Phaedrus was a Real Person

From the knowledge i was able to obtain from the previous chapters i was constantly left with the same question of whether Phaedrus was a real ghost and whether he was present in the narrators life as a real person in the past. Chapter 6 not only answers my question, but also provides crucial information on some of the actions Phaedrus takes and what actions he excelled in.
So, i learned that Phaedrus was actually real person that the narrator respects for his ability to separate classical analysis from romantic analysis, but that is all that i was able to grasp form this complicated chapter. The narrator goes on and on as if he was a professor rambling about his ideas on analysis and analysis of the analysis and so on. For most of his teachings, he lost me and i was not able to understand why he was saying all of of this and for what purpose. I understood that romantic analysis deals with what is perceived on the outside and classical analysis deals with more reasoning and law... Ok, now what? Where is the nameless narrator taking us with all of this intellectual teachings relating back to Phaedrus? He then mentions something about a knife, that is able to cut and divide aspects of analyses, and how Phaedrus had great knifemanship and was able to separate classical and romantic analysis. I still could not connect with the reading and was left in a state of confusion. What has gone through the narrator's mind in this chapter?
I am eager to find out how the next few chapters of the book unveil about all this information provided by the narrator, and hope that they all do serve a purpose for the book, other than provide a boring reading segment.