-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 12441)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 719 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Love Lost Soul 16/02/19(Fri)20:05 No. 12441 ID: 048704

File 145590874143.jpg - (175.00KB , 1532x940 , storm.jpg )

Does love exist if we take away the innate, animal desire to breed?

Anonymous 16/02/21(Sun)20:55 No. 12442 ID: db8877

I'd say so, one can prefer the company of a specific person, or group over others based on sticky emotional biz

Anonymous 16/02/21(Sun)20:55 No. 12443 ID: db8877

I'd say so, one can prefer the company of a specific person, or group over others based on sticky emotional biz

Anonymous 16/02/23(Tue)01:26 No. 12444 ID: 0500c2

Depends what type of love you mean.

Even taking just romantic love, yes because homosexuals and asexuals exist and because not everyone has children. Sex and reproduction have been completely separate for humans for centuries.

Anonymous 16/03/24(Thu)07:01 No. 12478 ID: 9ba4e2

The only reason we have those sexual impulses is for reproduction, even of we ignore that purpose and abuse the impulses for pleasure.

Philosophy MojoClassy 16/05/01(Sun)12:16 No. 12534 ID: 164f31

Love and sex are different. Asexuality proves it. Love is just the desire to be with someone, to have support, sex is a primal desire.

Anonymous 16/05/13(Fri)22:14 No. 12562 ID: beb2f1

It is possible to love a person (or people) and to still want them to die out, yes. I would say that is the special circumstance under which there can be love but not a desire to breed.

Normally, love means pro humans which means pro breeding, but wanting someone you love to die out could make sense. Maybe you believe that the compassionate thing is death.

Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)08:01 No. 12732 ID: a6be23

Fantasies can be lived out in reality.
Love is just kind of Wittgenstein word game.

Anonymous 16/12/01(Thu)18:42 No. 12737 ID: 66a496


I love my mom and dad.

I don't want to fuck either of them.


Anonymous 17/03/02(Thu)20:40 No. 12841 ID: 54ff7b

Yes. From Plato's Symposium, one of the most wonderful works on love in philosophy:

“‘Briefly then,’ said she, ‘love loves the good to be one's own for ever.’

“‘That is the very truth,’ I said.

“‘Now if love is always for this,’ she proceeded, ‘what is the method of those who pursue it, and what is the behavior whose eagerness and straining are to be termed love? What actually is this effort? Can you tell me?’
“‘Ah, Diotima,’ I said; ‘in that case I should hardly be admiring you and your wisdom, and sitting at your feet to be enlightened on just these questions.’

“‘Well, I will tell you,’ said she; ‘it is begetting on a beautiful thing by means of both the body and the soul.’

“‘It wants some divination to make out what you mean,’ I said; ‘I do not understand.’

“‘Let me put it more clearly,’ she said. ‘All men are pregnant, Socrates, both in body and in soul: on reaching a certain age our nature yearns to beget. This it cannot do upon an ugly person, but only on the beautiful: the conjunction of man and woman is a begetting for both.1 It is a divine affair, this engendering and bringing to birth, an immortal element in the creature that is mortal; and it cannot occur in the discordant.

The ugly is discordant with whatever is divine, whereas the beautiful is accordant. Thus Beauty presides over birth as Fate and Lady of Travail; and hence it is that when the pregnant approaches the beautiful it becomes not only gracious but so exhilarate, that it flows over with begetting and bringing forth; though when it meets the ugly it coils itself close in a sullen dismay: rebuffed and repressed, it brings not forth, but goes in labor with the burden of its young. Therefore when a person is big and teeming-ripe he feels himself in a sore flutter for the beautiful, because its possessor can relieve him of his heavy pangs. For you are wrong, Socrates, in supposing that love is of the beautiful.’

“‘What then is it?’

“‘It is of engendering and begetting upon the beautiful.’

“‘Be it so,’ I said.

“‘To be sure it is,’ she went on; ‘and how of engendering? Because this is something ever-existent and immortal in our mortal life. From what has been admitted, we needs must yearn for immortality no less than for good, since love loves good to be one's own for ever. And hence it necessarily follows that love is of immortality.’

