I think that the interpretation of women's role for procreation only is a pretty accurate depiction of what it was like during Socrates time. I guess that they thought that women weren't capable of such mind sculpting.

As for the idea of the invention of the dildo, I'd say that that could point to the lack of attention women were receiving from their male partners. This is an interesting idea, and should be explored more. I also realize that the Greek culture was not the only one that subjugated women to just the art of "baby making" but about them made them have this sort of stigma. Maybe it was a lot more in depth, medically, because not to long ago many women had complications during birth and died before the 19th century, so one can only imagine how it was during there times. In modern times, women are expected to return to work only after a relatively short recovery period.

Maybe the advances in medical tech. allowed for women to become more active in the social realm. I don't know, but I always found it intriguing that women's rights is a new thing. Only within the past 100 years have they been given the rights to equally to that of a man in the western world. The subjugation of anyone isn't on the path of the good, so could it be said that they were not on the path of the good whether or not they were just "following" societal norms?

In class it appeared that the this more 'noble' love was that of younger boys, right when their beard started to appear which was usually around the same age as of their intelligence. This was to be of the noble love. It is then a bit to me, perplexing that if this is supposed to be of a noble love and a love of the soul then why did they partake in physical sexual acts. To me this is a countradictory in ideolgies where they are haveing it both ways. The key players in the symposium praise this noble love and show a bit of contempt for the other and then at the same time this still includes phsycial gratification. Where they just a bunch of old creepy guys that liked little boys? Whats the deal here?

Great point Joni. Like you point out concerning the hedonistic culture where they'll just give anyone a good time, and the persians or barbarians have a very structured limited way of gratification. Another words, nobody has any fun. In class Dr. Long pointed out the differences between the loves that were not noble and the loves that were noble. We agreed that the love that was of the lesser was concerned with the body and purely gratification of the flesh, where the more sophisticated love had to do with the love of the soul.

Good point. I read this, and at the very same location became a bit perplexed at what could have been the underlying meanings of Aristophanes' speech. It very well could be that he is condoning that behavior and is trying to play to the crowd he seems to be surrounded by. Also your pointed question of Socrates' presence in the crowd does raise significant arguments regarding his extracurricular activities.

I think you are right, about your inference about Socrates' want to increase his status and possibly in turn get sexual gratification from someone he has the hots for in the room. If you ask me, that person he has eyes for is Agathon, especially after Socrates and Alciabades have for lack of a better phrase a "lovers spat" about who Socrates was 'wooing'.

To me this is quite peculiar. Also another thing to bring to attention which I feel is the elephant in the room. Why is laying with a young boy so prevalent in this society. Was there a problem with women of the time or disease associated with the opposite sex? Or did they just think women had cooties?

Unfortunately, as you were pointing out, their "honorable" doesn't mean Honorable for others. A succeeding society as Pheadrus says might be referring to one, that promotes self reflection and personal responsibility for actions. Pheadrus might also be assuming the lover is already on path with the question of what is good, and therefore this may be a faulty assumption.

Christa very insightful post. Bringing political affairs into the forefront of discussion must be good practice for poly sci majors, and, I think you did a great job on this one. Mugabe, and his wife, and his minions of "lovers" or supporters all obviously think what he's doing isn't shameful, because they are being the beneficiaries of such spoils of displacement. So in a sort of local sense of the phrase maybe he is "acting honorably in front of his lover", for she feels providing for her is honorable. Then comes the question of what they actually consider honorable or not and whether it is on the path of the good. Many of my posts are related to this question, and for good reason. My thoughts are quite rooted into this alignment and feel a lot of dishonorable actions could be avoided by anyone if they just asked themselves a few simple questions.

.

I see your point and if there are any advertising majors in the class, I'm sure they can use these tactics that we're discussing as a template of what not to do, and design advertisements that let the consumer decide for themselves. Ethical sales however can be seen as a bit of an oxymoron. In the case where you direct customers to the best deal, to me, is not really a salesmen but a source of information of where to go, more of a cataloger because then, the product really does sell itself. If this were the case for all markets I can guarantee you that you'd see a shrink in profits. My argument is not to demonize the entire institution of sales but to point out how they use different communication techniques (verbal and non verbal) to get you to buy their product.

Its possible I'm jaded by the fact that our economy thrives on buying stuff. We are consumer based, and if we stop buying as much stuff the sales go down, production slows and people suffer (i.e. get laid off). So maybe from this viewpoint, salesmen are the agents that move the economy forward and keep us in a prosperous equilibrium. That being said, my problem wouldn't be with the salesmen themselves it then should be directed at how our society is built upon consumerism, which facilitates and at the end of the day requires dishonest sophistry (salesmen) to thrive.

Taylor, nicely put, and Cody well spoken. To address the point you made of using sex to become closer to your lover is a very valid one Taylor. I believe the sex or love that was talked about in the dialogue definitely was warning about impulsively acting on physical sensations with utter disregard to what was the alignment to the good. Your point was bringing up the fact that sex does not itself constitute evil things and can and should be used as a way of two people who are truly in love coming closer together. I personally believe this to be true, but my question now is how do we define two people who are truly in love?

I think this is a more tantalizingly illusive question for us to answer.

Again Kierstyn another great post I cannot leave un-commented on. This may be were we have to define complexity before argue whether its correlated to intelligence or not. This issue is brought up when we see that Socrates realizes in this excerpt that its very important to know your audience before speaking in :

"and organizes one's speech accordingly, offering to a complex soul complex speeches that cover all the musical modes and simple speeches to a simple soul"

He again speaks through generations with his realization that you need to put what type of information you want to people learn on their level, not above, not below, but parallel with their ability to understand. In this sense, his use of complex shows that to mean higher capacity to understand which can be interpreted as higher intelligence. This can be also extrapolated to also mean less complex is signifying lesser understanding or lesser intelligence. Keeping in mind this is only in this context, I'm sure most of us can use the "complex" to describe how dull one must be to commit certain "complex" actions that lead to less than desired outcomes. However in this case it could be argued only complex actions and understanding are committed by the intelligent, but that does not signify not ignorant. In so far as much to say that complex and intelligent does not give you a free ride into the realm of aligning with what is just, right and good. Any thoughts?

Nice post. The connection of Socratic dialogue with modern themes I would argue is what makes the platonic texts so interesting and powerful. The fact that they transcend through many generations really speaks to the value of the works.

Pointing to your question of he parallel that your finding between Carl Wilken's speech and Socrates' verbiage is not so far fetched at all. Especially when you point out that our most powerful weapon is a story. Specifically one can point to the Gorgias during Socrates' discussion about rhetoric and how its a tool to be used in the art of convincing. He points out that if one where to teach this to someone who had no sense of the "good" or the pursuit of such, the teacher, Gorgias concedes, would be obligated to teach the student this first before demonstrating the art of convincing. Socrates realizes that this skill or tool can be used for a multitude of purposes and that when guided correctly this skill can convince people to do very positive things.

The collection of writings and documentary that Carl has put together surely are moving. The fact that he had the wherewithal to stay there is truely a demonstration of his merit, however had he not been able to truley convey the plight of the people with whom he shared his experience with, he may find it a bit difficult to convince people care about this issue. That said, rhetoric is in my eyes and as I would be led to believe in Socrates and Carl's mind, a tool that should be used for the "good."