than a mere disdain for poetry, one might find that it makes sense to consider Socrates concern to be an issue of the misuse of poetry rather than poetry itself." Perhaps Socrates isn't only criticizing the misuse of poetry, which I feel your argument holds, but also that Socrates' reference to poetry is at tool for Socrates to further demonstrate his preference for the short speech as opposed to the long.

References used:
Gagarin, Michael. "The Purpose of Plato's Protagoras." Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 100 (1969), pg. 151. The John Hopkins University Press.

I would have to agree with Cody in that Socrates may not be successful in completely turning Phaedrus but at least Phaedrus is certainly more critical of the early speeches in the dialogue. For example, at 263c-d, Phaedrus demonstrates that he has learned at least a little as he recalls what was said in the earlier speeches about love and is able to criticize them such that he even impresses Socrates:

S: Well then, shall we say that love is one of the things people take opposing positions about, or not?

P: One of the things people take opposing positions about, surely. Otherwise how could you get away with saying what you did earlier about it, that it's harmful to both the beloved and the lover and then on the other hand that it's the greatest of good things?

S: You make an excellent point! ....

Thank you, Tony, for you great feedback and kind praise.

Extending your thought that being kalokagathoi today may fall in line with democratic ideals, I would think Socrates would hope that we as citizens not only want to strive to be "kalos" and "agathos" (when put together with the Greek conjunction "kai" you get kalokagathos where that middle k is short for "kai," 'and') but also truly care about our community, our place in it, and our role as citizens. We must remember that Socrates, though a critic of his society, claims to be the most faithful of citizens, even when in Crito it is the laws that he believes in that will condemn him unfairly to death. According to Socrates, I would think, the idea of good citizenship is not just a matter of obeying laws and participating in government, there is something more to it than just that -- we must but kalokagathoi and truly grasp the ideals of kalos and kagathos.

I would agree that a phil-anthropic soul would be today's noble and beautiful soul. Certainly, it is heard to distinguish one out of the perhaps thousands of people who remain unknown as they dedicate their lives outside the limelight to "care and guide" humanity.

And to end this reply, I do not know the meaning and values behind the ideal of kalokagathia any more than you do, Tony. I do not think you are in need of any clarification, your comment was very thoughtful!

Josh, I agree with your interpretation of what Socrates may actually be saying. I don't think the chariot analogy is to say that sex is bad, but that the inability to control our sexual needs will lead to a state of lust which in turn CAN be "bad." And like Josh pointed out, the idea of desires is a strong one as well as a dangerous one. In one's constant desire for pleasure -- that which sex can offer us in so many ways -- one may lose oneself and become victim to a kind of self-deprication. Socrates would not want us to be "slaves to love," and in sex we may no longer be in control of ourselves but slaves to the basics of nature, namely, LOVEmaking.

My deep apologies to everyone who commented on this post, I had incorrectly noted that Socrates had made the statement with which I began the post, however, it was Phaedrus, not Socrates, who said that he was not a slave of love.

Once again, my apologies!

Socrates, apparently, is his own master, as he himself says. Thus, indeed, it is odd that he should be giving us advice since he himself "has eros not only for the truth but prepubescent boys."

That we are slaves to our desires serves to further demonstrate our imperfections as human beings. As rational beings we may have the capability to overcome these desires in the name of the good, however, do some of us WANT to overcome these desires? It is unquestionable that there are people who enjoy their fondness for excess, their lack of controlling their desires, and thus, take pleasure in this lack of control.

I would agree that emotion is certainly an inhibiting factor that affects our ability to reach a rational conclusion. With our sense of emotions, I think we will always have a sense of prejudism in our thoughts, our actions, behavior, ect. I think this inability to separate our emotions from rational thought will always be present, and thus, I don't think it is necessary to completely throw out our emotions in order to pursue the good. I think we will always be a slave to our emotions to some extent or other, so it would be pointless and self-destructive to remove from ourselves the vary characteristics that make us human.

Josh, you make a good observation, when is enough, enough? Perhaps if we do what Callicles suggests, constantly pursuing to fulfill these desires, then we are "blinded" (going into Socrates now) by our lack of reason.

Indeed, I would have liked to think that Socrates would be an advocate for love, seeing as so many people supposedly oriented to the good today, for example, have advocated "love" as that which will bring people together, stop wars, bring peace. Hence, "make love, not war" of the Counterculture in the United States in the 1960s. Yet, ironically, for Socrates lovers themselves do not seem to necessarily be oriented to the good, as they bring harm to the soul. Like I said in my post, this is a very strong statement. It is also interesting that Socrates would make such a strong anti-love(er) stance, since he himself was part of this backdrop of homoeroticism in Socrates' time.

Betty, your post on the good and bad outcomes of sex brought up to mind the discussion on masterbation. I cannot help but think that there is an element of greed in the act of masterbation, moreover, in sex. For whatever reason -- because we feel loved, there's an element of power, whatever -- we just want more, more, more! Like Callicles says, we all just want to keep refilling our jars, keep the pleasure flowing.

This remindes me of the contemporary person, a model of today's conservatism even. This drive of wanting more -- new i-pods, the latest i-touch, it's all a want for more. Why should we fill up our jar if we can keep replenishing it?

By 'bad hope' what do you mean exactly? I'd like to respond but I like your own response, but I need to understand what you mean by 'bad hope.' Thanks, Jordan.

I think it is hard for us to base our happiness on the present because we are always going to have a tingling at the back of our heads, poking at us and asking, "hmmm, this is sooo much fun I want to do this tomorrow," or "I live my life today as if there was no tomorrow, but what if there is a tomorrow? How will my consequences of today affect my tomorrow?" So, indeed, we both agree, it is difficult to live in today, the very present. That's why I think it boils down to all our actions are for tomorrow or 'what's to come,' so to speak.

I hope no one has reiterated this, but I think doing good gives us something to look forward to. That is, this goes hand-in-hand with doing something for bettering one's own situation (going to "heaven," etc.). Striving to be good I believe is in large part due to a comforting and reassuring thought that something good may or may not come out of doing something good. If we have nothing to look forward to, what meaning, then, remains in our lives -- our daily habits and routines? We go to bed hoping for a good day tomorrow, hoping that going to that philosophy class the next day will serve to get that grade that will perhaps secure the credits we need to graduate. We cannot have dreams, goals, expectations, hopes, without looking forward to something. It is interesting, though disheartening at times, that we preoccupy so much of our time on 'tomorrow' and not on 'today.' Our society has taught us to plan for the future -- tomorrow or the next three years -- where we will be, what job we will have, thoughts like "will Barney be my boyfriend?" There is that oversaid quote of life that says you should live your life today as if it were the last, but how many people actually do that? Perhaps many do, and I'm just not aware of it, but I think it is a safe assumption that many people structure their lives for some future standing. Thus, in this particular case of why do we do things good (ignoring whether it is intentionally good or not as Anthony points out is important to recognize and consider), it is because of something we look forward to. Maybe we should stop the wheel from turning constantly forward and have it pause just a little, allowing us to actually pause and reflect.