Ian MacKinnon 201002169
Dr. Al-Maini
Phil 351
What is love?
The pain and agony when it slips away, is never achieved, or when it is just impossible to grasp. The joy and enthusiasm when it is close, finally found and shared.
Love can put us through the worst pains in life when it is not reciprocated, but the reward when it finally is achieved provides greater joy than one could imagine. Trying to understand love is overwhelming, but Plato’s explanations of what it is that lovers desire, is not only a logically consistent attempt but it also one that gives a reasonable account for these extreme emotions. It is Plato’s doctrine of forms that enhance and support his claims. It is therefore necessary to first understand the characteristics of the forms themselves, and then proceed to Plato’s definition of love to first show the consistency. It will be found that through this explanation that love is a powerful instrument and is essential to fulfillment.
Though the theory of forms is complex and has many applications, for the purpose of discussing love there are two key characteristics that need to be emphasized.
Forms are things that are in virtue of themselves, and that they are immaterial unchanging substances. Obviously this still leaves us with a broad idea of what the forms are, but these are the points that are necessary to first explain and then support Plato’s arguments concerning love. Understanding what is meant by, things that are in virtue of themselves, is the first step.

Just by the definition it is seen that this simply means that forms are completely self-sufficient and do not rely on something else to support their existence. In other words
Forms are perfections that support our imperfect world. A way to imagine this concept is to think about gingerbread men. Each of the particular cookies will look similar but some will have parts broken off, or deformed limbs, but despite that you can still look at the cookie and know that it is a gingerbread man. The cookie cutter in this example would be the form of the cookie. Each of the particular examples was created from the cutter, which has the perfect shape of the gingerbread man that the particulars lack. It is also necessary to note that the cutter is not actually a cookie itself; rather it represents the idea of gingerbread men. However, Plato would not say that a cookie cutter is a form; this is merely an analogy to understand fundamentally what Plato is attempting to describe
(Gaarder 87). Rather Plato would use the example of beauty. It is clear that we see beautiful things in this world, but each time we do it is an imperfect and incomplete representation. In the realm of the Forms there exists a perfect beauty in which all other examples imperfectly participate (Symposium 211b). Plato believes that these forms must necessarily exist, as the forms are that which support our particular world and allow us to create general ideas and concepts. This is essential in recognizing how different objects participate in common forms.
Some would argue against Plato by saying that if the forms are what are common to all particular examples then there must also exist something that allows the form and the particulars to be in common. In other words there must also be something that supports the forms. This is clearly a problem and a good critique however, Plato points to the original definition to defend his case. Particulars are that which exist in virtue of

something else. As previously stated the forms are objects that are in virtue of themselves. This therefore means there is no need for there to be any support of the forms as they are perfectly complete. Now that it is understood what a form means and argued that they do in fact exist in virtue of themselves, the second characteristic must be discussed.
It is in the Phaedo where we see that Plato is trying to create a proof for the immortality of the soul. In doing this Plato must also then explain that the forms are also immaterial and unchanging substances. The approach taken by Plato is not an argument for the immortality of the soul, rather it is a display of arguments for the mortal soul that show a logical contradiction that therefore must imply that the opposite is actually true
(Phadeo 95e). The starting point is to analyze why everything that comes in to being must perish. One of the several ways this is attempted to be explained is an analogy between the soul and body to a weaver and the cloaks he produces. No matter how many cloaks the weaver creates the last cloak that the weaver creates will outlive him. Plato believes that this is merely an example of how change happens and it is insufficient to describe why change occurs, which is what he is searching for. After several attempts it is found that it is actually impossible to explain the nature of change through material things. To prove this Plato actually points out a contradiction in a specific mathematical example
(100b). The claim is that when you add one object to another you now have two objects.
It is also true that when you take something and break it in half you are left with two.
This therefore implies that both division and addition cause two, in other words opposite processes have the same result. From this it can be seen that these accounts do not actually explain change itself but just point to example of it, and also that material

