This work analyses the concept of love in Plato’s Phaedrus and Symposium. Many scholars while referring to the apparent emphasis on same-sex male relations conclude that the highest stage of eros—reaching the Form of Beauty—is only possible for males and only through homosexual love. By considering Plato’s texts as complementary, this essay argues that it is possible to understand Plato’s conception of love as transcending gender demonstrating that women, like men, are capable of experiencing and inspiring love in its highest, most ideal forms. Moreover, it argues that homosexual love, even though explicitly discussed by Plato, is not the only suitable interpretation, but it is also can be stretched to accommodate heterosexual relations.
Introduction
Although love is not the most popular topic among Plato’s scientists, it is timeless and relatively controversial. The main query is whether Plato believed that women, too, could reach the Form of Beauty through exercising love (eros). On the one hand, Plato is often considered the first feminist in ancient philosophy. Contrasting him with Aristotle who clearly represents women as interior, Plato, in his turn, takes the view which is quite progressive for his time (Smith, 1983, pp. 467-468). In his Republic book V, he clearly states that women and men are both capable of being philosopher-kings and ruling the state. On the other, if we were to look only at the apparent meaning in the texts of the Symposium and Phaedrus we would get an impression that women are not like men. They are not mentioned to be able to go beyond bodily love to the love of the soul. So, what is going on?
Contrary to our times, the pederastic (from ancient Greek: paid – boy, erastēs – lover) relations between older men, who take the role of guides or teachers of wisdom, and youthful beautiful boys were quite widespread and not considered taboo. In Plato’s first two-thirds of the Phaedrus, he presents a dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus where they dispute about what is the best way to present the idea that a boy should prefer to have relations with an older man who does not love him, rather than the one who does. Socrates initially argues that love is a kind of madness that leads to irrationality, but he later changes his flow of reasoning, presenting a higher view in which love, when properly directed, acts as a divine force that elevates the soul towards truth and the eternal realm of the Forms. Love as a gift from god, he suggests, is not merely an erotic pursuit but a means of guiding the soul towards something nonmaterial and perfect.
In Plato’s Diotima’s speech in Symposium, Socrates remembers a lesson on the concept of love he received from Diotima, a wise woman who presents a philosophical view of love as a process of ascent toward the highest Form of Beauty. Diotima challenges the notion of love as merely the desire of the other body. She describes love as a dynamic force that begins with physical attraction to a beautiful body but gradually transcends it. The ultimate goal is the contemplation of the Form of Beauty itself—pure, eternal, and unchanging—leading the soul to its highest fulfilment.
It is true that the discussion on love in both texts is filled with either neutral or homosexual examples. However, if we can prove that there are no obstacles to stretching this idea to encompass heterosexual love, we should be able to conclude that Ploto’s conception of love is flexible. If men and women are to be regarded as equal intellectually and spiritually then the highest form of love is to be reachable for females in heterosexual relations too.
With this said, here are the two questions we are going to try to answer in this essay 1) are women also capable of achieving this highest form of fulfilment through love and 2) is the same fulfilment possible through heterosexual relations?
Challenges
- How to analyse Plato’s works
A key challenge in interpreting Plato is determining whether his dialogues should be read as independent works or as a cohesive body of thought. A notable complexity lies in the variations and developments in his ideas across different texts. For instance, the construction of the cosmos is addressed differently in Phaedrus and Timaeus, with each dialogue offering a distinct perspective. Unlike some other topics, on the topic of love Plato appears to be consistent, so the most natural approach would be to consider these works as complementary.
Moreover, since Plato’s writings present Socrates’ ideas through his own philosophical lens, it is often unclear whether certain arguments and thoughts originate from Socrates himself or are Plato’s own contributions. Moreover, the speech of Diotima is presented through the speech of Socrates, so it complicates the distinction even further. To avoid ambiguity, I will refer to Plato and Socrates interchangeably (as in this context there seem to be no relevant differences) and to Diotima separately.
- Is Plato’s concept of love and Platonic love the same?
When we think about the term “Platonic love” as we use it in daily life, we generally think about it as a pure, sex-less relationship that is based on a spiritual connection between (usually) a heterosexual couple. But would it be correct to say that Platonic love is the same as the love described by Plato in Symposium and Phaedrus? The answer is no.
The term “Platonic love” originated in the 15th century when Marsilio Ficino interpreted Plato’s Symposium, particularly his “Commentary on Plato’s Symposium on Love” (1475). Ficino, being a Catholic priest, reinterpreted Plato’s ideas, merging them with Christian thought. According to Ficino, Platonic love involves an ascent from physical desire to the contemplation of pure, ideal beauty. Ficino’s interpretation significantly influenced Western notions of love, introducing the idea that genuine affection seeks spiritual connection over physical desire. His work laid the foundation for understanding love as a force that leads the soul toward divine truth and beauty, a perspective that has overtaken literary discussions of love since the Renaissance (The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast, 2022).
