#Phaedrus

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Quicumque amisit dignitatem pristinam, ignavis etiam iocus est in casu gravi.

- Phaedrus

Whoever has lost his ancient dignity Is a joke to baser men in the midst of grave mistake.

[renaultphile]

Ghosts of ghosts of ghosts…..and we haven’t even started yet

On this re-read I wanted to think more about the role that Plato's Phaedrus plays in The Charioteer.  The description at the end of chapter 3 makes it feel almost like a character in its own right: 

What I have always found so interesting about the gift of the book is how contradictory it is.  It is meant to be an antidote to Jeepers, but the ideas in it ‘don’t exist in real life’.  The comfort in it for Ralph seems to lie in the idea that he can be held to the same standards as everyone else, offering some kind of redemption. But the message of shame is still there, just as it is in Christian doctrine, and even as he hands the book over he seems already to have admitted defeat.  It feels more like a curse than a gift.

But what an extraordinary passage preceding it!  You can link to it here courtesy of this post by @alovelywaytospendanevening. It is a beautiful, idyllic description.  Everything about his encounter with Andrew seems to follow naturally.  Andrew helps him up but makes it feel like a game, they navigate a difficult subject together (war, not the other one), Andrew utters the immortal words ‘I won’t hurt him.’  Andrew takes his shirt off, and Laurie puts down the tract he was pretending to read.  Symbolically, he seems to stop looking for guidance and enjoy the moment.  They are unfazed by being thrown out of Eden, even elated.  I am struggling to think of another passage in the book where Laurie is so filled with joy.  The experience is rooted in the senses, he is living in his body, not his head.  He is living in the moment. 

But it doesn’t last long.  Within two paragraphs, the very real and beautiful horses have reminded him of Plato's Phaedrus, and he immediately thinks of the analogy of Charioteer.

It’s hard not to think of Ralph if we already know the book.  But the book doesn’t represent him anymore.  It has taken on a life of its own.

I’m waiting to see what happens when he gets the book out again and how it affects his relationship with Andrew……I would love your thoughts.....

[grape-v1nes]

Wolfstar (specifically remus) is so Plato’s-philosophy-on-beauty-and-love coded

(remus genuinely feels like sirius’ beauty physically heals his soul and brings him closer to god)

[fredbensonenthusiast]

So, here are my thoughts on the excerpt from The Life of Alcibiades. I found it very interesting, because it kind of says more about the time it was written than about the customs of Ancient Greece. I apologize for the length of this!

"No girl at Athens had any education at all, and could not possibly be a companion to a man except for one purpose."

"The absence of the culture and of the mental and moral development of women"

Here, dear old Fred is displaying a logic typical of an Englishman of his period: formal education and culture are intrinsically linked; therefore, since Athenian women had no access to formal education, they had no culture at all!

“With such a guardian, then, we must make allowance for a lad whom Athens was doing her very best to spoil and corrupt. She was crazy about him: whatever he did, as the preservation of these innumerable adventures of his youth shows, was the subject of laughter and gossip. As a boy and a young man he provoked all the social interest which is now shown in the doings of some high-bred, daring, witty and wonderfully beautiful girl; if Athens had had daily papers they would have been full of paragraphs about Alcibiades. Every madcap insolence was forgiven him by the adoring city for his amazing charm and his beauty at an age when, in modern life, he would still have been in the fifth form of a public school and liable to be set down to write five hundred lines of Homer or to be birched. But we find him in his school-class asking his master for a Homer, and, because he had not got one, smacking his face. He was forgiven; nothing happened.”

I don’t know if Benson was the first person to come up with this concept, but this is truly a fantastic description: Alcibiades as a media phenomenon! Everybody talks about him, everybody knows what he’s done, every boy wants to be as cool as him. He seemed unstoppable, until suddenly he wasn’t. He’s debauched, reckless and self-destructive, yet his imperfections are actually a large part of his appeal, a way for people to form a parasocial relationship with him and somehow understand his deeply flawed but shining humanity. The Marilyn Monroe of Ancient Greece!

If Benson were a very bold author, he could’ve written a decadent novel around this. He knew how to write social comedy, so this would’ve been an obvious progression. But as we know, his self-preservation instincts always got the better of him.

“The flesh, so ran his most Christian gospel, warred against the spirit; the two were like a pair of ill-mated horses harnessed to a chariot which was driven by the lover of beauty, and the wicked black horse of the flesh had to be tamed, and its wanton desires beaten out of it, till at length it learned its lesson, and no longer lusted after the fair form, but with awe and holy reverence discerned through it the eternal beauty of God. [...] It is in this spirit that, at the end of his dialogue with the young Phædrus under the plane trees of the Ilyssus, he offered the prayer which, but for the paganism of its invocation, might have been that of some enlightened Christian mystic after the realization of Him who is altogether lovely.”

Another typical fallacy: he was “righteous” and enlightened, which means he was a proto-Christian! This one has been around since the Middle Ages, as a way to justify the moral validity of Ancient Greek philosophers.

“It is also important, in rendering his environment, to try to dissipate the erroneous view of Athenian love which is current.”

“But the Athenian lover, as defined by Plato, was no carnalist, but one who filled the mind of his beloved with all manliness and noble aspirations. He was not, as Socrates the arch-lover of youth is never tired of insisting, the lover of the beauty of his body, but of the beauty of his soul, which he discerned and adored through the fair veil of the flesh. The whole instinct, largely the result of the social non-existence of women at Athens, was not considered shameful or secret it was in no sense a hidden moral cancer, nor could it possibly have been, since, as far as we can judge, there was as much cancer as healthy tissue, and many, probably the majority, of the most high-minded of intellectual Athenians, Socrates and Plato, Themistocles and Sophocles, accepted and shared it as a normal instinct, and saw in it an elevating influence.”

"There was an ideal affection behind it; it did not result in the promiscuous and abnormal immorality with which it usually credited."

There’s a lot of bad faith arguing here, and this rationalization continues to be repeated throughout the text. Benson took Plato’s idealization of Socrates at face value and extended it to the whole Athenian society, while conveniently ignoring all the evidence within Plato’s own texts that indicates most Athenian men didn’t follow this anti-carnalist philosophy to the letter (or at all). There’s even an adult male/male couple in the Symposium!

I also noticed he raised the matter of gender segregation in Classical Athens, but excused himself from making any potentially worthy comparison between it and his own deeply homosocial society, where boys used to grow up mostly around only boys. And considering his comments in Mother, we know he was aware of this reality.

I don’t take Benson as stupid, nor do I think he was a gullible and/or pious man. I believe he knew a lot of his arguments didn’t hold water. He was doing his usual preaching-to-the-choir number, which allowed him to write about the things he was interested in without making too much of a fuss. He probably thought it was the only option available at the time (which is understandable, of course).

---

I remember you also mentioned a possible correlation between Benson's and Ralph's arguments. I think they're different in nature. Benson was basically arguing that homosexuality in Classical Athens was a rather incidental thing, since the average male/male relationship there was free of “any promiscuous and abnormal immorality.” Ralph, on the other hand, seems to acknowledge the prominence of homosexuality in this historical context; what he was actually trying to say is that men like Bunny and Sandy would be ridiculed and disrespected even in Ancient Greece, because they are effeminate and enjoy (or are perceived to enjoy) bottoming, while Laurie would be respected because he maintains a traditionally masculine appearance (and is a top?) — a sound point, mind you.

Oh, this is such a treat @alovelywaytospendanevening 😊 I have been pondering on this all day, no apologies needed for the length of it! I am so glad I asked you for your thoughts on the way Fred tries to 'explain' or perhaps 'explain away' Athenian 'love'. I feel like both Fred and Ralph are using a kind of 'straw man' argument, as in 'people talk a lot of rubbish', conveniently leaving it to the reader to infer what that might be and both avoiding the need to commit themselves to an actual view - both distance themselves from it in different ways......fascinating. Anyway, thank you! I so enjoyed this 🧐

[the-framed-maelstrom]

Just as the wolf loves the lamb, so the lover adores his beloved.

Plato, Phaedrus

[marydarkblacknoir]

Love is a serious mental disease.

