Abstract
Tofighian’s reading of the Phaedrus pays attention to the relationship between the four kinds of madness, the immortality of the soul, and the myth of the charioteer. He argues that the four kinds of madness and a new account of the soul, together, represent a more refined position on epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics—a position that acknowledges the significance of beauty, love, and the body. Cultural and religious issues such as liminal space and ritual initiation are key philosophical components for understanding the plot, literary themes, and symbolism. Tofighian develops his reading of the Phaedrus by considering William Doty’s working definition of myth, which appreciates the significance of cultural standpoint. His analysis of myth/philosophy interdependence reveals the dynamic relationship between passion and knowledge and between embodiment and thought.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Doty (1986) p. 5.
- 5.
Doty avoids past monomythic definitions and encourages the view that appreciates the polyfunctionality of myths (Doty [1986] p. 13). Also, see Wiles (1976). Wiles identifies the dilemma associated with definitions of myth: that they must simultaneously account for myth’s particular local, historical, and ethnic features and its transcultural reach.
- 6.
Doty (1986) p. 11.
- 7.
Doty (1986) p. 12.
- 8.
Doty (1986) p. 13.
- 9.
Doty (1986) p. 14.
- 10.
Doty (1986) p. 15.
- 11.
- 12.
Doty (1986) p. 19.
- 13.
Doty (1986) p. 20.
- 14.
Doty (1986) p. 25.
- 15.
Doty also reiterates an earlier distinction he makes between the historic (geschichtliche) and historical (historische) (Doty [1986] p. 27).
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Doty (1986) p. 29.
- 19.
See Werner (2014), Chap. 2.
- 20.
In the chapter on the Protagoras, I explain how the character of Socrates is constructed, presented, and used in a radically different way in contrast to the other dialogues.
- 21.
For an interpretation that recognizes the importance of considering narrative mode, see Ferrari (1987) pp. 2–4. Ferrari recognizes the fact that in the Phaedrus, Protagoras, Phaedo, and Symposium Plato makes a special effort to elaborate on the setting and background. But in contrast to the other three, Ferrari explains, the Phaedrus does not contain an explicit narrator. He argues that using an explicit narrator in the Protagoras, Phaedo, and Symposium helps Plato illustrate the distinction between a premeditated manipulation of the environment, expressed by the narrator, and a spontaneous reaction to the immediate surroundings and events. However, Ferrari does not return to the significance of narrative mode, or lack of it, to test the possible influences it may have on other aspects of the Phaedrus.
- 22.
For a comprehensive study of the different kinds of authors, narrators, and readers one can consider in the study of literature, see Booth (1987).
- 23.
The Phaedrus represents liminality and outsiderhood in multiple ways. The discussion takes place outside the city walls and in the countryside. There are no inhabitants, and references are made to supernatural beings and sacred symbols (cicadas are a symbol for transformation). The description of the location is important because of the contrast to the location where Lysias gave his speech and the company he entertained. The palinode replicates the ‘outer rim’ trope to depict the domain of the gods and Forms.
- 24.
Nicholson (1999) pp. 15–17. Also, see Griswold (1986). The first chapter, ‘The Dramatic Scene and the Prologue’, acknowledges the importance of literary and aesthetic devices for understanding the meaning and message of the dialogue. Griswold limits his analysis to the importance of one theme (i.e., the necessity of self-knowledge).
- 25.
For an interpretation that links Socrates’s trip out to the country with his loss of composure and enthusiasm for listening to Lysias’s speech, see the introduction by Nehamas and Woodruff to Plato (1995) pp. x–xi.
- 26.
The opening line indicates transition: ‘Where have you come from, my dear Phaedrus, and where are you going?’ (227a).
- 27.
Werner (2014), Chap. 3.
- 28.
I return to this point later in the chapter.
- 29.
Consider the depiction of Lysias in the dialogue as a popular teacher and rhetorician.
- 30.
Santas lists the theories referred to in the second speech as ‘1. The immortality of souls, not the personal immortality by offspring in the Symposium, but the everlasting existence of all souls as in the Phaedo. 2. The tri-partite division of the soul, as in the Republic. 3. The theory of Forms, realities, “colorless, shapeless, and intangible” (247c). 4. The recollection of Forms’ ([1992] p. 305).
- 31.
Also, there is a contrast with the view of love in the Symposium, which asserts that love is an intermediary between humans and the divine, whereas in the Phaedrus love is something divine (White [1993] pp. 55–56).
- 32.
White (1993) pp. 1–2. White indicates that the metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological platform for later dialogues is established as a transformation or extension of earlier theories.
- 33.
Griswold (1986) p. 120.
- 34.
Nehamas and Woodruff, introduction to Plato (1995) p. xx.
- 35.
White defines the four different kinds of madness in relation to Socrates’s two speeches and explains Socrates’s use of collection and division ([1993] pp. 42–44).
- 36.
Griswold (1986) p. 74.
- 37.
Nicholson (1999) pp. 198–199.
- 38.
Price (1992) pp. 244–245. Price compares and contrasts the role of sight in the Phaedrus with other dialogues.
- 39.
Santas (1992) pp. 306–307.
- 40.
For more details concerning the connection between the symbolic details of this example and Plato’s metaphysics of love, see White (1993) pp. 162–163.
- 41.
White (1993) pp. 156–157.
- 42.
White (1993) p. 42. For White, Plato’s definition of love represents a merger of different kinds of desire, all akin to each other. This amalgamation helps explain the intensity of desires, the quality of the pleasures they provide, and the hybrid reality (beautiful bodies) of the things desired.
- 43.
Socrates’s love of receiving and producing speeches in the Phaedrus is not shared by the attitude held by the Socrates depicted in other dialogues (Nehamas and Woodruff, introduction to Plato [1995] p. xi).
- 44.
White (1993) p. 38.
- 45.
Collection and division are represented and used in different ways throughout the dialogue: four types madness; types of souls (divine and human); parts of soul (desire, emotion, and reason); twelve ruling gods and corresponding groups of souls; three kinds of experience depending on class of soul; and three types of experience producing three classes of soul and their numerous sub-classes.
- 46.
Griswold (1986) p. 142. Griswold recognizes the place of the myth in relation to the analysis of rhetoric and a network of other features in the text. However, he concludes that the myth can be translated into a non-mythic discourse; that is, myth is an economical and elegant way to express complex points (pp. 146–147).
- 47.
White (1993) pp. 88–89.
- 48.
- 49.
White (1993) pp. 38–41.
- 50.
Scolnicov (1992) p. 251.
- 51.
See Socrates’s encounter with Diotima in the Symposium which shares affinities with the plot and themes of the Phaedrus. However, each dialogue has its own context, perspective, and concerns which play active and vital roles in the plots and themes. Some cross-dialogue comparisons and inter-textual communication is inevitable but must be analyzed with caution.
- 52.
De Vries mentions some of the most influential views concerning the unity (both artistic and thematic) of the Phaedrus and offers his own interpretation ([1969] pp. 22–24).
- 53.
Gill explains that one of the themes in the Phaedrus is a form of shared inquiry (dialectic) in which the questioner assists the respondent in his assent through each step of the argument. In addition, the mutual participation between questioner and respondent represents a more dialectically engaging style of philosophy in contrast to reading and listening to lectures. Gill also elaborates on the question-and-answer method in combination with other methods (1992). Also, refer to further comments on the dynamics of the relationship on pp. 166–167.
- 54.
For details concerning the role of homosexual relationships and the references to it in the different speeches, see Nehamas and Woodruff, introduction to Plato (1995) pp. xv–xvii. For background information on the topic and its use in the context of the Phaedrus, see Nicholson (1999) pp. 109–114. For the educational and initiatory function associated with homosexual relationships, particularly in Athens, see Tanner (1992) p. 218.
- 55.
Griswold (1986) p. 130.
- 56.
De Vries (1969) p. 5. De Vries lists a number of other important character traits that stand out in the figure of Socrates depicted in the Phaedrus.
- 57.
Gill (1992) p. 164.
Bibliography
Primary Texts
Plato. (1995). Phaedrus. Introduction by A. Nehamas and P. Woodruff. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.
Secondary Texts
Booth, W.C. (1987). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Harmondsworth: University of Chicago Press.
Colloud-Streit, M. (2005). Funf platonische Mythen im Verhaltnis zu ihrem Textumfeldern. Fribourg: Academic Press.
Csapo, E. (2005). Theories of Mythology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
De Vries, J. (1969). A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Doty, W. (1986). Mythography. Alabama: University Alabama Press.
Dundes. A. (ed.). (1984). Sacred Narrative. Readings in the Theory of Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ferrari, G.R.F. (1987). Listening to the Cicadas – A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaster, T.H. (1954). ‘Myth and Story’, Numen, 1: 184–212.
Gill, C. (1992). ‘Dogmatic Dialogue in Phaedrus 276–7’, in Understanding the Phaedrus: Proceedings of the II Symposium Platonicum. L. Rossetti (ed.). Cambridge: Academia Verlag.
Griswold, C. (1986). Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hawes, G. (2014). Rationalizing Myth in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kluckhohn. C. (1942). ‘Myths and Rituals: A General Theory’, Harvard Theological Review. 35: 45–79.
Lincoln, B. (1999). Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mason, H. (1980). ‘Myth as an ‘Ambush of Reality”, Olson: 15–19.
Nicholson, G. (1999). Plato’s Phaedrus. Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Price, W. (1992). ‘Reason’s New Role in the Phaedrus’, in Understanding the Phaedrus. Rossetti, L. (ed.). Cambridge: Academia Verlag.
Santas, G. (1992). ‘The Theory of Eros in Socrates’ Second Speech’, in Understanding the Phaedrus. L. Rossetti (ed.). Cambridge: Academia Verlag.
Scolnicov, S. (1992). ‘Love and the Method of Hypothesis’, in Understanding the Phaedrus. L. Rossetti (ed.). Cambridge: Academic Verlag.
Segal, R.A. (1999). Theorizing About Myth. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Segal, R.A. (2004). Myth: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tanner, R.G. (1992). ‘Plato’s Phaedrus: An Educational Manifesto?’, in Understanding the Phaedrus. L. Rossetti (ed.). Cambridge: Academic Verlag.
White, D.A. (1993). Rhetoric and Reality in Plato’s Phaedrus. Albany: SUNY Press.
Wiles. M.F. (1976). ‘“Myth” in Theology’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 59 (1): 226–246.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tofighian, O. (2016). Myth and Transition: Phaedrus . In: Myth and Philosophy in Platonic Dialogues. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58044-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58044-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58043-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58044-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)