Even though the idea of Platonic love was derived from Plato’s work, it went through Christian re-interpretation in order to present Plato as chaste and upholding the Renaissance morality at the time philosopher. It emphasised on heterosexual love to the extent that it almost completely pushed out all the discussions on the pederastic relations.
Types of Relationships in Plato’s Works
Plato’s works mention various forms of love, but this essay focuses on eros as passionate love exclusively. Socrates in Phaedrus presents love as a form of divine madness (mania), a gift from the god (244A, 244C). This madness, like a driving force, leads the lover’s soul toward divine truths. The “madness” of eros in Phaedrus is akin to inspiration that comes from the gods, often associated with the soul’s longing for the divine and the eternal.
Eros is described in both earthly and heavenly terms. Diotima, in the Symposium, distinguishes between a lower, physical eros and a higher, spiritual eros by calling one as being “pregnant in respect to bodies” and the other as “pregnant in respect to their soul” (208e). The former is driven by physical attraction and the desire for bodily pleasure, while the latter seeks the eternal and the beautiful in a more intellectual and spiritual manner. According to her “ladder of love” a person can reach the higher spiritual eros by engaging first with the lower bodily one.
Evidence from Phaedrus
As we set preliminaries we can start looking at the arguments derived from Phaedrus defending the idea that Plato’s love can also be acquired by women and, moreover, heterosexuals.
1. Universal Nature of the Soul’s Ascent
In Socrates’ second speech in Plato’s Phaedrus (243E–257B), the ascent of the soul is depicted through a metaphor of a chariot pulled by two horses, guided by a charioteer. Souls are immaterial entities roaming after the gods to get a glimpse of their eternal forms. The universal and non-material qualities of the soul as described in this speech suggest that souls are inherently sexless, regardless of whether they inhabit male or female bodies. Regarding this Smith says: “The Phaedrus neither supports nor conflicts with the view that souls are not sexed, however, as the issue is never addressed either explicitly or implicitly there” (Smith 1983, pp. 472-473). I would, however, disagree:
The soul is likened to a charioteer with two horses: one noble, beautiful, and obedient, the other is the opposite (246A–B). The charioteer represents reason, the noble horse symbolises the spirited and virtuous aspect, and the unruly horse embodies appetites and desires. This tripartite structure is intrinsic to all souls, without variation based on the gender of the body they inhabit. The ascent of the soul is a universal endeavour, a process of striving toward the divine, where it beholds the Forms—truth, beauty, and justice (247C). This spiritual journey is not influenced by the physical form the soul later occupies.
The soul’s ultimate goal is to ascend to the divine and witness the eternal truths, the Forms (247D–248B). Socrates explains that souls reincarnate based on their actions and experiences, but the essence of the soul itself remains unchanged (248C–249C). The cycle of reincarnation is not tied to gender; rather, it reflects the moral and intellectual development of the soul. The soul of a philosopher, regardless of whether it enters a male or female body, retains its capacity for reason and virtue. This is further supported by Socrates’ claim that souls, when detached from their earthly bodies, are all of the same nature and partake in the same divine essence (249E-250A).
The genderless nature of the soul is significant in proving that women, like men, can reach the Form of Beauty through eros because it establishes that the capacity for spiritual ascent and intellectual contemplation is not tied to bodily characteristics or societal roles. In Phaedrus, Socrates explains that eros acts as a powerful force guiding the soul toward the divine and the ultimate truth of Beauty itself (249E–250B). Since the soul’s essence is universal and not gendered, its ability to respond to the pull of eros and ascend toward the Forms should be equally present in both men and women.
The love of beauty, whether through admiration of a physical form or intellectual pursuits, awakens the soul’s wings and propels it upwards (250D–E). This ascent is dependent on the cultivation of virtue and wisdom only. Therefore, women, like men, are capable of elevating their souls toward the Form of Beauty through eros.
If we were to consider the Republic to support this idea, we would find a confirmation there that souls are, indeed, neither male nor female. As Smith notices, “Souls, on such a theory of reincarnation, are thus fundamentally sexless. Hence, the nature of a woman, in the sense required by Plato cited above, is no different from that of a man: both are sexless souls embodied. This, I claim, is why Plato finds no difficulty in saying that just as a man can have the nature of a physician, so can a woman; just as a man can be a musician, so can a woman (Rep. 455E)” (Smith, p. 472-473).