Plato, Phaedrus

[merc-chan]

I have a doubt. So, I was rereading The Charioteer, and in this reread I'm focusing only on the parts with Ralph on it. After Ralph tells Laurie about how he's going to be moved to the other hospital and Laurie tells Ralph about Andrew, there's a moment in which they both lie on the rug in front of the fire while Ralph tells him some story about his time on the sea, and then comes this paragraph:

"The strange feeling of fulfilment touched Laurie again; suddenly he remembered and understood. In the weeks of that summer holiday seven years before, after he had read the Phaedrus by the stream in the wood, he had gone for long walks alone, and, returning, sat in the evening by a September fire, so silent and enclosed that more than once his mother had asked if he was well. It was of this that he had been dreaming."

I remember that afterwards, when Ralph's helping Laurie pack up his room after his mother's wedding, Laurie tells him to sit in a chair, and tells him that it's the chair he always sat on. Is he refering to that dream? Was 'Ralph' always sitting on that chair while Laurie fantasized about him after reading the Phaedrus by the stream in the wood? Because I never really understood the chair thing before. But within this context... I think it kind of make sense?

I would love to read your opinions in the matter, please!

[mercuriicultores]

Plato – Phaedrus, 279c

Ὦ φίλε Πάν τε καὶ ἄλλοι ὅσοι τῇδε θεοί, δοίητέ μοι καλῷ γενέσθαι τἄνδοθεν· ἔξωθεν δὲ ὅσα ἔχω, τοῖς ἐντὸς εἶναί μοι φίλια. Πλούσιον δὲ νομίζοιμι τὸν σοφόν· τὸ δὲ χρυσοῦ πλῆθος εἴη μοι ὅσον μήτε φέρειν μήτε ἄγειν δύναιτο ἄλλος ἢ ὁ σώφρων. Ἔτ᾽ ἄλλου του δεόμεθα, ὦ Φαῖδρε; Ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ μετρίως ηὖκται.

[LAT] O amice Pan aliique omnes dii, qui locum hunc colitis, date mihi ut pulcher intus efficiar: et quaecumque extrinsecus habeo, illis quae intrinsecus sunt, sint amica. Divitem autem sapientem existimem. Tantum vero mihi sit auri, quantum nec ferre nec ducere quaet alius nisi vir temperans.

[HIS] Oh querido Pan, y demás dioses que aquí habitéis, concededme que llegue a ser bello por dentro, y todo lo que tengo por fuera se enlace en amistad con lo de dentro; que considere rico al sabio; que todo el dinero que tenga sólo sea el que pueda llevar y transportar consigo un hombre sensato, y no otro.

[asylumelysium]

the concept of "Long Live" The Black Parade still amazes me because, just like Plato said: "writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offspring of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if you ask them anything, they remain solemnly silent...Once it is written down, every composition is at the mercy of its readers: it does not know how to address those who are most appropriate to hear it and not address those who are not."

The same goes with albums and lyrics. They cannot speak for or defend themselves, as time passes by, they will become less and less like a product or event, but more like an idea or a concept. Once an idea is established, it continue to exist whether the creator wants it or not. A concept will most certainly be ill-treated or unfairly criticized. Unable to defend or help itself, it always needs its parent to come to its rescue, yet the creator is powerless angaint the opinion of the massive. An idea will be forced to retent. A symbol cannot dissolve itself. And even if it's claimed to be "dead", it still "carries on".

Sometimes you have to climb out of your tomb just to remind people that you're dead.

[blackponderer]

"Phaedrus" by Plato

[quotationadmiration]

Everyone is bound to bear patiently the results of his own example.

Phaedrus

[thatscarletflycatcher]

"...On the one hand, man is of such nature that he possesses himself in freedom and self determination; he can and must examine critically all that he encounters; he can and must give shape to his own life on the basis of his insights. On the other hand this same autonomous man is nonetheless so much involved in the Whole of reality that things can happen to him and he can be dislodged from his autonomy. This need not take only the form of forcible restriction. Provided that the man does not close himself off obdurately, it may take such a form that in the very loss of his self-possesion another fulfillment is granted to him, one attainable in no other way."

