I think that it is a good idea to first define what it is that you are arguing, but I dont think his definitions or his opinion hold much ground considering he has never experienced love. By admitting this, I don't see how he can make arguments about love or what it is like. I dont think defining love will lead to the truth about it, especially since the person defining it does not know its meaning. Socrates is arguing for the sake of arguing, and I frown upon that.

I thought that Lyseus had the better argument among the two philospohers despite Lyseus long-winded repitition of making the same point over and over in different manners of speech. I realize that Socrates was put on the spot, but to me it wasn't about Socrates searching for a better conclusion or formulating a speech with the corrections Lyseus needed to make to his. I felt that Socrates was trying show his superiority of his argument regardless of the subject and after the first argument of metaphors he realized that his unclear attempt at the truth of love and the soul were no less confusing than Lyseus' round-about repitition of the same answer. The second argument he tries to use a different style, but I think he was to focused creation of the perfect argument that it left him incapable of having an effective philospohical discussion about love and the soul.

In Socrates' first response speech, I felt a marked improvement in structure and flow over Lyseus', because the establishment of terms at the beginning of Socrates' argument made the ensuing points made less random (whereas Lyseus sounded like he was reciting a list of supporting arguments without much thought as to presentation) and made each supporting argument more convincing, because it stood in relation to an established definition (rather than an undefined term left for the audience to interpret). The second speech fell apart for me when I remained unconvinced by his initial defense of "madness", and grew impatient with his poetic definition of the soul (a term definition should not last so long as to become a major section of the speech) -- which, although perhaps artistically interesting, lacked any real grip as an argument, and tried to slide by on its appearance. Thus I wouldn't categorically denounce the use of metaphor in support of difficult-to-describe subject matter, but in Socrates' case I felt they never gained any traction.

I would like to start by saying that I find it funny that Socrates can define good and bad but has trouble defining love and soul; To me, they're equally abstract. I have to agree with jgal about Socrates defining key terms. Defining key terms only narrows and limits a discussion, a technique that should only be used if you are looking to trap and discredit the person you are having the discussion with. Come to think of it, defining key terms could also be beneficial in discussions pertaining to science and math but has no place in talks of love or the soul, and I believe that Socrates proves this point when he attemps to do so in his second speech. I would also like to say that this dialog is very disturbing to me and that all I could picture as I read it was a conversation between Micheal Jackson and the man in the mirror.

I do not think that Socrates can create a true definition of the soul or love. I think these are two abstract things and that defining them clearly is pointless and impossible. I think he helps one get a better understanding of these concepts by using metaphors, but that there is nothing in his speech that would lead us to any kind of truth. However, if you had to decide which speech pursued the truth I would say that Lysias' was better because it did not use the endless and inexact metaphors.

I find Socrates' grasping at definitions noble at best, adequate at worst. When dealing with the undefinable Capital-T truth as it pertains to intangibles, I see no better way to go about pursuing it than to provide as many descriptions as possible which, in conjunction, form a more accurate definition than abstract talk would. It's like if you try to describe what 'ennui' is in English. You'd list a few other adjectives, and the other person would say, "ok, I get it." By listing those other adjectives, you're not being redundant or straying from the truth; you're just trying to be as precise as you can be. Socrates is getting hippy-dippy, sure, but I feel it's the best he can do as a foundationalist.

Socrates’ first speech was made to demonstrate how to make the points Lysias made in his speech without being repetitive. This was a fairly reasonable comparison because they were essentially arguing the same thing, but Socrates version, with its definitions, is more compelling. He creates a kind of dialogue between the youth and one of his lovers. While there isn’t an out and out questioning or search for contradictions, the lover gets the youth to agree implicitly to key definitions: the principles of love, “being in your right mind” versus “outrageousness”. Despite any frustrations with Socrates’ arrogance, I’ve always appreciated how I am made to look at a situation differently than before, and this is why I think the contrast between Lysias speech and Socrates first speech do seem to demonstrate a strength in defining terms when presenting an argument.

