Talk:Platonic love

Love and sex

I fail to see the connection between "love above sex" and Plato's symposium. I think the original author of the article is confused about the public misuse of the term and the actual philosophical notion. If I'm not mistaken, love, as described in Plato, has little to do with transcending sex drive, but more about the pursuit of truth in the sense of platonic forms. CasperRAWR —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC).

• Platonic Love (2005)
  • Entry: Platonic Intercourse is True to Platonian Philosophy

Physiological coupling between two entities on a level of intimacy between pair-bonded individuals has been historically referenced as an opposing engagement to the philosophy manipulated by observers of Platononian perspective in reference to Plato's comments on sexual desire. Sexual desire can then be defined, in this context, as a lust for the experience of having specific regions of the human anatomy stimulated solely for the purpose of chemically hormonal increases and dopaminergic upregulation. Without taking into account the contextual associations and dependency-bondings that occur in relation to the sensations integrated with these reactions, the subject being bonded with is seemingly irrelevant. However, with this said, sexual desire and physiological coupling are entirely separate events. Sexual desire has intentions of being relieved of dependency on chemical addiction; Physiological coupling is a bonding being confirmed between paired individuals. In physiological coupling, the subjects involved are just as important as the chemical exchanges occurring between them.

The term was first used by Plato when commenting on the dangers of chemical dependency to sexual experience. Predecessors of Platonian Philosophy then termed non-sexual exchanged between individuals as "Platonic". However, since Plato was referencing the desire and not the exchange, it is more accurate to say that what "Platonic" precisely means is: The act of not depending on chemical addiction occuring during sexual experiences.

To be even more accurate, in reference to the intention of the statement: The act of not allowing chemical dependencies during sexual experiences interfere with productivity and critical thinking ("higher loves").

Using the intended definition of "platonic", displayed above, makes it possible to apply the term "platonic" to an act of physical bonding that is seemingly sexual. Since dopamine uptake has been researched as directly proportional to reinforcement learning, the chemical reactions that are involved with physiological coupling can also be used as way to control when reinforcement is distributed. The act of integrating the chemical reinforcement associated with physiological coupling for the purposes of learning, unification, and communication combines both the physiological aspect of mutual embodiment with the mental processing during productive critical thinking. Therefore, the term "platonic intercourse" can be accurately precise and a true-to-platonian-philosophy (TPP) statement. Yama Thi Khuu 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Yama Thi Khuu

Hmm... I'm thinking that we're ignoring an aspect here. After all, for a few centuries it was thought that spouses should have a strong Platonic relationship. Certainly they HAD sex. As I recall, the point of Platonic love was that it wasn't about sex, unlike Erotic love. Note how Erotic urges were supposed to be pushed into chaste "Courtly" love.Dunkelza

Not just between a man and a woman, but EB1911 might not have wanted to say so? -- The Anome

Eh? Dates back to Sir William Davenant's Platonic Lovers (1636)? Translated versions of Don Quixote (with the first book pulished in 1604 and the second part in 1614) use platonic lover(no clue if the Spanish version uses it) Specifically chapter 25(XXV) paragraph 41, where Quixote says,"...for my love and hers have been always platonic..." I used the gutenburg text. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/9/9/996/996.txt -Anonymous writer

I removed yonder wandering sentence. It does nothing for the article. Who are some and who are others? --VKokielov 06:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"dopaminergic upregulation" .. that doesn't make sense. Misuse of the term upregulation which is related to increased density of dopaminergic receptors. --Anon 4 Aug 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.13.5 (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual?

The opening sentence of this article describes platonic love as "a deep and spiritual connection." Whether or not platonic love is "spiritual" seems like a matter of opinion to me. Whose opinion is it? Certainly not that of individuals who do not believe in the spirit or in a spiritual world. Thirtysilver (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fails to explain modern usage

To much of this article discusses the history surrounding the term while only the first sentence really attempts to explain what it means in the modern sense. In addition, this sentence is confusing. More should be added in the intro in order to explain, in a few sentences, what it means when a modern author uses the term "platonic love" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.1.219 (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence reaction

-Is the parenthesis saying that a non-sexual friendship is overtly romantic, or that a non-sexual friendship is not overtly romantic?
This use of i.e. is akward, but it essentially means romantic yet non-sexual, not implying anything about the each type of relationship.

