10
CMV - “platonic love” does not mean “non-romantic” (lemm.ee)
submitted 7 months ago by loopy@lemm.ee to c/humanities@beehaw.org
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/32338762

…or at least only non-romantic love. I’m learning about history of western philosophy and understand that Plato’s Symposium describes his theory on love and that a person initially desires physical love, but then eventually grows to love things that feel fulfilling, and eventually love the ideal form of beauty itself. It seems like more of a spectrum/progression that includes romantic/physical love, not abstaining from it. “Platonic love” would seem to include physical love and doesn’t seem consistent with the dictionary definition of “friendship love.”

Any thoughts on that?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] loopy@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I think that’s a great way to put it, “Platonic ideal love.”

And I somewhat agree that there is a use for distinguishing from romantic love, but I think it would be even more helpful if there were more descriptions for the different kinds of love, like one for companionship love, loving a family member, loving a passion, etc. They somehow all get lumped together to “love.” Maybe that’s a limitation of English as a language too.

this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)

Humanities & Cultures

2538 readers
4 users here now

Human society and cultural news, studies, and other things of that nature. From linguistics to philosophy to religion to anthropology, if it's an academic discipline you can most likely put it here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
luckless@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org