He then decides to tell another speech that contradicts the “truths” he set up in his first speech. Socrates gets around the lack of a definition of a soul by a proxy definition – what it is like – which I would accept perhaps, but then his litany of metaphors has the same effect as repetitive proofs. If he would have stuck to his definition of love as a blessed madness, divinely sent, he would have yet again presented a unique perspective to the question – one that is hard to refute. For if it is good to be divinely possessed with madness in at least some instances – and love is a divinely sent madness – then being in love is good. Perhaps if he had kept it clean by just adding to the definition of love as a memory of heaven – resulting in divinely sent madness – and avoided the whole charioteer and horses metaphor, then I think the whole thing still could have seemed an acceptable truth. Choosing a lover that loves you would be divine, a better thing than one that does not love you. I understand that Socrates felt the need to include the issue of the soul into the fray, but I’m not certain how he could have done so with his concession that it can not be defined with only one metaphor. It’s impressive how he works all the different metaphors, but it’s much not as tight as the other arguments of Socrates. Isn’t the point of anything he says supposed to be the improvement of the listener? Did Phaedrus truly keep track of the wings and charioteer and good horse and bad horse?

Part of what is compelling about the first speech is that you get pulled by the exact definitions into an understanding that you might not have bought if reasons were stated in a sequential order, but in the second speech this same effect is not achieved. The imagery is much more vivid and the path is not so narrow, but ultimately the case is not as strong. In this manner, then – no how can we believe that definitions will get us to the truth if they are not exact and static.

There are two things I want to address in this post. First, Socrates is slightly incorrect in his assumption that a good speech should begin by defining its key terms. I do agree that every speech should begin with the thesis of the proceeding thoughts, but many definitions are entirely too narrow an approach for many of life’s topics. In addition, love and the soul are not examples of clear-cut, finite truths. They are based upon a faith in something unseen and are situational, environmental and personal. Some people do not even believe in love or the soul, even though there are fine examples of both. I felt that Lyseus’ speech was a better example because he presented his claim and followed with proof to support his claim. He used “real-life” examples to make his underlying claims easier with which to relate. There is also a paradox on the ‘dilemma’ of the speech. Sure, one could note that the speech lacks bluntness since the author beats around the bush regarding sex and actual relationship. This could easily be viewed as a fault and downplays the notion of his argument. But, in our personal encounters, notably physical and sexual relationships, those involved deal directly with indirectness. Lyseus portrays an accurate description with his lack of candour. In contrast, Socrates’ speech relies on faith and belief in an afterlife, which are not possibly definable. Many do not even believe in the afterlife. Heaven is not a scientific fact; its existence cannot be proven. At least Lyseus makes comparisons with conceivable situations.

Second, I think Socrates is correct in his effort to define love and the soul by the use of metaphors. What is love? What is a soul? Those questions are entirely too broad for a straight-forward definition. Moreover, both are incredibly subjective, depending on the person making an effort to define those words. I have a belief about what love and a soul are, but I am quite certain that my interpretations of the two are different than others’ interpretations. My interpretations of both are basically a weigh-in on my experiences and belief in both. I am flip-flopping whether or not experience is necessary to have a credited definition. Example: I have not been in love, and although I have some sense of its meaning and have experienced love, I have never been enveloped in it. My understanding is based upon what has been told to me about being in love, the history of love and possible types of love. I find that Socrates’ metaphoric comparisons of love to a god, madness, sex desire and memory of heavenly beauty are correct, but who am I to be a judge? Furthermore, his ability to support his metaphoric claims prove that his belief is correct to him. Maybe others would disagree, but foundationally, love and the soul are not a part of concrete knowledge. They cannot be measured; they are not constant. People’s views on love and the soul are not going to be analogous, but the views are certainly valid. This simply goes back to the basic philosophical principle that knowledge cannot be both true and false. And since these topics are both true and false depending on the orator, the topics are simply beliefs, open to all types of philosophy.