The love as discussed by the characters in the Symposium is homosexual love.
Some assumed that homosexuality alone is capable of satisfying “a man’s
highest and noblest aspirations”. Whereas heterosexual love is placed at an
inferior level, being described as only existing for carnal reasons; its
ultimate purpose being procreation. There are differing views in these
dialogues, Aristophanes contradicts his peers by treating heterosexuality at the
same level as homosexuality, arguing that both are predestined. Aristophanes
considered himself as the comic poet and he began his discourse as such. Yet as
the speech continued, he professed to open another vein of discourse; he had a
mind to praise Love in another way, unlike that of either Pausanias or
Eryximachus. “Mankind”, he said, “judging by their neglect of him, have
never at all understood the power of Love”. He argued that if they had
understood him they would have built noble temples and altars, and offered
solemn sacrifices in his honor. He sought to describe his power and wanted to
teach the rest of the world what he was teaching at that moment. Aristophanes
spoke first of the nature of man and what had become of it. He said that human
nature had changed: The sexes were originally three in number; there was man,
woman, and the union of the two. At one time there was a distinct kind, with a
bodily shape and a name of its own, constituted by the union of the male and the
female: but now only the word 'androgynous' remains, and that as a term of
reproach. Aristophanes proceeded by telling an anecdote about the terrible might
and strength of mankind and how “the thoughts of their hearts were so great
that they made an attack upon the gods”, leaving the celestial councils to
decide whether or not to kill them. Zeus found a solution, and decided to cut
them in two so as to divide their strength. As he cut them one after another, he
bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that man
might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of
humility. He made all the forms complete except in the region of the belly and
navel, as a memorial of the primeval state. Aristophanes continued his discourse
in a vein of seriousness and brought forth an important truth. He related the
division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half and dying from
hunger and self-neglect because they did not do anything apart, to love as a
need. Since when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor
sought another mate, man or woman. The anecdote continued with Zeus, in pity,
inventing a new plan: having males generating in the females so that by the
mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue.
Or, equally so, if man came to man they might be satisfied and go about their
ways to the business of life. Aristophanes was trying to demonstrate that our
original nature was to search for our other half, to make one of two and to heal
the state of man. Aristophanes thus demonstrated that man was always looking for
his other half and this need was perhaps more than purely physical. There was
also a longing to regain some lost happiness. “Such a nature is prone to love
and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him.”
Aristophanes described that when one half met with his other half the pair
became lost in an amazement of love, friendship and intimacy, and spent their
whole lives together. Yet they could not explain what they desired of one
another. He added that the intense yearning which each of them had towards the
other was not that of the lover's intercourse, but of something else which the
soul of either evidently desired and could not explain. The reason Aristophanes
gave to this need was that human nature was originally one and we were all a
whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love. It was because of
the wickedness of mankind that God had dispersed us. Aristophanes eventually
adopted a sober tone in his speech and asks to be taken seriously. He applied
his anecdote to include men and women everywhere, and proposed that if
mankind’s love were perfectly accomplished, and each being found his original
true love, that our race would be happy. If this were to be the most favorable,
the next best thing would be the nearest approach to such a union; the
attainment of a congenial love. Aristophanes’ speech finds itself in contrast
with that of Socrates. While Aristophanes used a vivid and elaborate story to
illustrate his point, Socrates dismisses rhetoric and claimed to be indifferent
to the formal expression of the truth as its discovery is more important.
Socrates questions Agathon’s definition of Love, asking whether or not Love is
a desire for something we lack. He adds that a person could not desire the
things he already possesses, but could only desire to preserve them. He defines
Love as existing only in relation to an object, an object it lacks, and that
since Love’s object is beauty, Love thus cannot be beautiful. After much
deduction, he comes to the conclusion that “Love is the consciousness of a
need for a good not yet acquired or possessed.” This has already been exposed
by Aristophanes’ speech, but it is more rationally explained here. Love, as
Socrates demonstrated it through his dialogue with Diotima, is one of the links
between the sensible and the eternal world. Meaning that Love finds itself
between man and the Gods. Love is the search for spiritual procreation.
Aristophanes had described Love as the manner in which mankind coped with the
separation from the Gods. To Diotima physical procreation was the lowest form
Eros could take, she definesd three types of lovers: the purely sensual
(physical), the lovers of honor and the lovers of wisdom. Socrates was himself
the ideal “lover of wisdom”, never allowing himself to divert from the real
pursuit of beauty: Since beauty is the ultimate objective of Love. Aristophanes
and his comical tale of the way mankind came about needing a partner greatly
opposed that of Socrates. Aristophanes put homosexuality and heterosexuality at
the same level, believing that both were predestined. He recognized that love
was a need; a longing to regain a lost happiness. Socrates, on the other hand,
concluded that heterosexual and homosexual Love were not at all at the same
level. Arguing that physical desire was inferior to the “love of wisdom”
which is more widespread in homosexuality, adding that women are “incapable of
creative activity above the physical level.” Ultimately what transpires from
his speech is that he has a meaning of Love quite different from that which the
common man would attach to it.