Josef Pieper, Enthusiasm and Divine Madness: On the Platonic Dialogue Phaedrus

[renaultphile]

"What is it about?" Phaedrus re-enters the narrative (TC re-read week 5)

At the beginning of this year's re-read, I thought it might be interesting to follow the Phaedrus as if it were a character in the book. Part one is here.

When Laurie finally gets out the Phaedrus again, he is alone, and he has sought out another location to read it, one from 'two operations back' before he knew Andrew. Their last encounter has been fraught to say the least (as we were discussing!)

While he is reading, Andrew creeps up on him and surprises him. The book serves as a test of Laurie's sincerity - Andrew couldn't believe he was really absorbed in the book and thought he was deliberately ignoring him. Laurie passes the test in part - he was genuinely absorbed, but he spends the rest of their conversation wishing Andrew would go away or fall asleep. He has been reading a passage all about mirrors, masks, and imitation, and the effects of being in love:

"He is in love, therefore, but with whom he cannot say; he does not know what has become of him, he cannot tell."

Andrew says by way of apology for being irritable,

"I don't know what's come over me, to make me behave like this."

No wonder Laurie is desperate not to reveal what he has been reading!

At this point I remember one of the key messages of the book and its biggest ironies - Socrates (as written by Plato) says that one shouldn't trust the written word, because one cannot interrogate it.

Andrew is not going to be given the opportunity to interrogate anything because Laurie initially hides the book altogether, then reveals only the most elusive hints at its content. Andrew, however, is a natural at Socratic questioning. He asks what the book is about, and Laurie, groping for something 'safe' to say, opts for rhetoric. Andrew merely remarks that Laurie doesn't seem like the kind of person who would be interested in that subject. Meanwhile, Laurie is trying desperately to be truthful and sincere with Andrew, and failing very badly.

Andrew really won't let up. He asks more about the book, and is not satisfied with Laurie's summary of it. When they move on to the analogy of the Charioteer, Laurie seems to read the book as poetry rather than philosophy. He seems to have fallen in love with the book as a fixed entity, for what it represents. Andrew on the other hand has already had to do some hard thinking and examine his moral choices.

Still none the wiser about the content and Laurie's thoughts on it, Andrew begins to interrogate the book itself and its provenance. He asks Laurie if he will lend it to him, Laurie forestalls him again with a false excuse about the state of it, and Andrew insists that does not matter. For a second time, Laurie ignores the message of the book he is reading. When Andrew says 'you needn't for me,' he is trying to connect on a deeper level, where appearances don't matter, and Laurie is resisting.

Finally, we hear those fateful words out of Andrew's mouth: 'Ralph Ross Lanyon', and another attempt to find out what the book means to him. Laurie over-does his denial of Ralph and Andrew responds by saying 'A lot of people would have just told me to mind my own business.'

In the end, Andrew says he will sleep for a bit and then tells him,

"Just forget about me. You looked so peaceful before I came disturbing you. Now you can get on with your book as if I weren't there."

Finally, Laurie can enjoy his book in peace, undisturbed by the real Andrew.

On one of their regular talks in the kitchen, Laurie attempts a bit of sophistry himself:

A cockroach scuttled into a crack behind the draining-board; he watched Andrew reach for a tin of Keatings and sprinkle the crack with it. "Does life stop being sacred," he asked, "when it gets down to cockroaches?" "Well, the Jains don't think so," said Andrew seriously. "But I never know how they meet the fact that our own bodies destroy millions of micro-organisms every day, without giving us any alternative to it except suicide. One has to draw the line where one sees it oneself." "Is that what you call the inner light?" "If you like, yes."

Andrew argues for individualism, not to impose his views on others, but for the right to make his own moral choices as he sees them. We don't find out if they ever discuss Plato again, but Laurie begins to carry the book around with him in his trouser pocket as he had done previously. We're not done with Plato yet…….not by a long chalk.

[philosophybitmaps]

[linusjf]

Phaedrus: Gentleness

“Gentleness is the antidote for cruelty. ” —Phaedrus.

[the-framed-maelstrom]

…but the soul that hath seen the most of Being shall enter into the human babe that shall grow into a seeker after wisdom or beauty, a follower of Muses and a lover.

Plato, Phaedrus