-[W]hat does "subject to gender pairings" mean?
It means that you forgot to include 'not,' which removes limits on any sexual preference, meaning it could be between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. It does not imply anything about romantic or deep relationships in the sense that the others are or are not dependent upon a member's sex, but merely qualifies something that may or may not be present in the description of the other types of relationships

-Either way the writer is trying to include multiple possible gender pairs in a sentence that purports to describe one "simple example."
It is, admittedly, not 'simple' per se, but it is a generic description of the idea, a formula for the idea if you will, which states that it is a deep romantic, yet non-sexual, relationship between two people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WonRei (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence

"A simple example of platonic relationships is a deep, non-sexual (i.e. overtly romantic) friendship, not subject to gender pairings and not excluding close relatives."

This sentence doesn't many any sense. Is the parenthesis saying that a non-sexual friendship is overtly romantic, or that a non-sexual friendship is not overtly romantic? Either way it's false, since romance can be non-sexual (as in courtly love) and sex can be non-romantic (as in a casual hook-up). And what does "subject to gender pairings" mean? Is the writer trying to say that platonic love can happen between any combination of genders, or that it need not be between an opposite-sex pair (as if romantic love were limited to opposite-sex pairs)? Either way the writer is trying to include multiple possible gender pairs in a sentence that purports to describe one "simple example." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.198.25 (talk) 12:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes section mentions only negative quotes. How can that be? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 18:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove some of them until someone get's some positive quotes. Johhny-turbo 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe. Still unfixed more than a year later...

I've taken the liberty of removing these quotes:

1. "Platonic Love is like getting laid. Without getting laid."
2. "Platonic love is like finding an oasis in a desert. But then that oasis won't give you any."

They do not contribute to the article. Jellocube27 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation

The paradox section is all unsourced interpretation, and therefore POV. It should say who sees this as a paradox. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:41, 23 December 2005 (U

I think that with the recent additions we should have enough sources showing the conflict between the two contrasting readings of the term. Haiduc 12:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but there are still a few problems, imo. The last paragraph ("In order to clarify. . .") basically says that "some" believe something, which is a so-called "weasel word" and is unsourced. I'd leave out the last paragraph entirely. As for the second-to-last paragraph ("Thus the term. . ."), it also has a few problems. I'll try re-wording it, and I'll remove the last paragraph. See if you think that helps. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your changes make sense, but I think we need to find a way to re-integrate the "Platonical love" argument. This is what the article in Practical Philosophy has to say about it: In the popular mind Platonism is associated with the concept of Platonic love, which is understood today as a non-sexual relationship between heterosexual friends. As the concept of Platonic love is far from doing justice to Plato’s complex theory of love and sex, French scholars found it helpful to distinguish between amour platonique (the concept of non-sexual love) and amour platonicien (love according to Plato) (Gould, 1963, p. 1). See what you think of the present version. Haiduc 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks great. Thanks for your work on this article! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke, surely!

"Platonic love in its modern popular sense is an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not penetrate" Oh, come on! How can a reputable encyclopedia allow such flagrant innuendo in the educational intercorse that occupies its pages?

but it's funny, no one's dying, let it go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.11.147 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FAITH & RESPECT

You clearly go against the principles of Wikipedia to mock someone's opinion, let alone point out their flaws...criticism should not be tolerated, but I admire your knack for tracking down obscenities and innuendos. Let's stay with the topic, shall we? This "reputable" encyclopedia exists because of us. (To not be biased, I posted a section below on Platonic Love.)

