One of the most famous passages from Plato's Symposium and the one that seems to receive the most attention in contemporary philosophy is the Ladder of Love of Diotima. Diotima explains that love is an ascent through a number of steps or steps on the ladder that ultimately leads to the Form of the Beautiful. This view of love is a bit problematic, however, and a number of critics generally accuse the Love Ladder of being instrumental, impersonal, and abstract. Supporters of Plato, notably Kristian Urstad, argue that this criticism is slightly flawed and defend Plato's love to the extent that it is not as instrumental and impersonal as is said. However, this effort is merely valiant since the Ladder ultimately proves to match his critique. There is little convincing evidence to the contrary, and the most problematic is Alcibiades' speech. There is one possible argument that may entertain Plato's critics, but only one prohibitive aspect regarding ascension: say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Revealing the Side of Plato's Critics Plato's critics argue that as we climb the first three steps of the ladder, from the love of one beautiful body to the love of all beautiful bodies , to love a beautiful soul, we use others simply instrumentally. That is, we love others as a means to an end. Critics point to the following passage from the Symposium: "He will fall in love with the beauty of an individual body...then he must see that the beauty of each body is the same." At this point he must be the lover of every beautiful body and proportion his passion for it by deeming it of little or no importance (210b). » Proponents of this interpretation conclude that we abandon the love of the lower rungs once we ascend to the higher levels. For example, if we are on the third step of the Ladder and we love beautiful souls, we will no longer love beautiful bodies. Plato's love is in this sense very exclusive. Additionally, as we move up, we remove the value or importance from those we once loved, making them interchangeable, almost disposable. As the ascension continues, from love of laws and activities, to love of knowledge, to love of the form of beauty itself, critics assert. this love becomes impersonal and abstract. During our ascension thus far, we have loved the beauty of the bodies and souls of others. As we move up the ladder, beauty no longer resides in concrete individuals but in abstractions such as laws, institutions, and knowledge. And when we finally reach the last step of the Ladder, Diotima notes that "the lover... will be freed from human flesh and dyes and all this mortal filth (211e)." Love according to Plato is a dehumanizing and impersonal quest to achieve Beauty in its most abstract form. We completely abandon people at these higher stages, and at the bottom rung of the ladder our love is no longer for anything in the world. What are the arguments of Plato's supporters Kristian Urstad argues that this popular reading of Plato is erroneous. Urstad thinks that Plato never wants us to abandon our lovers. It's a question of interpretation. When Diotima speaks in 210b, we should not abandon everything precious about them, but rather readjust it. We do not abandon our loved ones in the physical sense, but rather we abandon the limited framework in which we might see them. We simply free ourselves from the obsession ofthe physical beauty of our lover's body. When Diotima asserts that “the slavish love of youthful beauty is a thing of the past (210d),” we see this again. Urstad points out that what Diotima wants us to reject is specifically the love of a beautiful boy. And when we do, we begin to recognize what is truly valuable, what is truly worth loving – no longer bodies and souls, but rather more abstract characteristics. And it is these abstractions, according to Plato, which most resemble Beauty and which, in turn, are more deserving of our love (Urstad,35-38). Thus, Urstad invites us to see that in reality love is neither instrumental nor impersonal. We climb the Ladder but we do not turn our backs on our loved ones, on the contrary, we embrace them in a richer, more complete and more appropriate way. We can now recognize and appreciate our lovers in their entirety. Kristian Urstad's response to popular criticism is valiant, but it fails to convince us. This really becomes problematic with Alcibiades' speech and defeats any further attempts to defend Plato. Socrates is most likely on the fifth step but surely on the second half of the ladder, while Alcibiades who pursues Socrates is on the third. We can be sure of this since Alcibiades loves Socrates who is not aesthetic (he compares him to a satyr in 215b), he must therefore love Socrates for his beautiful soul. It is not Socrates' appearance but his wisdom that exerts an erotic attraction on men like Alcibiades. This is at least proof that the Ladder exists because Alcibiades passes beyond loving bodies and enters loving souls. But this demonstrates that Socrates, who is a higher rung on the ladder than Alcibiades, rejects Alcibiades' love. Do we see that Socrates loves Alcibiades here in a broader, more inclusive perspective as Urstad suggests? The answer is definitely no. Socrates seems completely unmotivated by physical pleasures and unresponsive to Alcibiades' sexual advances. Socrates further states that he is “not interested in exchanging his true wisdom for physical beauty…[or] gold for bronze (218e).” There is no scenario in which Socrates can love Alcibiades because Socrates loves wisdom exclusively. The proof is that Socrates doesn't sleep that night or has a hangover in the morning. Instead, he stays up and argues all the time, then goes about his usual business the next day. His love of wisdom is neither hindered nor interrupted by the distractions found in previous stages. Overall, Urstad isn't necessarily wrong, he just turned things around. As we move up the Ladder, we abandon all interest and value in those at lower levels. We certainly don’t love them more. However, the opposite appears to be true. Those on the lower rungs love those on the higher rungs in a richer and more complete way. Alcibiades loves Socrates not for his body but for his soul, for his knowledge of Greek costumes and laws and for his wisdom. Plato's critics are always right, but Urstad has put his finger on something that deserves to be illuminated. There is one argument I would like to offer that may shed new light on the discussion so far. This can at least entertain the idea that the Ladder is not so instrumental and impersonal. We have said so far that the opposite of Urstad is true; Alcibiades loves Socrates in a broader and more inclusive way, not the other way around. But will Socrates one day be able to love Alcibiades? Ascension can indeed be a mutual experience. Let's continue looking at Socrates and Alcibiades. Alcibiades.