Eros in Plato, Rousseau, and Nietzsche: The Politics of Infinity

4 Love of Wisdom versus Love of the Wise: Eros in Action

4 love of wisdom versus love of the wise: eros in action Having gone to some effort to break Socrates’ teaching in the Symposium into two only to argue that two do indeed become one, let me offer a summary statement of this complex unity. Some of this has already been said, but not all of it—and not all together. I will begin with that which explains and establishes the unity, which is also where we left off—that is, with philosophy. Philosophy may be erotic—indeed, it is himself that Socrates describes under the guise of Eros (203b–204c)—but it is not erotic in any ordinary sense of the word. Ordinary eros is love of the beautiful (or the noble: to kalon), a love whose meaning or source proves to be the desire for immortality (206e–208b). Eros of this sort most commonly expresses itself as romantic love, but it is also the motive force of those who seek immortality through politics or even poetry—the latter, in fact, are higher manifestations of eros, at least on the account related by Socrates and attributed to Diotima. But if philosophy isn’t erotic in any ordinary sense, it is nevertheless erotic in the truest sense. For it understands that what we most deeply want, or what would most deeply satisfy us, is not immortality but experience of the eternal and infinite. That is eros’ true aim, which means that what is normally called eros is a defective version of the desire for the good based on a misapprehension of what would really satisfy us. Ordinary eros, in fact, is based on two delusions : first, that immortality—earthly immortality—is possible, whether through children, fame, or lasting works; second, that, if attained, it would bring comprehensive satisfaction.1 It is the first delusion that sustains the plausibility of the second: as long as one hasn’t assured oneself of one’s earthly immortality, one can always believe that it would yield the satisfaction one seeks. 1. Regarding the delusional nature of the belief that earthly immortality would bring happiness , see Seventh Letter 334e: ‘‘None of us is born immortal, nor would being so bring happiness, as most people think.’’ 94 platonic eros—the effectual truth If what we most deeply want is an experience or embrace of the eternal and infinite, whence the erotic pursuit of immortality? The answer for which I have argued—an answer that explains much of the action of the Symposium (and other dialogues) even if it is not formally articulated in it—is that the longing for immortality represents the temporalizing of the longing for the eternal: the desire to experience that which is beyond time and beyond all limitation becomes the desire that the self or the ego be everlasting and invulnerable . The ego, already eager to survive, misinterprets its divination of the eternal as a promise of its own immortality. But doesn’t everyone long for the good? And if so, isn’t everyone erotic in the nondefective sense? Everyone does want the good: the good is that for whose sake we do everything (Republic 505d–e). But most of us are better described as erotic in the ordinary (i.e., defective) sense, in that we long primarily for immortality and seek the beautiful as a means to that end. This is certainly the case with most of those whom we call erotic: although everyone wants the good, only some, those who intensely pursue a beautiful beloved, are called erotic (205a–d). There is a bit of semantic confusion in all this, arising from the fact that those who are called erotic are, according to the Platonic view, defectively erotic. One could argue instead for maintaining a simpler usage, according to which we would designate as ‘‘eros’’ the delusional pursuit of earthly immortality and according to which philosophy would be emphatically unerotic. But such usage would submerge the important Platonic teaching that delusional eros isn’t simply delusional but rather a distortion of a longing whose basis is not delusional and which is in fact satisfiable: for while experience of the eternal may be difficult and rare, the experience is possible, as demonstrated by philosophers who are able to gain insight into what is, that is, into the timeless ( eternal) ground and nature of things. One more point needs to be made concerning the distinction I have introduced between defective or delusional eros (i.e., ordinary eros) and...