@article{ART003244305},
author={Kim minsoo},
title={The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus},
journal={Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University},
issn={1598-3021},
year={2025},
volume={82},
number={3},
pages={93-128},
doi={10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93}
TY - JOUR
AU - Kim minsoo
TI - The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus
JO - Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University
PY - 2025
VL - 82
IS - 3
PB - Institute of Humanities, Seoul National University
SP - 93
EP - 128
SN - 1598-3021
AB - In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates delivers the so-called first speech and the second speech. The first speech is a blame of the lover, while the second one is a praise of him, so that the two speeches appear to stand in opposition.
Immediately after the first speech, Socrates states that he has committed an act of impiety against Eros and, as a purification, delivers the second speech. At the close of the second speech, Socrates concludes his speech with a vow to Eros, asking for forgiveness for his earlier speech. This paper raises the following question: Was Socrates’ first speech, then, a wrong that should never have been made, because it constituted a blasphemy against Eros? As previous scholarship has pointed out, it seems evident both that Socrates repents of the impiety of his first speech and offers the second as an act of atonement, and that the first speech seems to have a certain role in the overall design of his discourse. However, Socrates’ repudiation of the first speech and the suggestions put forward by scholars that both speeches are indispensable for him appear to be in tension with one another. Why should we say that the first speech was necessary for Socrates, while he himself retracts its condemnation of Eros? My suggestion—that the first speech constitutes a blasphemy that Socrates should commit—aims to resolve this tension. Moreover, previous studies tend to emphasize that the mythical stories in Socrates’ speeches exemplify one of the requirements of a good orator, as Socrates himself describes.
While I find this general view probable, I suggest further that reading the first speech as a wrongdoing that Socrates must commit harmonizes well with the very criteria of good speech-making that Socrates states.
KW - The Phaedrus;Socrates;Necessary Blasphemy;First Speech;;Daimonion Sign;Multicolored Soul;Multicolored Speech;Necessity
DO - 10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
ER -
Kim minsoo. (2025). The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus. Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University, 82(3), 93-128.
Kim minsoo. 2025, "The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus", Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University, vol.82, no.3 pp.93-128. Available from: doi:10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
Kim minsoo "The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus" Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University 82.3 pp.93-128 (2025) : 93.
Kim minsoo. The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus. 2025; 82(3), 93-128. Available from: doi:10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
Kim minsoo. "The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus" Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University 82, no.3 (2025) : 93-128.doi: 10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
Kim minsoo. The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus. Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University, 82(3), 93-128. doi: 10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
Kim minsoo. The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus. Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University. 2025; 82(3) 93-128. doi: 10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
Kim minsoo. The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus. 2025; 82(3), 93-128. Available from: doi:10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
Kim minsoo. "The Blasphemy Socrates Should Commit in the Phaedrus" Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University 82, no.3 (2025) : 93-128.doi: 10.17326/jhsnu.82.3.202508.93
