Social Question

luigirovatti's avatar

How can the dichotomy between platonic love/romantic love be solved?

Asked by luigirovatti (2003points) September 27th, 2016

Suppose on Earth, there are no bad people. You could love (platonically, of course) all mankind. But if you love platonically all mankind you cannot dwell on specific relationship with all the people on earth (which are good), because simply these people are different from you. So, the dilemma: should we love platonically all humankind at expense of specific relationship with a person (friend, girlfriend, ecc.) or should we have relations with specific people without loving all humanity? Because having both is a contradiction. Up to you to decide

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

anniereborn's avatar

I am not understanding why they are mutually exclusive.

luigirovatti's avatar

It’s impossible to love specifically all people, because some have ideas, behaviors ecc. different from yours, so it’s impossible to love them specifically as a friend, parent, lover, ecc. Then, how can you love platonically the same people you can’t love specifically?

cazzie's avatar

This is a false dichotomy. Love is really awesome that way. I’m an athiest… but I do pull out the odd proverb or Beatitude… even the odd Matthew. Matthew 5:43–47 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[ and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Even pagans love their enemies.

zenvelo's avatar

In keeping with @cazzie , the Greeks solved this with coming up with four facets of love: eros, agape, philia, and storge. And they are not exclusive, they coexist rather well.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The premise is obviously flawed. It amounts to: “Since I have a special affection for my children, all others are worthy of indifference.” The Greeks themselves torpedoed this so called riddle, with the simple observation “that ain’t the way it works.”

janbb's avatar

@zenvelo But I didn’t love The Three Storges!

luigirovatti's avatar

@stanleybmanly: classic indifference.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There are things worthy of indifference.

kritiper's avatar

Defining what love is like defining what “God” is: Ask 1000 different people and get 1000 different answers. I might love you without knowing you and I might love my girlfriend and I might love making love to my girlfriend and I might love my dog. I love my car and I loved my old ‘69 Chevy pick-up. But it isn’t all the same!

CWOTUS's avatar

Suppose Earth were not as it is …

In that case, I suppose that you can suppose whatever you like, and not just what you’re supposed to suppose.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Most people can’t cope with the details and backstory of that many people. My limit is 150 at any one time.

Sneki95's avatar

Uh…..they work together very well.

It’s like @kritiper said, there are a lot of different types of love.

You can love someone specifically, but it doesn’t mean you can’t love everything and everyone else.

luigirovatti's avatar

If you have to choose between a person you know well, and care for, and, say, ten people you don’t even know, what would you choose? Platonic love here goes haywire.

luigirovatti's avatar

I’ve clarified the question because asked to by the moderators.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther