6 January 2025
The Place of Contemplation in the Symposium
Plato’s dialogue, Symposium, is framed by two episodes that depict Socrates in contemplation. The first episode is early in the dialogue, in the opening section prior to the actual symposium. The second episode is presented in the closing speech by Alcibiades where Alcibiades talks about his personal interactions with Socrates. (The first episode is at 174d-175d. The second episode is at 220c-d.)
The first episode takes place shortly after Aristodemus joins Socrates as Socrates is walking to the symposium hosted by Agathon. Aristodemus has not been invited but Socrates encourages Aristodemus to join him and after some slight resistance, Aristodemus agrees.
“Let’s go,” he (Socrates) said. “We’ll think about what to say as we proceed the two of us along the way.
“With these words, they set out. [Apollodorus is narrating these events.] But as they were walking, Socrates began to think about something, lost himself in thought, and kept lagging behind. Whenever Aristodemus stopped to wait for him, Socrates would urge him to go on ahead. When he (Aristodemus) arrived at Agathon’s he found the gate wide open, and that, Aristodemus said, caused him to find himself in a very embarrassing situation: a household slave saw him the moment he arrived and took him immediately to the dining room, where the guests already lying down on their couches, and dinner was about to be served.
“Welcome, Aristodemus! What perfect timing! You’re just in time for dinner! I hope you’re not here for any other reason – if you are, forget it. I looked all over for you yesterday, so I could invite you, but I couldn’t find you anywhere. But where is Socrates? How come you didn’t bring him along?
“So I turned around (Aristodemus said), and Socrates was nowhere to be seen. And I said that it was actually Socrates who had brought me along as his guest.
“I’m delighted he did,” Agathon replied. “But where is he?”
“He was directly behind me, but I have no idea where he is now.”
“Go look for Socrates,” Agathon ordered a slave, “and bring him in, Aristodemus,” he added, “you can share Eryximachus’s couch.”
A slave brought water, and Aristodemus washed himself before he lay down. Then another slave entered and said: “Socrates is here, but he’s gone off to the neighbor’s porch. He’s standing there and won’t come in even though I called him several times.”
“How strange,” Agathon replied. “Go back and bring him in. Don’t leave him there.”
But Aristodemus stopped him. “No, no.” he said, “Leave him alone. It’s one of his habits: every now and then he just goes off like that and stands motionless, wherever he happens to be. I’m sure he’ll come in very soon, so don’t disturb him: let him be.”
(Plato, Symposium, translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff, Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1977, pages 460-461, ISBN: 9780872203495)
***
The second episode, at the end of Symposium, is told to us by Alcibiades as part of a presentation on Socrates’s military courage during a battle. Alcibiades and Socrates served in the same unit.
“One day, at dawn, he (Socrates) started thinking about some problem or other; he just stood outside, trying to figure it out. He couldn’t resolve it, but he wouldn’t give up. He simply stood there, glued to the same spot. By midday, many soldiers had seen him, and, quite mystified, they told everyone that Socrates had been standing there all day, thinking about something. He was still there when evening came, and after dinner some Ionians moved their bedding outside, where it was cooler and more comfortable (all this took place in summer), but mainly in order to watch if Socrates was going to stay out there all night. And so he did; he stood on the very same spot until dawn! He only left next morning, when the sun came out, and he made his prayers to the new day.”
(As above, page 502)
1. The Symposium is framed by these two episodes that show Socrates in contemplation. The first episode, the one that opens the dialogue, is in the present of the dialogue. The second episode, the one that closes the dialogue, is in the past of the dialogue; that is to say it is relating an incident that happened prior to the gathering of the symposium.
Aristodemus relates to Agathon that Socrates does this ‘every now and then’ and that such behavior is nothing to worry about. This indicates that it is likely that Socrates will exhibit such behavior in the future.
I think this indicates the central significance of contemplation for Platonism and that contemplation was of importance all the way back to the time of Plato and Socrates. (As an aside, I think it likely that the practice of contemplation precedes Platonism and that such a practice is part of what is meant when, now and then, a dialogue refers to ‘ancient teachings’ as the basis for Platonism. Perhaps such practices were part of the Pythagorean and/or the Orphic traditions.)
