change my view

164 readers

1 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

CMV - “platonic love” does not mean “non-romantic” (lemm.ee)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

…or at least only non-romantic love. I’m learning about history of western philosophy and understand that Plato’s Symposium describes his theory on love and that a person initially desires physical love, but then eventually grows to love things that feel fulfilling, and eventually love the ideal form of beauty itself. It seems like more of a spectrum/progression that includes romantic/physical love, not abstaining from it. “Platonic love” would seem to include physical love and doesn’t seem consistent with the dictionary definition of “friendship love.”

Any thoughts on that?

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It means that in popular usage and there's no utility in trying to change popular usage

"Awesome" and "awful" used to be synonyms. "Terrible" and "terrific" used to be synonyms. Popular usage is the real definition, not the word origin

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah that makes sense. If enough people say “I could care less” to mean “I couldn’t care less” for long enough, that’s the meaning to people.

I guess the etymology is just interesting.

[–] best_username_ever 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Romantic is not physical. Where did you get this idea?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Romantic love as a whole, as opposed to friendship love, family love, love of a passion, etc. Romantic love between partners conventionally includes some kind of physical love, does it not?

For example, Sternberg’s 8 Types of Love. “Passion: based on romantic feelings, physical attraction, and sexual intimacy with the partner.”