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?
Ah right, when I wrote that I hadn’t clicked through to the original post. Didn’t realise both the original and the x-post were by you.
I guess that depends on what you think “should” be. The term “platonic love”, as it is currently popularly understood, refers to something really useful. I think there “should” be a word for that. It’s something that people need to refer to much more often than they need to refer to what Plato meant by the term.
I think the common phrase “platonic ideal” fits well with the original version of Platonic love. The platonic ideal of anything is it’s most perfect form, encompassing all that that thing is. The original Platonic love was the platonic ideal of love, at the top of the ladder above mere carnal attraction or romantic affection.
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.