The Simplest Concept of Love: Classification and Elaboration - Essay Example

s Love has been defined and perceived by philosophers of difference era`s in a variety of ways. It can be quite enlightening how the simplest concept of love receives quite a complex range of classification and elaboration. This paper will aim at critically analyzing the views of Love by Plato and Solomon, both of which seem to defy each other while explaining the concept. In this context, Plato relates the concept of love with wisdom which is the highest form of love, i.e. philosophy drives love in a being where the sexual desires are driven by wisdom (Plato 84). In contrast, Solomon is of the view that that love is rather a convergence of various desires i.e. sexual, ethical or other practical emotions which makes love a matter of rational choice based on human`s subjective understanding of phenomena. Thus, it is clear that on one hand where Plato treats love as a philosophical entity, on the other hand Solomon takes love as reciprocity of emotions based on one`s past experiences. To further elaborate, it is crucial to discuss in detail separately how Plato and Solomon perceived the concept of love. In one of his speeches, Plato clearly reinstated the idea that seeking love is parallel to seeking wisdom. In other words, there is no wisdom in suppressing one`s sexual desires or other similar emotions, rather wisdom lies in training and refining these desires to acquire higher levels of wisdom (Plato 84-85). One of the speeches where Plato presented his idea of love was at a symposium which was central to the social life of Athens, during a discussion on the concept of love. During the speech, the central argument of Plato was to prove that love surrounds the concept of philosophy always, and can`t be understood otherwise. More so, he treats philosophy as the highest of the expressions that love may acquire and further prompts that this philosophy drives us in our everyday affairs (Santas 33). This could further be augmented by the fact that humans develop a sense of attraction and appeal to beautiful people or aesthetic music as a direct appeal for ‘beauty’ and philosophy is what directs one to desire what is considered to be beautiful. This concept can be related to Aristophanian view of love, alongside Socratian analysis of the conception of love. Aristophanes understands love as one of the forms of some myth. He presents his myth as the genesis of human race, where they had four legs and four arms, also two heads where a few were males and other were females, and yet a few hermaphrodites. Thus, we were conceived as twice the people but out of fear the Gods cut the humans into halves and ever since they are struggling to find their other halves. This is one of the philosophies acceptable to Plato which may seem to drive the emotion of love (Tuana 101-102). Similarly, the philosophy of Socrates may also be relevant in context to Plato`s understanding of love, since it is somehow driven from that. Socrates accredits Diotima of Mantinea for making him understand the concept of love, since she was the one who taught him all he knew about love. Diotima considered love as a bond between resource and poverty. Also, Plato borrows the idea of beauty from this concept since Diotima also associates love with beauty, which she parallels with giving birth and the process of reproduction. Thus, the desire for beauty is eventually refined until the highest form of love is perceived, as propagated by Plato. On the other hand, Solomon perceives love as a completely different phenomenon with a distinct understanding of a concept. In his view, love is formulated after many other different forms and desires converge, including sexual desires, ethical values or other practical implications. Thus, in this context, he undermines romance and fantasies which generally entail the concept and focus on rationality and practical side of the concept. According to Salmon`s views whenever one falls in love, it is a conscious or even a sub-conscious choice he or she makes (Solomon 101). In turn, these choices are driven by various other factors, where he doesn’t factor in irrational ones like chemistry and faith. To further elaborate on the point, Solomon`s view of love is inclusive of one`s desire for response. In other words, the essence of the entire concept of love is reciprocal where one responds to the innate desires. Furthermore, Solomon is of the opinion that love is more of an ‘emotional process’ than one temporary feeling as some may perceive. Thus, for him, love qualifies as a rather emotional process and not some temporary feeling. In this context, romance lies in the intertwining of two different lives which must not be confused with infatuation. Furthermore, the fantasies are differentiated from love in describing the initial stages of love. Solomon implies that the excitement in a relationship comes of adding coordination to loves which rather re-defines them over the choice of new lover. Pointing towards sexuality, Solomon again points out that sexuality in reality defines the nature of love. If sexual encounters are central to love, the love is bound to be embodied. Thus for him, sexuality is a real experience and isn`t merely limited to orgasms, in fact it is considered as a mode of communication (Solomon 77-79). Also, unlike how Plato defined love, Solomon refutes the argument that sexuality in any way can be associated to physical beauty. In other words, when an individual is in love, he or she is rather making a rational choice where he is also foreseeing the future and considering objective factors to make a wise decision. Commenting on the idea of love at first sight, Solomon projects the view that the idea is vague and over-rated since there is always more to love then just meager physical factors (Solomon 23). A person definitely brings other influences to a relationship even prior to that while choosing a mate. The society, personal choices as well as biology play a crucial role in this context, which draws a person towards a suitable match. Thus, Solomon clearly contrasts with Plato`s views since he fails to acknowledge the philosophical constraints behind the concept of love. Plato is one proponent who keeps reiterating that love parallels wisdom and one only extends the feelings of love and sexuality to acquire higher levels of wisdom and not to other desires. On the other hand, Solomon regulates the opinion that love transforms into its essential character by virtue of practical needs and desires where an individual rationally picks another individual to partner with based on his or her idea of sexuality, ethics and even other practical emotions. In this context, it would be reasonable to part ways with Plato and rather side with Solomon as he seems to explain the modern idea of how love is perceived. Though on one level, individuals may be seeking wisdom on pursuing other individuals solely based on aesthetics and beauty. However, the real love is one which is administered by other factors as well, factors practical and rational by nature. The Platonic concept of love may suit to an ideal world, however, in reality; it has taken a form where subjective realities are all that matter. The subjective factors, i.e. the social factors, upbringing, psychological makeup and even other accompanying factors seem to be shaping commitment and other forms of love. Thus, clearly, Solomon`s views seem to be more convincing in this context, while Plato`s views seem to be too platonic. Conclusively, Love has been defined and perceived by philosophers of difference era`s in a variety of ways. It can be quite enlightening how the simplest concept of love receives quite a complex range of classification and elaboration. This paper will aim at critically analyzing the views of Love by Plato and Solomon, both of which seem to defy each other while explaining the concept. In this context, Plato relates the concept of love with wisdom which is the highest form of love, i.e. philosophy drives love in a being where the sexual desires are driven by wisdom. In contrast, Solomon is of the view that that love is rather a convergence of various desires i.e. sexual, ethical or other practical emotions which makes love a matter of rational choice based on human`s subjective understanding of phenomena. Thus, it is clear that on one hand where Plato treats love as a philosophical entity, on the other hand Solomon takes love as reciprocity of emotions based on one`s past experiences. In this context, it would be reasonable to part ways with Plato and rather side with Solomon as he seems to explain the modern idea of how love is perceived. Though on one level, individuals may be seeking wisdom on pursuing other individuals solely based on aesthetics and beauty. However, the real love is one which is administered by other factors as well, factors practical and rational by nature. Works Cited: Plato, , and C D. C. Reeve. Plato on Love: Lysis, Symposium, Phaedrus, Alcibiades, with Selections from Republic, Laws. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2006. Print. Santas, Gerasimos X. Plato and Freud: Two Theories of Love. Oxford, England: B. Blackwell, 1988. Print. Solomon, Robert C. Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1981. Print. Solomon, Robert C. About Love: Reinventing Romance for Our Times. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988. Print. Tuana, Nancy. Feminist Interpretations of Plato. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994. Print. Read More