Socrates and Diotima from Plato's Symposium

In his excerpt from “Symposium”, Plato, the successor of Socrates, wrote about his character, regarding him a personality who deals with the extreme ignorance and wisdom, learning how to set in the middle of them, the knowledge. Looking deeper through this passage, it isn’t hard to identify a trouble in the way many human being think: the need to label everything and all the phenomenon instead of understanding them like something that could be or not be at the same time, and how it can be comparable to other things. The world of knowledge is vast, knowing or not knowing does not mean ignorance or wisdom, the second, is not also a synonym of being intellectual or having cultural experiences. On this essay, I intend to explain how knowledge can be theorized, to make analogies between wisdom and harmony, to show my opinion in front of the topic, to give some examples where different kinds of knowledge can be expressed and to summarize the excert’s principal idea, through philosophical arguments and syllogisms.

The author of the excerpt in question, Plato, lived in ancient Greece, furthermore, Socrates, Who is taking part in the dialogue, is also a classical thinker. The relationship between knowledge and harmony was really significant in the historical context. According to Plato, perfection exists in symmetry, in the sublim idea of beautiful and in order. It can be inferred the comparison between love and wisdom. If we analyze that passage in the excerpt, it is possible to understand the etymology of “philosophy”, that means a close friendship with knowing, one of the principles of the philosophic way of looking at the world and situations around us.

According to the myth of Plato’s cave, that comprehends the theory of knowing, There are two different realities: one of them refers to the world of feelings, that is figurated by the inner of the cave and relates illusions of the know, while the other is the idea’s world, in which rational thoughts can be identified. This second includes the liberty of all those currents inside the shadows and figurates a step next to the real knowledge. However, Plato does not consider the world of feelings like an empirical way to know, it suggests an against idea in front of Diotima’s thoughts about the extreme ignorance and knowledge.

Besides knowledge may be an option, it is important to say that does not exist only one kind of it exists, just like there is not just one way to award it. Some examples are scientific knowledge, mythic knowledge and philosophic knowledge. To reinforce the thesis that if something is not included in an analytic place, it does not mean that it could exists in other, it is possible to make a comparison between the existence and the act of get a kind of think through the words “cogito, ergo sum”, from Descartes. If thinking rationally gives to an individual the possibility of existence, it does not mean that something without “anima” does not exist, the opposite of this sentence may build a fallacy, a mistake of thought.

Diotima, one of the character in the topic in question, gave to Socrates, the another character, examples of the both worlds figurative by Plato, through symbols to represent them: Love, the one that is made by itself like a feeling, and knowledge, which belongs to the idea’s universe. As far as i’m concerned, the idea of add something between two poles, is acceptable because of the consequences it could have and how it seems in front of the extremes, even if disagreements criticizing the unreasoning of the natural way of the thing in question may exist.

At first, when knowledge takes a position in an intermediate level between ignorance and understanding, it comprehends an essential way from one situation to another. Second, it means that knowledge should be analyzed like something totally different from the others, but acting like a balance. Finally, it is important to learn the differences between knowledge and understanding, and to bear in mind that the three concepts can be regarded as a stair from deep ignorance to real wisdom, instead of opposite terms.

Is it possible to notice an ethical point of view in front of the excerpt’s thema? In my opinion, yes, it is. Ethical troubles are examples of how morality exists like a moderator between two poles, one that includes consciousness in addition to human relationships and the other, the consequences of the worst attitudes. In this case, Ethics, in the philosophic sense of the word, regulates the causes and its consequences

Nowadays, many authors consider not only knowledge a stage, but other steps to award something bigger too. The arbitrarian division and classification normally does not show everything that is included on it, with your records and practical consequences. A hypothetical example of how the question can be analyzed is the possibility of making right decisions or taking a bad way to solve a problem, in this case, if we set in the middle of the poles the possibility of doing nothing like a moderator, the hypothesis turns into an ethical dilemma. The doubt about not acting in this situation is the same as taking a bad decision could be compared with the idea of knowledge for Ditoma, because it explains in an ethical level what can be inferred when similar terms are confused with each other, in a comprehensive scope.

In front of the arguments shown in this essay and the ideas based in philosophic ways to organize my thoughts and opinions, I’ll finish this text summarizing some importants points to the comprehension of the problem that the excerpt brings. Knowledge does not mean ignorance, because real ignorance does not allow a second step in a way of understanding. Thus, if knowledge is like a moderator in an activity balance, it can be concluded that there is not also just one way to follow, but different kinds of knowledge and many ways to get understanding. Something that does not belong to a form of classification does not belong exactly to its opposite, here it’s possible to identify a relation of independence that exists when we talk or write about something including in a category that is arbitrary at first sight. It’s right to say that classical ideas about the categories related to be or not and be include or not be, were once claimed by classical thinkers, like Plato, who refused theories about a term in the middle of the situations. He does it clearly through his character Socrates in many of dialogues. Human beings live in a world of classification, it’s part of human nature and the way our brains work. By the way, the consequences appear if nothing moderate the extreme poles. On a large scale, ethics is an example of it, that exists in the relation between individuals and between the individual with his own mind or the reality they live in.