2. Intellectual and Spiritual Love
To continue this line of reasoning, Socrates contrasts physical attraction with a deeper love for the soul and intellect. It is true that love between heterosexual couples involves the desire connected with procreation, while homosexual lovers do not. However, it does not seem that the desire for procreation is the only one that heterosexual couples may experience.
All we can see in the text of Phaedrus are the examples, the cases in which this or that type of eros is more evident. For heterosexual couples – bodily, for homosexual – spiritual. However, from the theory by itself, the bodily eros is a step towards the spiritual one, and homosexual couples are clearly capable of experiencing them both.
Considering this, it is not counterintuitive to assume that the reason why heterosexual love was mentioned in the context of bodily eros only is that it is to illustrate better the origin of the differences between the two. It is not, however, aimed at excluding women and heterosexual relations from being able to reach the Form of the Beauty through eros.
Since the souls are sexless, which means, intellectually they are gender-neutral, the realisation of the highest form of eros should be too. The highest form of love is based on mutual intellectual and spiritual connection, rather than physical desire. Since women possess souls capable of wisdom and virtue, they are equally capable of participating in such intellectual love. Moreover, they should be able to do so with any human suitable being regardless of gender.
Evidence from Symposium
1. Diotima as a Female Philosopher
In The Symposium, Plato presents Diotima, a wise woman, as the teacher of Socrates on the subject of love. Notably, Socrates credits her as the originator of his understanding of love, positioning her as a philosophical equal (201d–204a). This fact alone serves as compelling proof that women are not only capable of understanding eros in its highest, spiritual form but are also capable of instructing others in its pursuit. Diotima’s role in the dialogue is very important, as she introduces the concept of the “Ladder of Love” (210A–211C), a framework for ascending from physical attraction to the contemplation of the Form of Beauty itself. By portraying a woman as the source of this profound philosophical insight, Plato explicitly acknowledges the capacity of women to engage in and achieve the spiritual heights of eros.
Furthermore, Diotima’s role in the dialogue directly challenges any notion of male superiority in matters of love and philosophy. She not only instructs Socrates but also reveals to him a deeper understanding of eros than he previously possessed, suggesting that spiritual wisdom is not exclusive to men. Her ability to articulate the nature of eros as a force that elevates the soul to the divine highlights that women, like men, can achieve and exemplify the highest kind of love.
2. The Ladder of Love
Diotima’s “Ladder of Love” in Plato’s Symposium (210a-211b) provides a profound philosophical exploration of love, illustrating its progression from physical attraction to the contemplation of universal Beauty. The ascent begins with the recognition of a single beautiful body, evoking a powerful physical desire. This initial stage is rooted in sensory experience, where the individual perceives beauty in its tangible form. However, this attraction serves as the foundation for a more expansive appreciation of beauty beyond the physical.
The second stage of the ladder broadens this initial attraction to encompass all physical beauty. Here, the lover begins to see a shared quality in all beautiful bodies, transcending the fixation on one specific individual. This shift reflects a growing understanding of beauty as a universal characteristic rather than a particular trait tied to a single person. This stage marks the beginning of an intellectual awakening, as the lover starts to detach from purely sensory experiences and move towards a more abstract appreciation of beauty.
The subsequent stages involve an appreciation of the beauty of the soul, the beauty of laws and institutions, the beauty of knowledge, and, ultimately, the Beauty itself. As the lover ascends, their focus transitions from physical to intellectual and moral beauty. They learn to value virtuous qualities, such as wisdom and justice, recognising their role in fostering a harmonious society. This intellectual refinement culminates in the contemplation of Beauty itself—a perfect, eternal, and unchanging form. At this final stage, the lover transcends the material world entirely, achieving a profound understanding of the universal essence of Beauty. Diotima describes this ultimate vision as the purest and most fulfilling form of love.
Love, in this sense, becomes an aspiration accessible to anyone capable of reasoning and contemplation. Plato’s idea of recollection, as found in Phaedo (72e-77a) and Meno (81c-d) supports the notion that recognising and recollecting the forms, including the Form of Beauty, is an inherent capacity of the soul.
Recollection occurs when sensory experiences or questions stimulate the soul’s memory of the Forms. In the Phaedo (74a-c), Plato argues that observing equal objects in the physical world can trigger the soul’s memory of the perfect Form of Equality, which exists beyond the imperfections of material reality. The process of recollection often involves dialectic—structured questioning and reasoning—designed to guide the individual toward recognising truths they inherently know. Through intellectual effort and reflection, the soul moves from partial and confused understandings to the clear recognition of the Forms.
Plato contends that the capacity for recollection is universal among humans because all souls are immortal and share the same pre-embodied exposure to the realm of Forms. This universality ensures that every individual, regardless of their sensory experiences or social circumstances, possesses latent knowledge of ultimate truths.
