WWWWWWWWdfdhile each character is trying to adhere to the constitution of a eulogy (except for Socrates, who abandons this method when it is his turn to give a speech) we find that with every narrative, we are presented with a new speech-giving technique; Phaedrus begins his speech with a discussion of Love’s origins and ends it with a retelling of Love’s presence in the lives of historical figures, while Pausanias puts use to categorization—he splits love into two groups: Common Love and Celestial Love—to give his listeners a sort of clear-cut definition of love’s duality. In Eryximachus’ speech, we see for the first time a speaker who relates the nature of Love to some aspects of his own profession, which occurs again in Agathon’s …show more content…
His “proof” of Love’s ability to inspire creativity is based on a generalized statement rather than a solid, and universally accepted truth: “[Love] has only to touch a person and, ‘however coarse he was before’ he becomes a poet.” (195b-195c). By referring to his own art-form, somewhat like Eryximachus does in his speech, Agathon is attempting to add substance to his argument. Ironically, however, the fact that his “proof” is based on so abstract a concept as poetry rebounds and emphasizes the demagoguery he is using to create his speech. In a sense, Agathon is building his ideas off of his first-hand experiences as a poet and as a creative human being.
This is one of the many moments in which Agathon’s career as a dramatist obviously influences the way he creates his argument. However, Agathon’s conclusion seems to be the most exemplary of his poetic and demagogic style. He begins his finale with the overdramatic line “I am moved to express myself in verse” (197c-197d). The exaggerated emotional nuance to the sentence seems almost mocking—as though Plato is poking fun at the tendencies of poets—thus also serving to underline the ridiculousness of Agathon’s closing statement (and his previous