But their speeches are completely different from one another, which makes it had to see which of them is actually true.
To many people, ruling out the speech of Aristophanes should be obvious. He is a comedian, and his speech is absurd on its face. He talks of men being four-legged, four-armed beasts that looked nothing like humans, which is ridiculous. But he explains desires, love, evil and the human nature in his speech, which is a remarkable feat for a comedian. However, his speech does not show the true nature or love. There is an absence of real philosophy in his speech. He does not seek out the real nature of love, but puts forward an explanation that captures the fancy of love, but none of its emotion or power. As such, he shows us only a small part of the nature of love.
The speech of Eryximachus should also be considered unworthy. He speaks of two different loves, the good and evil kind. The balance of these two is describes true love. In fact, his whole speech is full of this notion of harmony and balance. But love is never balanced or harmonious. Part of what makes it powerful and wondrous is that it is so unpredictable. He cannot have the essence of love, therefore. Phaedrus claims in his speech that Love is the eldest of gods, and inspires humans to acts that they could normally not complete. His speech is, in fact, very good and very believable. The problem arises when he says, "For I know not any greater blessing to a young man who is beginning life than a virtuous lover, or to the lover, than a beloved youth. (Symposium, 20)" The moral value of this sentence is questionable. It basically condones, even promotes, homosexuality and the abuse of children. While these were accepted practices in Ancient Greece, they are considered unnatural today, and criminal in the case of children. With such a shaky moral standpoint, Phaedrus cannot be correct in his description of love.
