Phaedrus (Hackett Classics)

What a beautiful & complete prose exploring head v. heart. Not a terribly long read, but it packs a punch.

In this review I will compare 3 editions of Plato's Phaedrus:1. Alexander Nehamas & Paul Woodruff (Hackett Pub Co, 1995).2. Stephen Scully (Focus Pub/R.Pullins Co , 2003).3. James Nichols (Cornell University Press, 1998).I have given all 3 editions 5 stars for their own unique perspectives.Throughout the centuries, scholars have debated on what exactly is the central theme of Phaedrus: is it a dialogue about rhetoric? Or is it about Love? Or perhaps it is about both? If so, how are we supposed to understand the connection between Rhetoric and Love? The book itself is divided into 2 parts: the first part is about Love and the second is about Rhetoric, and because of this division in the book that it generated a lively discussion about Rhetoric versus Love.The 3 editions I review here provided 3 unique perspectives.Nichols argues strongly that Phaedrus is definitely about Rhetoric, in fact he links Phaedrus to Gorgias. His argument is that in Gorgias, Plato discusses Rhetoric in relations to justice, and in Phaedrus, he discusses Rhetoric in relations to Love. Love, therefore is a subordinate subject to Rhetoric.Similarly, Nehamas also argues that Phaedrus is about Rhetoric albeit not as strongly as Nichols. It is a "sustained discussion of Rhetoric" in which Plato used Eros as examples. (xxxviii)Scully's interpretation is slightly different; this is where I find my own position to be closer to. His argument is that Love and Rhetoric are equal parts of Plato's Phaedrus. This unity is possible because "both [love and rhetoric] requires the philosopher at the helm. As a lover, the philosopher guides the soul of the beloved, as a rhetorician, he guides the soul of his partner in conversation." (88)My own position is that: it is about both with a slight emphasis on Love, and not on rhetoric. If Love is defined as that madness and uncontrollable urge to search for the ultimate truth and beauty, then, rhetoric is the tool to achieve that. Rhetoric, for Socrates, is understood as a tool that will guide the soul in search for the beautiful. What he is saying here is: it's all about Love, but you are not getting any Love, if it is without Rhetoric.Overall, I like Scully's edition the best for its completeness: in addition to the translation, it has a wealth of valuable information in the Appendix, including copies of poems by Sappho, Anacreon, Ibycus, etc; plus interpretive text and sample photos of "Phallus Bird". Highly recommended.

_I have heard some call this work a confused jumble of unrelated concepts. These people just didn't get it. There is one unified theme to the Phaedrus: without a deep connection to the soul and to the higher Reality only accessible to the soul, then all human endeavors are in error._The first part of the dialogue deals with three speeches on the topic of love. This is used only as an example and is not the primary theme (though it is an extremely thorough and compelling examination of the subject.) The first speech (by Lysias) is clearly in error- it is badly composed, badly reasoned, and supports what is clearly the wrong conclusion. The second speech (by Socrates), while an impeccable model of correct rhetoric, and reaching the correct conclusion is also essentially flawed- for it makes no appeal to the deepest fundamental causes of things. Simply put, it lacks soul. The third argument (attributed to Stesichorus) however, delves deeply into the soul. In fact, the core of the argument is centered around the proof of the existence and nature of the soul. That is the consistency here- unless you are Philosopher enough to have looked deeply within your own soul, to have made contact (recollection) with ultimate Reality (Justice, Wisdom, Beauty, Temperance, etc.) then your arguments are just empty words- even if you are accidentally on the correct side._The second part of the dialogue concentrates on showing how true rhetoric is more than "empty rhetoric" (i.e. just clever arguments and tricks used to sway the masses.) True rhetoric is shown to literally be the art of influencing the soul through words. It also reads as the perfect description, and damnation, of modern politics and the legal system. No wonder Socrates was condemned to later take poison- he actually BELIEVED in Justice, Truth, and the Good. As a Philosopher he could not compromise on such things for he knew the profound damage and that it would do to his soul and to his "wings."

This books attempts to answer a question that was apparently very important in ancient Greece:When an older man wants to seduce a beautiful boy should the older man be in love with the boy or should they just be friends ?Then it gives this analogy of the feelings of the seducer sprouting like wings from his soul.All of this was actually quite repugnant for me so I took off a few stars.If someone were to right a book like this today they would probably be thrown in jail.Socrates was thrown in jail and executed. I don't know if there's a connection.It sounds like Socrates was into that man / boy stuff.I doubt if Plato was into it. He was probably just recording information about the beliefs and customs of the times.Then again it's hard to really learn much about Plato from these dialogues since they are accounts of conversations between Socrates and someone else (Phaedrus in this case).I'm planning on reading a few more of these short dialogues before I read "The Laws"."The Laws" was I think one of Plato's last works so it should tell what Plato finally decided about a lot of issues before he died.This is the first time I ever read a book where the introduction and editors' notes are longer than the story itself.However that introductory and additional information was very helpful.I'll probably order these same authors' version of "Symposium".Jeff Marzano The Thing (Collector's Edition)

The Phaedrus is a fantastic dialogue with some intriguing and well thought out ideas. The translation makes the work very readable whilst not detracting from accuracy from the Greek.

These two are good at translating but terrible at commentary. If trusted to the introduction and footnotes make understanding this dialogue an impossibility.