2. Having said this, I think the translation hides the contemplative nature of what Socrates is doing; not completely, but I think the translation casts the contemplative practice that is exhibited in such behavior into a fog.
For example, in the first quote it says that “Socrates began to think about something . . .” In the second quote it says that “One day, at dawn, he (Socrates) started thinking about some problem or other . . . “
This makes it seem that Socrates is engaged in discursive problem solving or reasoning. But what is taking place bears none of the signs that Socrates exhibits when he is problem solving; such problem-solving behavior is often shown in the dialogues and it differs from the kind of behavior we read about in the above quotes. When faced with a question Socrates wants to solve he discusses it with others in an exchange of dialectic. Almost every dialogue (with the exception of those dialogues where Socrates is not present) shows Socrates engaged in these kinds of discussions; searching for a definition, practicing the art of division, uncovering a defining essence, and so forth. This is the method that Socrates has when faced with a problem that can be formulated in discursive terms. The behavior exhibited in the two quotes differs from this; Socrates disengages, rather than engaging, with others. Socrates becomes silent rather than using words. Socrates stands still rather than shifting back and forth, or walking here and there, as he does in many dialogues.
I did not start studying Greek until I was into my seventies, and my facility with languages has always been slight. For this reason I contacted a friend about the use of the word ‘thinking’ in the translation. My friend said that ‘thinking’ is a legitimate translation, but it can also mean things like to ponder, investigate, and so forth. The problem with using the word ‘thinking’ is that it tends to place what is happening as in the same conceptual frame as what Socrates does when he is questioning people, or responding to someone’s views or conclusions. But that seems implausible to me for the reasons I just mentioned.
My guess is that the translators of the translations I looked at have not practiced either meditation or contemplation. For this reason they do not recognize what is being presented by Plato in these two episodes. Because of this they subsume what I think is a rather clear presentation of Socrates in contemplation, as an example of ‘thinking’ about something. In fairness, I could be wrong about this; I don’t know any of the translators and I’m not familiar with their other work. If I am wrong, then I would conclude that what is happening here is that the nature of what it means to be a philosopher in contemporary culture makes it difficult for the translators to include contemplation in a philosophical context. This is especially true due to the influence of analytic philosophy on contemporary philosophical discourse. Analytic philosophy rejects the idea of a transcendental reality and is inclined to see the history of Western Philosophy as one of a progression to its materialist and reductionist procedures. Because of this they tend to look at Socrates and Plato as proto-rationalists and want to see Socrates as engaged as much as possible in behavior that can be easily understood in the context of the analytic tradition. There is no reason to think that Socrates is engaged in any kind of analysis in these episodes; and in fact there are good reasons to question that idea (see, for example, that Socrates offers prayers at the end of the second quote.)
From my perspective, in these two episodes Socrates wasn’t ‘thinking about something.’ He had abandoned thinking, which is a manifestation of the third level, or hypostasis, and ascended into nous or the One as such. Socrates had gone beyond affirmation and negation into the silence and stillness of the transcendental.
3. I have often observed that people will confuse the practices of meditation and contemplation with ‘thinking about’ something. For example, I attended a Quaker Meeting for some years. In the Quaker Meeting we sat for an hour in silence and, as is the Quaker practice, people would at times rise to speak if the spirit moved them. What interested me is that when people would rise (or sometimes this would happen when the Meeting had concluded and conversation was informal) they would begin speaking by saying “I was thinking about . . . “ It became clear to me that members were using the hour of silence to think about various topics. I’m sympathetic to this. Most peoples’ lives are so busy that it is difficult to find time to simply pause to think about what is going on in their lives. The Quaker Meeting offered people an opportunity to do just that. That’s not a small thing and I suspect it is helpful to many people.
On the other hand, “thinking about” is not meditation or contemplation. In the Quaker tradition there are manuals for the practice of contemplation in a Quaker context that explicitly teach how to go beyond discursive mind. A prominent one in the early 19th century was A Guide to True Peace which was widely read and admired. But these kinds of teachings have been lost; I mean by ‘lost’ that these kinds of teachings are no longer presented or advocated in a contemporary Quaker context so that the teaching of mystical contemplation is no longer a living reality.
