“That there is beauty, that the phenomena exceed science, is equivalent to saying: there is knowledge that the subject does not know but can only desire, or, rather, there is a subject of desire (a philosophos) but not a subject of wisdom (a sophos). Plato’s entire theory of Eros is precisely aimed at bridging these two divided subjects.
It is for this reason that Plato was able to connect the knowledge of love (sapere d’amore) to divinization. The latter presupposes a knowledge hidden in signs that cannot be known but only recognised: ‘this signifies that’.
Indeed, what the diviner knows is only that there is a knowledge that he does not know, from which it derives its association with mania and possession. It is this very knowledge that Socrates adapts by locating in a ‘non-knowledge’ the content of knowledge proper and placing it in a daimon – that is, in the ‘other’ par excellence – the subject of the knowledge that he professes (in the Cratylus, the word daimon is connected with daemon, ‘he who knows’). The ultimate question posed by the beautiful (and taste as ‘knowledge of the beautiful’) is, therefore, a quesstion of the subject of knowledge: who is the subject of knowledge? Who knows?”