Brad Waldo

Rhetoric 103A

Kwan Hua

8 October 2016

Philia contra Erōs: Why the Boy Should Sleep with Lysias

            Plato’s Phaedrus begins with Phaedrus reciting a speech given to him by Lysias on why it is better to choose a suitor who is not in love with you, rather than choose a suitor who is in love with you. Phaedrus reads, from Lysias’ scroll, to Socrates, “I don’t think I should lose the chance to get what I am asking for [i.e., sex], merely because I don’t happen to be in love with you” (231A). In this essay I describe one of three aspects of the argument Lysias offers to the young man on why it is better to have relations with a non-lover. He describes intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social benefits of being involved with a non-lover, and I focus on the last.  

            Lysias offers that consorting with a non-lover will benefit one’s own life because the non-lover will not flatter you, regret doing you favors, or chose you just for the sake of your body, and that the status of the relationship between non-lovers can actually be superior in many ways to the debilitating and destructive madness of love. Interestingly, Lysias also offers social reasons of why it is better if one chooses a non-lover than a lover.

Lysias argues that if two men get away with the arrangement he is proposing, one’s image in the public eye will not suffer, regardless of  “conventional standards and the stigma” of having sex with someone that does not love you (231E). The non-lover is able to control himself and will be able to act appropriately, “rather than seek the glory that comes from popular reputation” (232A). Because non-lovers are not wedded in the public eye, the non-lover can treat their friendly consort in a way that friends treat one another, presumably in a freer, less possessive fashion. Implicit in this claim is that freedom from seeking glory in popular reputation allows the relationship between the two men to remain more earnest and genuine, as well as undistorted from social expectations surrounding relations between lovers.

Lysias is then described as saying that, “it’s inevitable that a lover will be found out” and if you spend time with someone that loves you, “[the public will] think you are spending time together just before or just after giving way to desire” (232B). Here Lysias is arguing that the public assumes that sex is a central focus of time spent between lovers. Whereas the public may find fault with this sexcentric arrangement wherein desire rules, “they don’t even begin to find fault with people for spending time together if they are not lovers; they know one has to talk to someone, either out of friendship or to obtain some other pleasure” (232B). In public opinion, friendship, philia, is more acceptable than erōs, sexual desire or passion. Lysias offers that as social beings, humans need to interact with one another and share conversation. Philia, thus, is perceived by and large as a natural desire and as a less debilitating pleasure than the maddening passion of erōs. There is an element of deception in this claim, too, because one will experience the pleasure of sex, or minimally, the pleasure of pleasing his suitor, but will gain the benefit of not being found out. Lysias is attempting to convince the boy to have sex with him regardless of the fact that he does not love him. People will believe that the boy and Lysias are merely friends, engaged in natural and necessary friendship rather than the madness stricken tribulations of love. The non-lover is not described as being entirely freed of the passions of erotic love; Lysias instead is arguing that his proposed arrangement will be beneficially sneaky and clandestine. Detachment between sex and love, here, is presented as beneficial because one can retain their public image, and is presented elsewhere by Lysias as also being beneficial to one’s personal development.

Lysias also offers that one’s close friends are often critical of them when they are in love. Phaedrus reads: “friends often criticize a lover for bad behavior; but no one close to a non-lover ever thinks that desire has led him into bad judgments about his interests” (234B). Any bad behavior will not be perceived as being distorted by the desire of erōs, but will be assumed to be caused by some other misjudgment. Presumably, bad behavior due to erōs is more blameworthy than behavior due to other causes. By consorting with a non-lover, one will not be subjected to the criticism of their friends if they behave badly. Any mistakes made by the boy will be perceived as being caused by some reason that is not as blameworthy as being madly in love.

The social dimension of Lysias’ speech elicits many interesting questions regarding the actual status of erōs in his proposed arrangement with the boy. Will the relationship really lack erōs or will it simply be hidden from public view? Does Lysias really lack erotic love for the boy, or is he representing his desire in this way to dupe the boy and have his way with him? The other two dimensions of Lysias’ speech are complicated by these social reasons for consorting with a non-lover. Lysius’ claims of lacking erotic love for the boy, his proposal for a sexual encounter, and the benefits for the boy therein are made murky by arguing that there is a social benefit to being perceived as friends only and not as lovers.