Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

A place for impromptu lectures or debates. Stir up controversy, just like the forum's namesake, Kaiser Leto III the Bold!
Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

Right, This is an open class to all. You don't need to officially enrole in it, nor would I take attendance anyways. The only real requirement is that you stay ON TOPIC.. Off topic posts will be DELETED!...heh. yes. and I might edit out OT comments too.. I also remind people this is a DISCUSSION class. It depends on discussion, I will not hand answers to you.. you must find them yourselves. But I will be along for the ride.So.. Let us begin.. Section 1!Section 1: Types of Love. So, I guess I shall start with a question. What ARE the diffreent types of Love? I ask people to mention a few.. and perhaps touch on them a bit. Whoever gets more than 3 gets a cookie... Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Jadie of Goldshire
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:52 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Jadie of Goldshire »

Agape, Platonic, and Romantic? Jadie of GoldshireCarry on with your lives people...nothing to see here.

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

Yes, but what do those mean? As they stand they are just words, mot proly don't even know what they mean. I could same Sacratic love.. and it won't mean anything untill it is defined... (it was just a bad pun it's not really a term...)What do those mean? Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Chimaera the Wise
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 8:26 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Chimaera the Wise »

Quote:The ancient Greeks distinguished between three forms of love: Eros, Filios, and Agape.Eros was physical love, love of the body, desire and attraction and lust (Carnal); Filios was brotherly love, love of the mind, love for the family and for friends (Intellectual); and Agape was religious love, love of the soul, as in worship and religious devotion (Spiritual).I think the Bible mentioned those three, too.~Caesia Vox Consilii(Taken from pub9.ezboard.com/fshirero...=1&stop=20 )

Jadie of Goldshire
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:52 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Jadie of Goldshire »

*applauds*GO YOU! Jadie of GoldshireCarry on with your lives people...nothing to see here.

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

But what of romantic love? where would that fall? Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Kaiseress Alexia Mors III
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:14 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiseress Alexia Mors III »

Romantic love would proly fall under more than one of those catagories..it would proly fall under the Carnal (lust/desire) love and the Intellectual (friendship) love. By some combination of the both romantic love is created....by what proportions...i do not know...

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

But when I think of the types of love.. I think... Friendship, Lust, Romance and I guess Agape... 4 not 3.. putting romance in it's own catagory..For it is possible to love someone.. and not lust them... or even be friends with them.. but you still love them... Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Gryphon Avocatio
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:59 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Gryphon Avocatio »

I do not see a distinction between types of love--there is but one kind. It comes instead in degreesIt is sort of difficult for me to explain, but simply put, the love we feel for friends is not as strong as the the love we feel for those we are related to, at least under normal circumstances. Likewise (the hard part of the theory to explain), the love we feel for our families is not as strong as the love we feel for those we are romantically involved with. The force of love at the Romantic level is much more powerful than that at the Familial and Familiar levels. It draws two people together and without pre-marrital family ties bonds them together. The sexy part of the romantic degree of love is the openness that such a high degree is bound to bring. For certainly, lust occurrs without love, and of course, the romantic degree of love can occur without lust (and no, kissing and hugging is not considered lustful, otherwise the italians are in trouble). Sex does not occur because of love, but instead love gives an avenue to allow sex to happen which society has deemed proper and fitting.okay,,,I lost my train of thought... -Gryphon Avocatio- Lord Governor and Duke of all Yardistan - Minister of Research and Education, Shireroth - Shirerothian Elder - SAVE THE KIWI!! - Lover of Llamas "You're intense and driven. That can lead to a lot of good things. It can also lead to high blood pressure and a closing of the arteries." -Mr. Mathews -- "I think that people who drive Hummers are clueless, and that they just have enough money to advertise it." -Peter Camejo -- "Skanky-Deutch-Ho-Bag!!" -Mike

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

Accually.. I feel you raise some valid points and find your theory most interesting. But you say the the love for a friend.. and the love for family and the love.. of a lover are all to degrees.. increasing respectively. But what of cases, when on can consider their father, or mother.. not just family.. but a friend as well. Or when one considers their lover to be their friend as well. In fact many argue that the best romantic relationships have to have friendship. Than again, you may love your family.. but not really be "friends" with any of them... Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Gryphon Avocatio
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:59 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Gryphon Avocatio »