I have observed a similar kind of drift in some contemporary Western Zen communities. My observation has been that there is a tendency to reframe Zen meditation into a therapeutic modality. This erases the transcendental nature of traditional Zen meditation. In some cases I have observed Western Zen teachers criticizing Zen students for wanting to go on an intensive retreat structured in such a way as to allow for something like four hours of meditation distributed throughout the day. A period of intense meditation practice is traditional for the Zen tradition and historically was offered on a yearly basis, often lasting three or four months. But I think that kind of focus is being pushed aside in Western Zen in favor of therapeutic thinking. I could be wrong about this; my observations are anecdotal so it’s possible I don’t have the pulse of the Western Zen community. But this is what I have observed.
I have come to the conclusion that if a person doesn’t have a strong experience of ‘before thinking mind’ or non-discursive mind, it is very difficult for that person to understand what is being asked when instruction is given for meditation or contemplation. It is natural for a new person to subsume the instructions into what that person already knows and in this way there is a shift from non-conceptual mind cultivation to “thinking about something.”
4. “. . . lost himself in thought . . . “ This is the remark that follows the quote in item 2. I suggest that Socrates was not lost in thought. Instead, I think what is happening is that he has gone beyond, or transcended, thought. Thought is based on differentiation which is the manner in which the third level, or hypostasis, the material realm, works. In the practice of contemplation the practitioner can ascend to the one-many of the noetic realm, and from there to the undifferentiated unity of the One. In other words, I think what is depicted is the subsiding of thought into the timeless field of the transcendental.
5. Another example is the closing of the second quote which says, “He only left next morning, when the sun came out, and he made his prayers to the new day.”
The Loeb translation, by W. R. M. Lamb, says, “He stood till dawn came and the sun rose; then walked away, after offering a prayer to the sun.” (Page 235 of the Loeb translation.).
In a previous post I discussed four approaches, or ways of reading, a Platonic dialogue: historical, allegorical, symbolic, and transcendental. This quote is an example of why the symbolic level is needed. The sun is a symbol of the One in Platonism. Whenever the sun is mentioned the undermeaning of the passage is that it is about, or refers, to the One, the fully transcendental. What I think Plato is telling the reader is that Socrates, at the conclusion of his 24 hours of contemplation, is offering a prayer to the One because Socrates was experiencing the One, or united with the One, for that time.
The word ‘prayer’ can mean many things; there are many types of prayer. I don’t think that the prayer to the sun was petitionary (but it might have been, or partially been.) The context strikes me as more an expression of reverence and/or gratitude. But we don’t really know what the prayer specifically consisted of. There are a lot of surviving prayers to the sun in Greek texts and magical papyri. I have not studied these so I am not able to suggest if they may be relevant here. In the case of magical texts, I don’t get the impression that Socrates was interested in magic; on the other hand he did have contact with deities such as his personal daemon, and in Phaedrus Socrates is depicted as contacting the Goddess of the grove where the dialogue takes place. So it’s not out of the question.
My feeling is that a ‘prayer to the new day’ sounds pro forma whereas a ‘prayer to the sun’ sounds more heartfelt, the kind of thing that would normally conclude a session of contemplation. For Platonism, the sun is a powerful symbol, overflowing with meaning and significance. And I suspect that for Socrates the sun was also a deity, that is to say that the sun was a person to whom prayers could be directed. This doesn’t conflict with the idea that the sun is a symbol of higher realities; it is a both/and situation.
6. It is interesting that in both quotes Socrates is standing in contemplation rather than sitting. I think we tend to assume that contemplation requires a sitting posture and there are some traditions that emphasize the sitting posture. But in this case Socrates is standing. And in the second quote Socrates is standing in contemplation for 24 hours.
But there are traditions where standing postures are of significance and are taught to practitioners from the beginning. One of the best known in the West is Chi Gong which contains a number of standing postures. In my own experience I was taught in the Zen tradition I studied, that if sleepiness became a problem to quietly get off the cushion and assume a standing posture behind the cushion. This was taught both as an antidote to sleepiness, or sluggishness, and as a valid posture for meditation in itself. I still use this approach (though I have never stood still in meditation for 24 hours!)
It would be helpful to know the specifics of Socrates’s standing posture; where his hands at his side, clasped in front, palms together in prayer, or some other configuration? Were his knees straight or slightly bent? And so forth. I wonder if there are any statues or art that illustrate such a posture that have survived?