“All this instruction did I get from her at various times when she discoursed of love-matters; and one time she asked me, ‘What do you suppose, Socrates, to be the cause of this love and desire? For you must have observed the strange state into which all the animals are thrown, whether going on earth or winging the air, when they desire to beget: they are all sick and amorously disposed, first to have union one with another, and next to find food for the new-born; in whose behalf they are ready to fight hard battles, even the weakest against the strongest, and to sacrifice their lives; to be racked with starvation themselves if they can but nurture their young, and be put to any sort of shift. As for men,’ said she, ‘one might suppose they do these things on the promptings of reason; but what is the cause of this amorous condition in the animals? Can you tell me?’
“Once more I replied that I did not know; so she proceeded: ‘How do you design ever to become a master of love-matters, if you can form no notion of this?’

“‘Why, it is just for this, I tell you, Diotima—as I stated a moment ago—that I have come to see you, because I noted my need of an instructor. Come, tell me the cause of these effects as well as of the others that have relation to love.’

“‘Well then,’ she said, ‘if you believe that love is by nature bent on what we have repeatedly admitted, you may cease to wonder. For here, too, on the same principle as before the mortal nature ever seeks, as best it can, to be immortal. In one way only can it succeed, and that is by generation; since so it can always leave behind it a new creature in place of the old. It is only for a while that each live thing can be described as alive and the same, as a man is said to be the same person from childhood until he is advanced in years: yet though he is called the same he does not at any time possess the same properties; he is continually becoming a new person, and there are things also which he loses, as appears by his hair, his flesh, his bones, and his blood and body altogether.

And observe that not only in his body but in his soul besides we find none of his manners or habits, his opinions, desires, pleasures, pains or fears, ever abiding the same in his particular self; some things grow in him, while others perish. And here is a yet stranger fact: with regard to the possessions of knowledge, not merely do some of them grow and others perish in us, so that neither in what we know are we ever the same persons; but a like fate attends each single sort of knowledge. What we call “conning” implies that our knowledge is departing; since forgetfulness is an egress of knowledge, while conning substitutes a fresh one in place of that which departs, and so preserves our knowledge enough to make it seem the same.

Every mortal thing is preserved in this way; not by keeping it exactly the same for ever like the divine, but by replacing what goes off or is antiquated with something fresh, in the semblance of the original. Through this device, Socrates, a mortal thing partakes of immortality, both in its body and in all other respects; by no other means can it be done. So do not wonder if everything naturally values its own offshoot; since all are beset by this eagerness and this love with a view to immortality.’

“On hearing this argument I wondered, and said: ‘Really, can this in truth be so, most wise Diotima?’

“Whereat she, like the professors in their glory: ‘Be certain of it, Socrates; only glance at the ambition of the men around you, and you will have to wonder at the unreasonableness of what I have told you, unless you are careful to consider how singularly they are affected with the love of winning a name, “and laying up fame immortal for all time to come.” For this, even more than for their children, they are ready to run all risks, to expend money, perform any kind of task, and sacrifice their lives. Do you suppose,’ she asked, ‘that Alcestis would have died for Admetus, or Achilles have sought death on the corpse of Patroclus, or your own Codrus1 have welcomed it to save the children of his queen, if they had not expected to win “a deathless memory for valor,” which now we keep? Of course not. I hold it is for immortal distinction and for such illustrious renown as this that they all do all they can, and so much the more in proportion to their excellence. They are in love with what is immortal.

Now those who are teeming in body betake them rather to women, and are amorous on this wise: by getting children they acquire an immortality, a memorial, and a state of bliss, which in their imagining they “for all succeeding time procure.” But pregnancy of soul—for there are persons,’ she declared, ‘who in their souls still more than in their bodies conceive those things which are proper for soul to conceive and bring forth; and what are those things? Prudence, and virtue in general; and of these the begetters are all the poets and those craftsmen who are styled “inventors.” Now by far the highest and fairest part of prudence is that which concerns the regulation of cities and habitations; it is called sobriety and justice.

Anonymous 17/04/02(Sun)12:58 No. 12872 ID: ff57a9

Yes. You could go to a sexy sexy hair salon

Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:13 No. 12878 ID: 946ad3

It is valuable and fruitful to speak about it, and there can be given internal grounds for the introduction of the concept, relative to the linguistic framework of everyday, or common language. Hence it is justified.

Which is the alarmingly uninteresting stand point.

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post