Hmm...actually, this leads me then to three conclusions.1) with each individual we fabricate mental differences based upon their relation to us. But that doesn't work...at least I think it doesn't.2) Familial love is not as strong as familiar love. This works. Let's take an average person...we'll call zir Kelly...Kelly doesn't necesarrily have to like her family and thus zie hasn't advanced zir love of zir family to that of familiar love. Kelly's bonds with zir parents are the result of much contact, thus it is an extremely familiar relationship which causes the bonds. Even if zie doesn't like zir parents, zie cannot say zie does not love them (unless there was some sort of traumatic incedent not intended for this thread). 3) My theory stands corrected. It was, afterall, just an idea. -Gryphon Avocatio- Lord Governor and Duke of all Yardistan - Minister of Research and Education, Shireroth - Shirerothian Elder - SAVE THE KIWI!! - Lover of Llamas "You're intense and driven. That can lead to a lot of good things. It can also lead to high blood pressure and a closing of the arteries." -Mr. Mathews -- "I think that people who drive Hummers are clueless, and that they just have enough money to advertise it." -Peter Camejo -- "Skanky-Deutch-Ho-Bag!!" -Mike

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

(The Zir's and Zie are throwing me off.. can we not use them.hehee)Indeed.. so... I am somewhat confused.. Define Familiar and Familial love? They look like the same thing.. or perhaps just the words do... Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Zirandorthel
Posts: 1390
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:15 am

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Zirandorthel »

But Kelly can be both masculine and feminine. Anyway I object to the use of an Irish person's name in this example. We Irish are full of love for everything, we aren't parent-hating spoiled little girls, as I'm sure that Kelly is!!Okay, okay, calm down, remember what the theraphist said, no more getting wound up about the actions of fictional people.Anyway, sorry for bumping a dead thread, but I think this discussion is interesting, and should be kept up.My opinions on love change by the way, to be honest. What I do know is that you don't necessarily have to like a person for everything they are in order to love them, in fact if you do, you'd better bet your love ain't going to last. People you love can often annoy the bejaysus out of you, in fact that is often all they do. Whereas a person you have a "crush" on, or vaguely fancy, to use the proper term, is often faultless in your eyes. If you find something awful about them, and it turns you off them completely, then it's just a passing fancy. But if you rationalise it somehow, or accept it as who they are, you've probably got the makings of love.I have very little truck with romantic love myself, as I suppose I've never really fully experienced it, or at least if I did I didn't notice. I've had plenty of flirtings, speculations, etc., but nothing so serious that, for example, if I were to find out that...goddamit I can't think of any Scottish names except Hamish, alright then, Hamish, my one-time homosexual crush, suddenly revealed a fascist tendency, that I wouldn't back off and go "Woah, betsie, what the hell am I doing in a homosexual relationship with a kilt-wearing Scotsman anyway? Back to the straight and narrow go I." That, I feel, is an element of love, to accept differences, weaknesses and flaws in others. These are weaknesses and flaws that you perceive, by the way, not weaknesses and flaws that society perceives. That's what "peace and love" means, isn't it? Don't fight everyone, and accept people for who they are. Sun Bless, Earth KeepZirandorthel I of TreesiaThe Golden DarknessNiirus TinenetuwarLet the fates burn!Edited by: Zirandorthel at: 12/18/03 3:18 pm

User avatar
Eriana Moon
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Santa Rosa
Contact:

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Eriana Moon »

I have but one comment for now besides that I agree that this thread should continue...When I was very little I asked my father (who is a therapist and spiritual teacher) what love is and he gave me an answer that I didn't understand at the time but have since striven to live by.He said "Love is when you care so much about someone that you want whatever is best for them even if it means letting them go"I don't really know where this fits in to the discussion but is an all-encompassing definition... Baroness of Lunaris in The Republic of ShirerothBaroness-Councilor of Tallandor-New Barbary in Treesia