explanations always entail a material contradiction. This forces Plato to quickly switch from an analysis of change to that of changeless. This is where the theory of Forms is explained once again.
As a starting point Plato explains what it actually means for a thing to be explained, and gives two necessary conditions. The object must have or be an essence and that the essence actually has to be known. If particulars are indefinite then explanations cannot be through particulars. It has been previously discussed that particular are in fact imperfect and indefinite therefore we cannot explain anything through particular examples. However explanations still exist and therefore the opposite of particulars must be the reasonable way of explanation. This clearly leaves universals to be the only explanation of things, and these universals are the forms. If the reason the particulars could not explain essence is because they come in and out of existence with no material way of explaining change, then the reason why the universal provide explanation must then mean the opposite. That is that these forms are immaterial unchanging objects that never come out of existence. The connection between forms and love may not appear to be initially evident. The key connection between these two subjects is Plato’s definition of the Good person.
Essentially the Good person is the Platonic sage. The easiest way to think about
The Good person, and the best way to relate the forms to love it to say that the Good person is actually the form of a human. This implies that the Good person is completely self-sufficient and immaterial and unchanging. The doubt that arises is how can a person be immaterial and unchanging. That will be discussed later, for now the focus will be on the self-sufficient part of the definition.

If the Good person is self-sufficient it would imply that everyone who is not the
Good person is dependent on something else and incomplete. Plato wants to say that either you are the good person or you strive to be complete and self-sufficient. In plain terms it can be said that the non-good person is lacking certain characteristics and wants to achieve them (Symposium 200a-b). When you are in contact with someone that has these qualities you are lacking, you then become envious and want them to be a part of you. This is Plato’s definition of love, essentially love is a lack. This means that when you love something you recognize the good you lack in yourself and if you can be with this object of love then you are completing yourself and becoming more like the good person. This definition of love actually explains many of the emotions that were expressed earlier. That is when you do not have reciprocating love that you feel incomplete, it is a burning desire for the one you love to feel the same, as you want nothing more than to be complete. When it is achieved and you are in loving relationship with a partner the feeling of joy that results is both of you becoming closer and closer to being the Good person. This definition is actually quite a pleasant way of describing love.
It is interesting now to look at the Good person again and see how love applies to them.
Most people would think of love as a perfection, but the good person does not experience love. If the good person contains all perfection then it must be true that if the good person lacks love and is still the Good person that love is actually not perfection at all. It is true that the Good person does not experience love, as they do not actually lack anything, therefore they have no need to seek qualities in another through love. Though love is not a perfection in itself, which may be unsettling, a hopeful way to look at love is to see that it is actually the path to perfection. That being said if you are always

dependent on another person you will never actually achieve self-sufficiency and become the Good person, rather love is the best attempt to do so. Once a lover is complete by finding the person who has the qualities that they lack, desire still remains.
When completeness is finally achieved, both participants in love crave for the completeness never to change and last forever, as these are the other aspects of perfection and the Good person. Because there is a material part of our existence it must be true that it is our very nature to change and decay. It is evident that Plato does not want to accept that the other aspects of perfection are not attemptable to reach. Rather Plato would want to say that loving is still the best attempt at achieving an immaterial and unchanging essence as well. Therefore there must exist some way for the lovers to never come out of existence.
The solution found by Plato is reproduction (Symposium 208-209). If you are made whole by being with your lover, then producing a child that is a combination of both of you will allow your perfection to outlive your material body. If the reproduction happens continuously then you, in essence, will never actually decay. This however, is simply the material account of becoming eternal. Plato is a Dualist, which implies that there exist both material and immaterial parts of a human, a body and a soul. Therefore physically reproducing with the opposite sex is actually only persevering your body to last forever. Because both body and soul exist, only reproducing the body is actually only persevering half of your entire being. Clearly this is not sufficient to existing eternally, you must also reproduce your soul.
The soul is the immaterial part of your being and therefore must be an imperfect reflection of the immaterial forms. Because forms are perfect ideas it can be said that our

