چکیده:
While Plato chooses dialogue as the form of his philosophical works, and due to this, his works are distinct in the history of philosophy, ‘The Symposium’ is a different one in Plato’s works. This dialogue presents seven interrelated speeches on the nature of love, with each speaker contributing to the discussion and passing the topic to the next. Consequently, as the preceding and subsequent contributions constitute every utterance in the ‘The Symposium’, each utterance emerges as inherently incomplete, which invites a continuous investigation of the subject throughout the dialogue. Our primary claim in this article is twofold: first, that ‘The Symposium’ should not be considered merely as one of Plato’s dialogues but as a pattern of dialogue itself, and second, that this recognition prompts us to reconsider dialogue not only as Plato’s chosen literary form but also as a pattern of his philosophical thinking.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Although the play can be seen as a dialogue between multiple characters with one another, the fundamental and to some extent hidden dialogue of the play is between man and God. Thus, if we want to compare the ongoing dialogue in the play with the form found in a symposium, we can say that if a symposium is an equal dialogue among equals, then in tragedy, where one side of the dialogue is God and His message, the ongoing dialogue in tragedy takes shape through the discovery of inequality; in other words, according to tragedy's finding regarding dialogue, to the extent that dialogue can be seen as a mode of knowledge that happens to perceive not equality, but the fundamental inequality of dialogue; when we perceive the divine word as an essentially unequal word that is and must be, an opportunity for investigating the whatness and howness of this word is opened for us.
The fact that Socrates knows that he does not know means that, unlike the other thinkers he mentions, Socrates is aware of the limit of his knowledge; he is not like a tragic hero who intends to become wise by traversing the distance between his questions and their answers; in other words, although the starting point of Socratic dialogues and tragedy is the same, the end of these two is different from each other.
In other words, according to the conception of the Symposium, dialogue is Plato's design to keep the subject always investigable, and to the extent of this maintenance, to also speak a scientific word; a word that, although it does not convey the totality of the subject, is a word that, within its own limits, addresses the subject once from beginning to end and hands the speech over to the speaker after them.
(
, 
, 
)