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

See.. I've heard and I guess agreed with that phrase.. but also... I ponder this... "If you love someone, you would be willing to fight for them. " I guess if taken the wrong way, that could end up being stalkerish.. and I guess it only works if the person loves you back, and it is external forces keeping you apart.... like parents.. or society.. or distance.. or something...(This thread didn't die.. it was just waiting for a responce!) Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Jadie of Goldshire
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:52 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Jadie of Goldshire »

I think there are boundaries for all such sayings. If you truly love someone you are willing to fight for them for so long but if you see it makes them unhappy you are then willing to let them go. *sighs* So sad...but so..true Jadie of GoldshireCarry on with your lives people...nothing to see here.

User avatar
Eriana Moon
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Santa Rosa
Contact:

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Eriana Moon »

True true.... Baroness of Lunaris in The Republic of ShirerothBaroness-Councilor of Tallandor-New Barbary in Treesia

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

I guess that is a good merging of the two phrases... But where were we? Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Kaiseress Alexia Mors III
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:14 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiseress Alexia Mors III »

Perhaps, my dear, you should begin section 2 of your class....there is only so much to be said about what love is.... The Through-Marriage-Noble-Of- Brookshire

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

Oddly enough... The conversation was going in the dirrection I wanted.. than kinda died... Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Kaiseress Alexia Mors III
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:14 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiseress Alexia Mors III »

ah...i see.... The Through-Marriage-Noble-Of- Brookshire

User avatar
Eriana Moon
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Santa Rosa
Contact:

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Eriana Moon »

So revitalize it.... Baroness of Lunaris in The Republic of ShirerothBaroness-Councilor of Tallandor-New Barbary in Treesia

Zirandorthel
Posts: 1390
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:15 am

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Zirandorthel »

Well, we were talking about the different types of love, weren't we? What were they, romantic, agape and plutonic? And some people, namely myself, said that all love is the same, it's just the level of acceptance that goes with it that puts the definition in people's heads, and that if you are merely in lust or have a crush on someone, you'll forget their failings, but if you're in love, you'll embrace them. Then we had that phrase: you should be willing to fight for someone if they need it but if it makes them unhappy you should let them go, or something like that. Which way did you want to go? Sun Bless, Earth KeepZirandorthel I of TreesiaThe Golden DarknessNiirus TinenetuwarLet the fates burn!

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

I dont' know... it kinda hit a dead end in my mind... I'm not sure debate by Forum works to well... Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Zirandorthel
Posts: 1390
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 1:15 am

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Zirandorthel »

Too much scope for deviation. Perhaps an AIM chat could be arranged? Sun Bless, Earth KeepZirandorthel I of TreesiaThe Golden DarknessNiirus Tinenetuwar, Tivitha e'Taras

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

To small.. couldn't really get that many people on at one time... Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Jadie of Goldshire
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:52 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Jadie of Goldshire »

Do you know how hard that would be Eoin???I mean...geebaz...:-p Jadie of GoldshireCarry on with your lives people...nothing to see here.

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

Maybe we answered the question.... What is love? It's Caring for someone so much you are willing to fight all odds to keep them.. or.. if need be give them up.NOW!.. My Next class.. "How to get Women!" Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Gryphon Avocatio
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:59 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Gryphon Avocatio »

No one knows how Erik does it, but we all hope to find out!...I'm curious to see this... -Gryphon Avocatio- Lord Governor and Duke of all Yardistan - Minister of Research and Education, Shireroth - Shirerothian Elder - SAVE THE KIWI!! - Lover of Llamas Give me your child, and by the age of five, I can make him a priest or a thief or a scholar. - SCOTT: You know, I always joke about how nothing will ever be able to get me out of micronations...but...I think if my mother got into micronations that would get me out in a hurry. - GUILDENSTERN:We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Kaiser Mors III
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:49 pm

Re: Philosophy 103: The Philosophy of Love. (Section 1)

Post by Kaiser Mors III »

I don't know how I do it either... I still question if I do anything.. But.. I have theories.. Mortis BrookshireKaiser of Shireroth

Post Reply

Return to “Leto III Hall”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests