Alcibiades enters Agadon’s house spontaneously from the street. His sudden appearance is a disruption and the symposium takes a new direction with his presence. He is not familiar with the monologues given by the other eulogists or by Diotima, whose speech presents the inner core of Eros as a philosophical being that – as alluded in many references – is embodied by Socrates. In contrast, Alcibiades‘ paradigmatic presentation of Socrates portrays an image of the philosopher in the profane world as reflected in the eyes of the politician. Thus, the reader suddenly finds themself in a theatrical scene, surrounded by various mirrors that reflect and depict in different ways the essence of Eros as a philosopher. The author places the key in the reader’s hand, but they must think for themselves. Diotima’s speech illuminates Socrates‘ inner nature, while Alcibiades speech deforms Socrates in a profane interpretation. Real and relevant events, significant gestures, Socrates‘ profound maxims, false interpretations, and niave remarks as well as the passion of the speakers blend together in a pathetic, one-sided conversation artfully written by Plato. In Alcibiades discourse some things are turned upside down. In addition to his subversive, disparaging intention, his cultural misinterpretation and his comparison of Socrates with the Sirens – and not least his limitation as a politician, who is not capable of understanding a lifelong commitment to philosophy – are obvious. When Alcibiades praises Socrates, he criticizes him; and when he intends to criticize him, he praises him.The comparison with the demigod Sileni/Satyr is an acclamation. Just like the figure of the Silenus from the sculptors‘ studios, he has an interior and an external dimension. Alcibiades praises his golden heart. The image of the Satyr-like speaker who mesmerizes his listeners is a compliment for the orator. However, only to commend the superficial effect of his rhetoric without comprehending and interpreting the philosophical Logos of its contents – as if it does not exist – is belittling. The description of Soctrates in battle, of his brave deeds, wonderful characteristics, and his unusual habit of meditating is a sincere fragment from the strategist’s discourse. The less Socrates‘ irony is understood, the more it is interpreted. It lies like a demarcation between the philosophers and profane opinions. Alcibiades interprets Socrates‘ disavowal of knowledge as a mask under which he conceals his true wisdom. Outside of philosophy, this remark is perhaps not entirely incorrect. Whereas a profane person believes in their knowledge, a philospher knows that they know nothing; from this point on, they begin to think for themself. The disavowal of knowledge is the zero hour of a commitment to philosophy. Here is where the profane belief in knowledge without research ends and independent thought – the pursuit of philosophy – begins. Because Alcibiades has not passed through the zero hour of philosophy (the disavowal of knowledge) he interprets Socrates‘ Logos and irony as feigned. Alcibiades tells of his erotic relationship with Socrates in a niave manner that exposes his vanity and selfishness. He intended to seduce Socrates, but was rejected instead. For Socrates, a love affair with Alcibiades expressed in mundane terms would be like an exchange of copper for gold, or philosophically like the exchange of a mere image of beauty for true beauty. According to the scala amoris, copper corresponds to the first level – the love of physical beauty – and gold to the final level – the observation of beauty itself (thus the lowest and highest levels). The former represents common Pederasty love, whereas Socrates‘ love – the love of true beauty – is the quintessence of philosophical Eros. There is an existential difference between both types of love, similar to the difference between profane and philosophical Eros. Alcibiades, however, who does not comprehend philosophical Eros, interprets Socrates‘ behavior as feigned and complains that he (Socrates) at first appears as a lover, only to be revealed as the object of desire who only wants to be admired. His critique based on resentment is high praise for the philosopher. Certainly it is true that Socrates despite his lover’s facade is really a seducer – except that his seduction is not an invitation to gratify sexual lust or selfishness, but instead to engage in philosophy and to observe beauty itself in whatever he contemplates. He seduces others into conversation and guides them to wisdom, which is his own allurer. The reflection of Socrates in the political eyes of Alcibiades portrays a deformed image of the philosopher; however, it is also an image that functions to contrast and even contradict Diotima’s concept, and thus is all the more exciting and illuminating for the reader. If Diotima’s speech presents the essence of the philosopher, Alcibiades‘ speech throws its shadow in the profane world. Both experiences are steps that lead one closer to establishing Eros as a philosopher.