Why we Should Love the Non Lover
Loving happens as natural as the rising of the sun. At some point in our lives, we all profess to love someone or something. For as long as the word and notion of love has existed, there have been innumerable attempts to explain just what love is and whom we should or should not love. Even the Bible, commands its believers to love their neighbors, family, friends, and enemies as they love themselves. The Phaedrus, one of Plato's greatest dialogues delves into the love in terms of who would be best for us to love and why. Phaedrus makes mention of a speech by Lysias, whom he strongly admires, that states that one should strive to love a non-lover, someone who does not and will not love you in return, but why? In this paper, I will discuss Lysias' idea of loving and who we should love and then I will present Socrates' refutation of this argument and why we should love the non-lover.
Love is a complicated subject, which cannot be explained in just one sentence, which justifies why Lysias' speech was so verbose. Phaedrus and Socrates go off to the forest to discuss the speech, away from the city and politics, which allow relaxation when conversing about the topic at hand. In general, Lysias firmly believes that one should love someone who does not love them in return. But, he didn't stop there, he gave several reasons why this is the best way to love someone. The first reason that one should love a non-lover is because the lover is driven by passion, and the non-lover associates with the beloved out of free will (231a). So that, the lover is inclined to do things with and for the beloved because of his feelings of affection, and due to those feelings only. Without passion, the lover w...
... middle of paper ...
...from anyone else. The non-lover will keep anything and everything that goes on between the two of them because he is not driven by fiery passion. In this manner, the beloved does not have to worry about rumors about him being spread around, for the less said, the less people will know. In this way, the non-lover avoids altercation with the beloved and avoids arguments.
In dealing with arguments, the fights of lovers are the most intense (232b). When loving a lover, the lover, driven by passion and full of emotion, becomes confrontational about unnecessary things in a frequent manner. In that loving the lover, the beloved feels attached to the lover and feels that he maybe obligated to answer certain questions and live up to certain criteria and when he fails to do this, the lover is then upset and begins to question the beloved at which point a quarrel begins.
Love is heavily intertwined with being human. Indeed, everyone doubtlessly experiences some form of love in their life, be it towards objects or people. This love is organized into three types; eros, philos, and agape. Eros, likely the most common kind of love in western culture, denotes sexual desire, or lust. Philos covers love among friends, or love for the purpose to gain something. Agape, the rarest of all, encapsulates selfless love, or the willingness to die for another. All forms are present within the three works, Voltaire’s Candide, Cervantes’ Don Quixote, and in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, albeit in differing levels.
Humans have many ambitions in life, yet most people’s ambitions fall into one spectrum. This spectrum? Love. People often express their desire for love, yet don’t realize that love is carried with them throughout their lives. In today’s society, ‘love’ is a commonly used term to describe a relationship based on affection for another person. However, love has many levels of complexities. Ancient greeks recognized the various forms love can take. Some of which include eros, storge, and philia. William Shakespeare, in his classic drama “Romeo and Juliet,” and other authors use eros, storge, and philia to explore the complexities of love and its effects.
In this paper, I am going to use concepts from the social exchange theory and relational dialectics theory to describe my relationship with my boyfriend. First, I will discuss the cost and rewards of the relationship. Second, I will then discuss the dialectics of autonomy and connection followed by, openness and protection.
The ideas presented by the patrons in Plato’s Symposium differed immensely. All pertaining to a main topic, being love, but none having the same conclusion. Two speeches in particular, those of Pausanias and Aristophanes, seemed to oppose the most. Many elements of their arguments contradicted that of the others, none more than the origin of love and the whom is the eromenos of love.
Love and affection is an indispensable part of human life. In different culture love may appear differently. In the poem “My god my lotus” lovers responded to each other differently than in the poem “Fishhawk”. Likewise, the presentation of female sexuality, gender disparity and presentation of love were shown inversely in these two poems. Some may argue that love in the past was not as same as love in present. However, we can still find some lovers who are staying with their partners just to maintain the relationship. We may also find some lovers having relationship only because of self-interest. However, a love relationship should always be out of self-interest and must be based on mutual interest. A love usually obtains its perfectness when it develops from both partners equally and with same affection.
In classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
Nearly everyone experiences the feeling of love. Whether it’s for another person or for food, almost everyone feels love during their lifetime. In the play Antigone, the writer, Sophocles, illustrates a very important fact regarding love: love is our most important and most dangerous motivation for doing anything, and without moderation, love can be deadly.
Second, a human must be able to love. Without love, there is no suffering. Love does not have to mean sexually, it can mean a mutual bond between friends, family, and for oneself. In William Shakespeare’s Othello, Othello’s love for Desdemona is a strong, passionate love as is Desdemona towards Othello. Desdemona says:
Love is arguably the most powerful emotion possessed by mankind; it is the impalpable bond that allows individuals to connect and understand one another. Pure love is directly related to divinity. Without love, happiness and prosperity become unreachable goals. An individual that possesses all the desired superficial objects in the world stands alone without the presence of love. For centuries love has been marveled by all that dare encounter it. Countless books and poems have been transcribed to explain the phenomenon of love, but love surpasses all intellectual explanations and discussions. Love is not a definition, but rather a thought, an idea. This idea, the idea of love, burns inside us all. Instinctually, every soul on Earth is
The word “love” has always caught attention with its meanings. There have been many definitions used for this word throughout history, beginning with its start during the ninth century. With the examples of current use(from Urban Dictionary, Twitter, a student survey, a song, and a film) it is obvious that the definition of this word has been lost in translation in many different ways. Looking closely at the synonyms, along with the history and current use, the true definition is clearly seen through a usual worldly haze.
In Plato’s work Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausania, Eryximachus, Aristophane and Agathon, each of them presents a speech to either praise or definite Love. Phaedrus first points out that Love is the primordial god; Pausanias brings the theme of “virtue” into the discussion and categorizes Love into “good” one or “bad” one; Eryximachus introduces the thought of “moderation’ and thinks that Love governs such fields as medicine and music; Aristophanes draws attention to the origin and purposes of Love; Agathon enunciates that the correct way to present an eulogy is first to praise its nature and gifts. As the last speaker, and the most important one, Socrates connects his ideas with Diotima of Mantinea’s story of Love’s origin, nature and purpose. Different from the earlier five speakers who regard Love as an object and praise different sides of it, Socrates, referring to Diotima’s idea, considers Love as a pursuit of beauty gradually from “physical beauty of people in general” (Symposium, Plato, 55) to the “true beauty” (55).
Love and beauty is another theme that recurs in Greek discussion, especially in Plato’s dialogues. In the Phaedrus and especially the Symposium, Plato discusses the nature of erotic love and give the argument for the ultimately transcendental object of love: Beauty. In both dialogues, Plato presents Socrates as a quintessential philosopher who is a lover of wisdom, and through his great speeches we are able to grasp Platonism and Plato’s view on the interesting theme.
to find the truth in love. He was the “ideal lover of wisdom”, never allowing
An interpersonal conflict may not be immediately thought of as such in certain events, especially involving “scarce resources” (Hamlett, Interpersonal). For example, two good friends may want to buy the same used car. They are good friends and would never undermine each other’s chance for happiness and could not imagine a conflict between themselves. Yet, there is only one car available. In order for either one to obtain the car, the other cannot. Therein lies the conflict. One individual must go without realizing their goal or interest for the other to realize theirs.
We have learned countless things about each other and continue learning new things. Our conflicts make us stronger as well as the way we learn to resolve them. We have learned that compromising is better than competing to figure out who can win the argument. Building and trying to keep a relationship isn’t an easy task. Various relationships have fallen apart after countless number of fights. Knowing how to resolve conflict is an important part of the relationship as well as communicating. The rewards are very pleasing of course, but we can’t forget about the demands that come along and not just expect to be receiving without giving back to one another. Having an egoless partner has helped me to not only learn how to become a better person, but to cherish the knowledge that there is someone always there for me through thick and thin. As the days pass by my relationship with Jorge grows stronger and stronger as we try to improve our