Analyzation of The First 3 Speeches of Plato's Symposium
...masses than to other philosophers due to the fact that his logic was quite flawed at times, but the delivery was quite good, save for a few mistakes that were probably due to his nervous state. He used multiple examples to help justify his point, yet never gave very helpful ones to prove his point. Because of this, he didn’t have very much to say correctly about society in general, considering the fact that the few generalities he made were incorrect. However, the issues discussed by Pausanias and Eryximachus were quite interesting. Pausanias used similar methods to Phaedras, except he dissected Phaedras’s argument using logic and giving an example for each circumstance presented. These examples were those of applying the argument into society, a very effective method. At the same time, it was commenting on the nature of society overall, critiquing and analyzing it along with the façade of love, so to speak. In doing so, this put his argument into another perspective for the audience, thus reinforcing the thesis or circumstance which he was discussing at the moment. Eryximachus followed Pausanias’s method. This was probably because Pausanias’s speech came across effectively to him. However, since he began with criticizing Pausanias as well as agreeing with him, he needed to add an extra flair to make his speech seem more profound, and with this he was able to do the same in is allusion to society. Eryximachus went into discussion on the application of love to multiple fields of life in Greece, using his own expertise (science/medicine) as the basis for the argument. This was very smart, for it made him seem to be more of an expert on the topic than the other men, because of his alternative perspective in experience with love. However, his statement was somewhat of a lie, and once he caught himself in this, he strayed off into other aspects ...