Phaedrus
General:
I think the overarching theme being about love was different from what I would expect based on our previous readings. I would have assumed that the concept or philosophy wouldn't be worth the time to discuss to the Greeks, especially Socrates. It is shocking that Plato also thought it relevant to have written down, so I assumed going forward that there was some significance.
While the theme is about love, its overarching story is about the creation of speech. Socrates goes over Lysias's speech with Phaedrus before diving into how to fix it before giving his argument in favor of the lovers. If anything, this is a great mental exercise in how to practice dialectic (philosophy) as well as making a better speech (rhetoric). I must also note that before Socrates engages with the fixing of Lysias's argument, he first settles on a definition of what love is. Defining concepts and terms has to be one of (if not the) most important steps. If you do not settle on a definition, then you and your opponent or audience may be conjuring different ideas or images altogether.
Also, I have to say it. I 100% believe Socrates and Phaedrus were flirting in some (philosophical) way. I know Socrates is trying to convince Phaedrus toward philosophy and dialectic instead of rhetoric and speechmaking, but still. The Greeks in general (by our standards) were very obviously gay, and despite that, a lot of fascist types seem to forget that when they spew, "We must return to tradition and masculinity."
Phaedrus:
Socrates and Phaedrus discuss Lysias's speech. Lysias takes the opinion that nonlovers are to be preferred over lovers due to the fact that lovers will become mad through mentorship. They will be overcome by insecurity and greed over their "boy" that they will isolate them from their peers and family. Instead, one should seek out the nonlover (friend) for growth and knowledge.
"Someone who does not love you, on the other hand, can control himself and will choose to do what is best, rather than seek the glory that comes from popular reputation."
I disagree with the premise that the lack of love can make someone more controlled. It can, but it doesn't mean it will. Also, someone can be a friend and still not want what is best for you. Maybe, they think they know what is best and that comes into conflict with what is best or what you think is best.
"For a lover is easily annoyed, and whatever happens, he’ll think it was designed to hurt him. That is why a lover prevents the boy he loves from spending time with other people. He’s afraid that wealthy men will outshine him with their money, while men of education will turn out to have the advantage of greater intelligence. And he watches like a hawk everyone who may have any other advantage over him! Once he’s [232D] persuaded you to turn those people away, he’ll have you completely isolated from friends; and if you show more sense than he does in looking after your own interests, you’ll come to quarrel with him."
While jealousy can make someone behave irrationally, I think Lysias is mixing jealousy and abusive behaviors. Being insecure is not inherently a bad thing. It is the actions someone does because of jealousy that determines if it is bad. I think jealousy can definitely lead to a dark path but there are multiple paths on the road. That is simply one.
"Non-lovers, on the other hand, are friends with you even before they achieve their goal, and you’ve no reason to expect that benefits received will ever detract from their friendship for you."
Not necessarily. I think Lysias is holding friendship as a highly moral relationship. A person can be used in a friendship and benefits can muddy the waters. If someone is no longer beneficial or even parasitic in the friendship, a person can take away their benefits. Also, the benefits of friendships can influence someone. A person may remain in a friendship due to the threat or loss of something. Also, how are we defining friendship? Maybe it is the cynic in me, but friendship is not an inherent good.
I do agree with Lysias but not on his terms. I agree if his concept of love is changed to an abusive relationship when the lover acts cruelly. I do agree with the power of friendship, but I would not put friendship on a pedestal.
As for Socrates, I can understand and agree with some of his arguments for the lover. Such as,
"That would have been fine to say if madness were bad, pure and simple; but in fact the best things we have come from madness, when it is given as a gift of the god."
"We must not let anyone disturb us or frighten us with the claim that you should prefer a friend who is in control of himself to one who is disturbed."
I think madness, or mania (the term bipolar comes from Greeks by the by), is given the devil term treatment. Madness, is it good or bad? Well, what's the context? Are you an ax-wielding murderer mad or an artist with a stroke of genius mad? Also, disturbed is such a culturally entwined word, that literally a person hanging in their house for too long could be seen as disturbed for some periods and places. Let us not forget that "madness" can be a weaponized word that can justify terrible things by the accuser (regardless of whether the accused person fits the actual description or not).
Socrates is poking at the fact that what was once considered good (madness) has turned into such a bad thing that they are changing the words (from mania to mantic).
"Let us then liken the soul to the natural union of a team of winged horses and their charioteer."
I am just quoting this one because of the importance of the chariot in Greek culture. Also, the chariot is a major arcana card in tarot. It means taking control and direction.
Overall, Socrates likens the madness of love to divine inspiration. I agree that love can be that, but not always. Love can inspire great and very, very terrible things. Context, context, context. Though I think Socrates would think I am being too agnostic about love, maybe experience taints the glasses that we peer through. If Socrates was red and Lysias green, I supposed my glasses would be blue.
As for speech construction, here are the quotes I found relevant.
"Every speech must be put together like a living creature, with a body of its own; it must be neither without head nor without legs; and it must have a middle and extremities that are fitting both to one another and to the whole work."
"The first consists in seeing together things that are scattered about everywhere and collecting them into one kind, so that by defining each thing we can make clear the subject of any instruction we wish to give.149 Just so with our discussion of love: Whether its definition was or was not correct, at least it allowed the speech to proceed clearly and consistently with itself."
"Second come the Statement of Facts and the Evidence of Witnesses concerning it; third, Indirect Evidence; fourth, Claims to Plausibility. And I believe at least that excellent Byzantine word-wizard adds Confirmation and Supplementary Confirmation.
"And he also adds Refutation [267A] and Supplementary Refutation, to be used both in prosecution and in defense. Nor must we forget the most excellent Evenus of Paros,154 who was the first to discover Covert Implication and Indirect Praise and who—some say—has even arranged Indirect Censures in verse as an aid to memory."
"As to the way of ending a speech, everyone seems to be in agreement, though some call it Recapitulation and others by some other name."
Socrates seems to give some credit to rhetoric (albeit on the basis of truth and knowledge). If one arranges their speech in such a way, they have created a living, breathing creature that is full-bodied and not missing its limbs or head. The procedure is what rhetoric should be to be well contained and due to sophists having a hand in law, it makes sense it also reads like a trial lawyer's argument style.
Seeing rhetoric as a creation or harmony brings on a perspective I agree with. I do admit my bias though, I see the written and oral word (such as fiction or poetry) to be a craft that one must mold. Rhetoric is an extension of this bias.