Since every soul has experienced the realm of Forms prior to embodiment, both women and men possess the same potential to recall ultimate truths through reasoning and philosophical reflection. Furthermore, as the highest form of love is the achievement of the Form of Beauty itself, it is significant that Plato does not describe the Form of Beauty in any way biased towards gender. This universality implies that anyone with the necessary, non-gender-related predisposition should be able to ascend to the recognition of Beauty, making the pursuit of this ultimate ideal accessible to all.
General Proofs
1. Social Context
It is indeed true that throughout Phaedrus and Symposium, Plato often employed examples of pederastic relationships to explore the concept of eros. These examples were not uncommon in classical Athens, where pederasty—a bond between an adult man and a younger boy—was an established cultural and educational practice. While the examples might appear exclusive, they likely reflect the contextual realities of the discussions rather than an intentional omission of women and heterosexual relationships.
In both dialogues, it is worth noting that Plato does not initiate the conversations but rather responds to specific circumstances. In Phaedrus, the discussion arises from a speech written by Lysias, which Phaedrus recounts to Socrates. This speech is focused on the dynamics of male relationships, particularly the tension between lovers and non-lovers. Similarly, in the Symposium, the topic of eros is explored during a banquet where each participant delivers a speech, and the prevailing cultural focus on male relationships naturally shapes the content of these speeches. Thus, the prominence of pederastic examples reflects the starting points of these discussions, rather than a deliberate exclusion of other forms of love.
Furthermore, the absence of direct references to women and heterosexual relationships should not be hastily interpreted as a purposeful marginalisation by Plato. The cultural circumstances of Athens provide a framework where male relationships were often idealised as vehicles for intellectual and moral growth. Plato’s aim was to elevate eros beyond physicality, using the examples most familiar to his audience to articulate his ideas. This choice does not necessarily imply a dismissal of women or heterosexual love but rather a contextual adaptation to the norms of his time. By understanding the cultural and contextual backdrop of these dialogues, it becomes clear that Plato’s treatment of eros is more inclusive in spirit than it might initially appear.
2. Rationality as the Human Purpose
Pierce highlights rationality as humanity’s defining trait in Plato’s philosophy: “Though Plato would not argue that either gender has a specific nature, he does insist that human beings as a class do. Plato believed that the nature of human beings is rationality” (1994, pp. 27-28). Just like men’s, women’s nature is reason. If women were somehow restricted in their abilities to reason that is gender-specific, that would be a significant thing worth mentioning, however, Plato did not mention anything like this.
All Plato states in Republic is that humans have natural predispositions to this or that talent. For example, some people are good soldiers, some people are good philosophers, and some people are good artists. To continue this list, it would be reasonable to say that some people are, despite how abstract it sounds, talented in love. Even in Phaedrus and Symposium is it mentioned that not all people are able to achieve the highest Form of Beauty, but only the ones who are predisposed to that.
Conclusion
By examining Phaedrus and Symposium, this essay has demonstrated that both texts provide sufficient evidence to argue that Platonic love is inclusive of all genders. Together, they present a framework in which the gender of the participants becomes irrelevant to the pursuit of higher philosophical truths like the Form of Beauty. Diotima’s teachings in the Symposium explicitly advocate for a universal understanding of love, where beauty transcends physical forms, supporting the notion that both men and women can engage in and inspire love.
Furthermore, if Phaedrus and Symposium are complementary works, then the inclusivity of love is not only possible but inevitable within Plato’s framework. This stronger case aligns with Plato’s other works like the Republic.
While historical and societal contexts may influence Plato’s choice of examples, the philosophical principles underlying love are universally applicable. Women, like men, possess the capacity for intellectual and spiritual love, affirming the inclusivity of Plato’s vision. By examining these texts individually and collectively, this essay demonstrates that Platonic love is not exclusively homosexual but a universal ideal accessible to all.
Bibliography:
Fine, G. (Ed.). (1995). Plato 2: Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul. Oxford University Press.
Kelsen, H. (1942). Platonic Love. American Imago, 3(1/2), 3–110. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26301268
Pierce, C. (1994). Eros and epistemology. In J. M. Sokolon (Ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle (pp. 25–39). State University of New York Press.
Psychology Today. (2016). These Are the 7 Types of Love. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201606/these-are-the-7-types-of-love
Reeser, T. W. (2015). Setting Plato Straight: Translating Platonic Sexuality in the Renaissance. University of Chicago Press.
Smith, N. D. (1983). Plato and Aristotle on the Nature of Women. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21(4), 467–490.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Plato on Friendship and Eros. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-friendship/
The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast. (2022, July 25). Ep. 298: Marsilio Ficino on Love (Part One) with Peter Adamson. Retrieved from https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2022/07/25/ep298-1-ficino/
