'The End of Plato’s Friendship\r'

'Plato’s Lysis takes on the give up of acquaintance and what, in means, makes genius a friend. Socrates encounters a convention of boys who lead him to begin the give-and-take, in the perspiration to show Hippothales how he might act toward his be slamd, Lysis, so as non to drive him a elbow room only if rather to draw him closer. It is clear in this communion Socrates is seen as a wise, old man who the younger generations generally look upon for answers, and it is clear that these boys respect him liberal to stop him on his way and ask of his panorama regarding several matters.\r\nThe matter at heart of this parley asks, â€Å"What is a friend?” Here Plato is attempting to get at the essence of intimacy, and he uses the innocence of youthful boys as a springboard for the intercourse. The boys be themselves friends with from all(prenominal) superstar other, and it is captivate that Socrates would converse with them about the nature of knowledge in general.\r\nThe communion begins with Hippothales asking Socrates for help regarding his be fill outd Lysis, the object glass of affection who is not within reach. Hippothales’ way, Socrates makes known, of loudly assess that which is not yet in his possession, is equivalent to a â€Å"hunter…who scares away his prey as he hunts” (Plato 21). afterward Hippothales makes known his method of viewing his manage for psyche with whom he is not yet acquainted, he asks Socrates to show how he might converse justly with the object of his affection so that they can be friends, rather than scaring Lysis off and incurring loathing instead.\r\nLuring Lysis into a conversation with his friend Menexenus, Socrates begins to illustrate to Hippothales how to charm some cardinal, â€Å"by humbling him and drawing in his sails instead of puff him up and spoiling him” (Plato 29). Here the talk takes a turn away from the initial premise, and Hippothales much and to a greater extent fades into the background as the dialogue progresses.\r\nBy this Plato is suggesting what Socrates the disposition will later state, that reversals attract; Lysis and Menexenus are opposite of Socrates in that he is old and wise and they are young and naïve. In this they benefit from each other, as Socrates is satisfactory to impart his methodic wisdom to the boys, and the boys in turn learn from him. This is one of the chief(prenominal) points in the conversation as the interlocutors attempt to get the essence of friendship.\r\nAnother of the main points is that of proficient knowledge in a particular subject, such(prenominal) as readiness or t final stage to a herd, a discussion that serves to illustrate further that the boys are slight wise(p) than their elders, and thus is why t here are limitations on their actions. Comparing the difference surrounded by a hard worker and a free person, Socrates shows Lysis that he is very interchangeable to a slav e in that he has umteen limitations imposed on his actions despite the fact that his parents love him dearly. Yet Socrates is able to get Lysis to admit the soil seat these limitations, â€Å"because I understand the one, and not the other” (Plato 27).\r\nBy getting Lysis to admit that he is not proficient in many things, and whence his parents learn limitations upon him out of love, Socrates is showing all the boys the difference between slavery and limitations. He is also making the boys seed to realize the base value of love behind curryting such limitations, which is the base value in friendship. Limiting one to their knowledge does not inescapably equal complete master over one uniform a slave.\r\nSocrates slowly builds on the main points so that the interlocutors can agree on the basics, which embroil the attraction of opposites, the attraction of sames to likes, limitations versus mastery (slavery), proficiency in knowledge of particular subject matters, an d the variations in which one can love and either be love or be hated by the beloved. He must(prenominal) show these boys how it is possible to love someone who hates the devoteeâ€for the beloved to hate his loverâ€in order to get to the essence of friendship.\r\nThe beloved who hates his lover is not necessarily a friend to his lover, hardly that does not negate the love the lover holds for his beloved, and accordingly the possibility of friendship does not necessarily follow. This is significant to the way the dialogue ends because it will illustrate scarce what Socrates means here. such(prenominal) a distinction is peradventure the closest Plato comes to getting at the essence of friendship. To love despite being hated is what makes a sincere friend possible.\r\nOne more point is the stock Socrates brings to light regarding the possibility of groovy and no- technical plenty being friends. This is an interesting sidetrack because it raises some smooth questions, such as, â€Å"Is it possible for thieves and liars to be friends?” Here Plato is able to elaborate on the idea of the intimately ingrained in all of his dialogues. Socrates brings up a good example of embodied health, desired in and of itself and therefore good.\r\nDisease is conversely considered evil because it aims to destroy bodily health. By association, the â€Å"medical arts” align with the good because it aims to restore bodily health. But without disease, there would be no medicine, and bodily health would be no issue and result in being incomplete good nor bad. Bodily health would just be. Similarly, without bad people there would be no good people, and there would just be people. The question of friendship would itself never arise.\r\nPlate takes aims to insure that the subject of his dialogue is relevant, and he seeks to prove its relevancy by showing how it is so. Such a sidetrack is important here especially for the youthful boys conversing with Soc rates, for it allows them to distinguish why such questions are important. Plato stakes the importance of philosophy as a whole in this sidetrack, the undercurrent movement the conversation.\r\nThe dialogue ends with Socrates and the boys no closer to the essence of friendship than they were at the beginning of the discussion. â€Å"For these fellows will say, as they go away, that we suppose we’re one another’s friends…but what he who is a friend is we yield not yet been able to discover” (Plato 52). Such ends all of Plato’s dialogues, but this one ends especially to topic at hand.\r\nThe attendants of Lysis and Menexenus uproariously and seemingly disrespectfully interrupt the conversation to tell the boys that it is late and they must get home. Socrates speculates that they are drunk because they are so boisterous, and stubborn to the crowd gathered around Socrates’ acantha the attendants to leave them be, â€Å"and we broke up our gro up” (Plato 52). After the whole discussion regarding the nature of friendship and what makes one a friend, the boys and the attendants are at odds with each other.\r\nThe reader must thus recall what Socrates mentioned before about the nature of slavery versus that of limitations, and how limitations are set because of the boys’ leave out of proficient knowledge in general. The lack is the reason why the boys run through attendants at all. The dialogue takes full circle in this way, while ending as it began. And yet they and even Socrates seem to choke up the reason why the attendants are yelling at all. The group heeded the attendants only when the attendants refused to go away at the goading of the boys, Socrates included.\r\nSocrates sought to show the boys, first Hippothales and then Menexenus and Lysis, what it takes to make a friendship with someone. The dialogue turns into looking for what a friend, at its essence, really is. In traffic with friendship, i t seems that the dialogue might have ended less aggressively, except that Plato made certain to state that though like may be resistant to like, like is more resistant to what is opposed to it. The attendants were the â€Å"others” while the group discussing friendship was a unit engaged in something they all found time worthy. For the attendants to disrupt the conversation in such a beastly way was to the group a signal that the attendants were opposed to the group, and therefore despite the reason for the attendants, the group felt a solidarity that was threatened by the attendants.\r\nDespite seeming like a terrible influence on the boys, Socrates rattling was able to get the group to display friendship at its finestâ€they wished to stay together to continue talk about the virtue of friendship. Though the boys were, at bottom, resisting the attendants’ orders, they were, more importantly, displaying the nature of friendship Socrates was unable to articulate. It would not have been possible to show this without first going through the ideas of proficient knowledge, opposites and likes, and whether bad people can be friends.\r\nWorks Cited\r\nPlato. â€Å"Lysis.” Plato’s Dialogue on Friendship. Trans. David Bolotin. Cornell: Ithaca, 1979.\r\n'