The story of Socrates standing still for 24 hours tests our credulity. Did Socrates take a bathroom break, or a meal break? Did he have periods where he stretched? Inquiring minds want to know.
What we are given here is Socrates as a shaman, someone who is himself a bridge between heaven and earth, between the transcendental and the material.
7. These two episodes from Symposium suggest that the central meaning of this dialogue is the One and how to ascend to that transcendental reality. It is understandable that we see the theme of Symposium as that of beauty; given all the talks about beauty, their insights and their flaws, it seems on the surface that beauty and the nature of beauty is the purpose of the dialogue. But given the emphasis on contemplation and the placement of the episodes of contemplation, I’m thinking that beauty is to be understood as a provisional teaching of the dialogue rather than the dialogue’s primary purpose. Beauty is understood to be a gate to the transcendental which is the source of beauty but is beyond Beauty itself.
8. I also see in Symposium an emphasis on asceticism. This isn’t obvious because most of the action takes place at a drinking party and towards the end Alcibiades enters in a drunken state. This gives the reader the overall impression of an indulgent occasion.
But if I look at the behavior of Socrates, both his behavior at the symposium as well as the reported behavior of Socrates, I tend to see an emphasis on asceticism. For example, there is the idea that though Socrates may participate in drinking he does not get drunk. He seems to be immune from its influence.
This is further emphasized when Alcibiades tells us about his efforts to seduce Socrates and how these efforts failed; they failed because Socrates was indifferent to the advances of Alcibiades, just as Socrates is indifferent to the effects of alcohol, just as Socrates is indifferent to the cold weather in one of the stories Alcibiades tells us about Socrates’s participation in a military campaign. Just as Socrates becomes indifferent to the world when he enters into a trance contemplation that lasts for twenty-four hours, an extraordinary accomplishment.
And there is Diotima’s speech on how to follow beauty to higher spheres of reality. For example, Diotima is reported to have said, “A lover who goes about this matter correctly must begin in his youth to devote himself to beautiful bodies. First, if the leader [that is to say, love] leads aright, he should love one body and beget beautiful ideas there; then he should realize that the beauty of any one body is brother to the beauty of any other and that if he is to pursue beauty of form he’d be very foolish not to think that the beauty of all bodies is one and the same. When he grasps this, he must become a lover of all beautiful bodies, and he must think that this wild gaping after just one body is a small thing and despise it.” (As above, page 492)
To despise something is to turn away from it. What Diotima offers is the transformation of desire through a growing realization of its limitations which leads to a rejection of the desire as a guide, or standard, for living one’s life. This is the essence of the ascetic idea, to not live one’s life based on sensory pleasures.
Then Diotima says, “After this he must think that the beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies.” (Ibid) Again, this is an ascetic gesture; the student is moving away from the physical and from sensory stimulation.
Then Diotima moves to a depiction of transcendent beauty which always is and neither comes to be nor passes away. This is a beauty that, according to Diotima does not belong to the body or anything material. “This is what it is to go aright, or be led by another, into the mystery of Love: one goes always upwards for the sake of this Beauty, starting out from beautiful things and using them like rising stairs: from one body to two and from two to all beautiful bodies, then from beautiful bodies to beautiful customs, and from customs to learning beautiful things, and from these lessons he arrives in the end at this lesson, which is learning of this very Beauty, so that in the end he comes to know just what it is to be beautiful.” (Ibid, page 493)
This process of ascent by turning away from sensory experience leads to Beauty as such. It seems to me that this step by step process is what Socrates is doing when he withdraws from the material world in the two episodes that frame the dialogue. This is the ascetic ideal that unfolds with each step on the way to Beauty, the Good, and the One. In a way you could say that asceticism is the presence of Beauty in the practitioner.
9. Symposium is a lush, complex, presentation of the Platonic Path. I, and many others, have found it very inspiring. I also think that Symposium offers us a depiction of Socrates that reveals dimensions of his life that are, for the most part, absent from other dialogues. Socrates is depicted as primarily a contemplative; and when he does speak he offers a passionate presentation of the step by step ascent to the transcendental. This portrait broadens our understanding of what it means to be a philosopher; I think this offers us a portrait of the philosopher as a contemplative ascetic. And that is a great healing in itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment