Is it Possible to Control the Two Horses of the Charioteer?
Disciplines
Ancient Philosophy | Arts and Humanities | Classics
Abstract (300 words maximum)
In Plato's The Phaedrus, Socrates presents a philosophical conundrum as he explores the intersection of madness and rationality. Traditionally regarded as a devoted advocate of reason, Socrates appears to contradict his own philosophical principles by celebrating the virtues of divine madness, also known as love, in the dialogue. This apparent inconsistency causes questioning around Socrates’ seemingly contradictory praise of the concepts of love and rationality. In the first speech of The Phaedrus, Socrates argued it is better to do “honest” work with no meaning behind it. This line of reasoning can contribute to a state of complacency. The modern perspective, which has only been recently rediscovered since Socrates first proposed this thought process, allows us to see that an arranged, loveless marriage formed based on money or status is no longer considered the more successful bond compared to one founded on love. It is easily foreseeable that the apathetic scientist who pursues research out of duty will easily grow tired of his or her studies, while the passionate observer will be driven to dig deeper for a longer period of time. This final great speech represents the necessity for any great thinker to retain a level of passion for their work. While the relationship between reason and madness, or love, still maintains a juxtaposing dynamic, the mastering of these opposing ideas is what leads to greatness. In the time of Socrates, this argument pertained to balancing love and wisdom in a relationship. Today, the unfeeling observer is no longer praised to the same degree within the field of research. Scientists must maintain their perspective, avoiding a sense of bias, while maintaining a bond with their research. This unification, although conventionally unreasonable, is precisely what leads to true reason and wisdom.
Academic department under which the project should be listed
RCHSS - English
Primary Investigator (PI) Name
Todd Harper
Is it Possible to Control the Two Horses of the Charioteer?
In Plato's The Phaedrus, Socrates presents a philosophical conundrum as he explores the intersection of madness and rationality. Traditionally regarded as a devoted advocate of reason, Socrates appears to contradict his own philosophical principles by celebrating the virtues of divine madness, also known as love, in the dialogue. This apparent inconsistency causes questioning around Socrates’ seemingly contradictory praise of the concepts of love and rationality. In the first speech of The Phaedrus, Socrates argued it is better to do “honest” work with no meaning behind it. This line of reasoning can contribute to a state of complacency. The modern perspective, which has only been recently rediscovered since Socrates first proposed this thought process, allows us to see that an arranged, loveless marriage formed based on money or status is no longer considered the more successful bond compared to one founded on love. It is easily foreseeable that the apathetic scientist who pursues research out of duty will easily grow tired of his or her studies, while the passionate observer will be driven to dig deeper for a longer period of time. This final great speech represents the necessity for any great thinker to retain a level of passion for their work. While the relationship between reason and madness, or love, still maintains a juxtaposing dynamic, the mastering of these opposing ideas is what leads to greatness. In the time of Socrates, this argument pertained to balancing love and wisdom in a relationship. Today, the unfeeling observer is no longer praised to the same degree within the field of research. Scientists must maintain their perspective, avoiding a sense of bias, while maintaining a bond with their research. This unification, although conventionally unreasonable, is precisely what leads to true reason and wisdom.