soul is a where our imperfect ideas and knowledge reside. Being in love with someone will also imply that they provide the knowledge that you lack. Similar to having the desire for your body not to decay once you are complete, when your knowledge is made whole through love you have the same desire to reproduce this more perfect knowledge.
The way that this is accomplished is teaching someone the knowledge you have gained.
Because the knowledge you have gained through love is more perfect than someone who does not have love, this perfect knowledge will be attractive to them. If the reproduction of ideas will happen continuously your ideas will be eternal, in the same way your body is through physical reproduction. The relationship between Socrates and Plato is actually a perfect example of immaterial reproduction.
Plato was so inspired by the knowledge of Socrates that he not only gained this knowledge from Socrates but also continued to teach this acquired knowledge even after the death of Socrates. Because of the Platonic dialogues Socrates’ ideas were pursued further, creating a more perfect complete knowledge, but also assuring his ideas will never be lost or changed.
Though becoming immaterial and unchanging seems to go against the very nature of what it means to be human, Plato has found the loophole that is reproduction. By physically reproducing and through teaching your ideas, your body and soul will never come out of existence. In order for it to be true that love is actually the necessary faculty for both the material and immaterial reproduction it is clear there must also exist two distinct aspects of love. Recognizing this necessity Plato describes love as having both philos and eros. Eros is the root for the word erotic. Normally this word is associated with purely physical and sexual desires of love. That is in fact exactly what eros refers to.

Simply pleasing your appetitive sexual desires and is purely material. This is the type of love that physical reproduction results from. A lover sees then beauty in another and wants to be a part of it, and during sexual experience they are, and through reproduction that completeness will continue to exist. Philos on the other hand is the more of a familial love. This is the connection and desire to complete your soul with that of your lover.
Together you will acquire knowledge that the other has and create your own lasting more complete knowledge.
In ancient Greece women were not considered members of society, and had no voice in the polis. There was then a conflict between homosexual and heterosexual love.
This was the result of being able to physically reproduce with a woman but because they could not apply the knowledge in the polis there was no need to reproduce your ideas with your woman partner. Rather it is true that elderly citizens would teach young boys the knowledge they have acquired and therefore keep their ideas eternally in society.
Therefore the choice had to be made of which love was the most important. Clearly
Plato’s view was that reproducing knowledge was the greater of the two, as you are becoming closer to perfect knowledge and the realm of the forms without being tied down by your sexual appetitive nature. However this distinction does not have to be made in today’s society and women are treated as equals. Therefore when you find someone of the opposite sex that you are both attracted to in both eros and philos, you can not only physically reproduce but also combine each other’s knowledge and reproduce this greater knowledge to your child. The copy will not be a perfect copy of yourself, rather should represent the closer to perfect relationship of the two partners.
Though more perfect, because the partners were still not considered the Good person, the

child still has aspects of body and soul that it lacks. The cycle then starts over with the child trying to find a lover and become more like the good person. By this it would seem reasonable to say that with each new generation humanity is coming closer and closer to being good. Eventually it seems as though the cycle must stop when finally the Good person has resulted and no longer lacks any perfection.
Plato’s doctrine of love is one that provides humanity with a sense of hope and fulfillment. By our innate inclination to be perfect we will find a partner to reproduce both our body and soul. Although the two partners will not become perfect, as they are dependent one each other, the cycle of reproduction will preserve their beings eternally.
As humanity continues there should be a natural progression that will eventually lead to perfection. All of these claims eventually manifest in Plato’s philosophy, the theory of forms; objects of all our desires that are in virtue of themselves and eternally unchanging.
We all desire to be the form of a person, which is the Good person and love is the path we must take to become closer to our goal.

Work Cited for Addition Text
Gaarder, Jostien. Sophie’s World . New York: Berkley Books, 1996. Print