--Sir Tyler Cole 10:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Platonic Love in Japan

In Japan, it's known as "Puratoniku Ai" or "Platonic Ai." It's an extremely popular thing in manga & anime, esp. in shoujo stuff where men are depicted soft, emotional, & dramatic (& women are too, to an even grosser extreme). In manga, doujinshi, anime, & novel, platonic love is used hevily to describe a near-insectuous relationship between close relatives, such as siblings. In yaoi (wich is targeted at women) it's same-sex 90% of the time, aka boarderline homosexual/incestual love. They also use it to describe the intence but position-respected relationship between a person & their bodyguard.

A good example of this relationship is in the anime Princess Princess. Its about boys that dress as girls to be mascots for their all boys school. By the end it's a bit more than just a breif thought of love between two of the "Princesses". Cute, but not overly gay. Well, yeah REALLY gay, but in an adorable way. You can watch it on Veoh.com. Reccomended!151.202.6.65 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Masuricurl

"especialy when might be otherwise"

??? --VKokielov 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading!

I do not wish to insult anyone but the whole paragraph "Paradox" is very very badly written about the sexual desires of Socrates, Plato etc! I mean when someone reads the following sentence:

("...all belonged to the community of men who desired boys...") 

thinks that these men desired only boys and this is far from being true!

For example Socrates was a married person and he admired women equally with men! An example of this is Sappho! On the other hand Plato was also admirer of women and in fact he was the first philosopher who claimed that women can be equally good philosophers as men!

The following lines are from the article about The Republic of Plato:

That "good city" is depicted as being governed by philosopher-kings; disinterested persons who rule not for their personal enjoyment but for the good of the city-state (polis). The paradigmatic society which stands behind every historical society is hierarchical, but social classes have a marginal permeability; there are no slaves, no discrimination between men and women.

Also please carefully read the following paragraph, which shows the two opposite views that Plato had about this and I will post a part of here:

Later, however, in his Laws, Plato spoke up against the decadence into which traditional Athenian pederasty was sinking, blamed pederasty for promoting civil strife and driving many to their wits' end, and recommended the prohibition of sexual intercourse with boys, laying out a path whereby this may be accomplished.

However, I am new to Wikipedia and before I make any changes I would prefer to initiate a discussion as to what's the best way to say these things! A.Cython (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we to understand that Socrates had an affair with Sappho?!

I see no problem indicating in the article that the interest in boys was not necessarily exclusive.

What has the good city to do with Platonic love?

Haiduc (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• To the best of my knowledge there are no evidence that Socrates had an affair with Sappho but he did admired her though (e.g. calling her the 10th mousse)! Also see the opinions of Socrates about love and pederasty. In ancient times in greece there was no community (i.e. a subgroup of a society) of men desiring boys, but that was part of the whole society, a common belief/tradition of the education of young men.
• It is true that there was an interest in boys or young men i.e. Socrates-Alcibiades, but as I mentioned above, it is misleading since many people today haven't read first the article about homosexuality (especially towards boys) in ancient times to understand this kind of desire. You might say it "was not necessarily exclusive", but to me and some other people (that I have showed them) it was clearly misleading and they agreed with me that it needs rephrasing!
• About the good city: as I said, Plato in his ideal city, he was against pederasty, which contradicts what it is written!

What I am suggesting is that the first part of the paragraph "Paradox" to be rewritten in such way that maintains the meaning, but at the same time it does not mislead the reader about historical figures' sexual perspectives! A.Cython (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please proceed. This is a collaborative effort. Haiduc (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary meaning

While i understand this article deals with the original greek definition of the term and is properly sited and seems nuetral and encyclopedic.....I was wondering if the contempory definition shoulf have a small note of mention or a section. Unless I missed this, it could help avoid the current vandal who keeps removing referenced information.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncomfortable with this subject? Edit something else!

Frankly I do not approve of this article falling under the scope of Project LGBT Studies. It seems to me that there is little here but the same sex situation of sometype of relationship. HOWEVER, (big however, LOL) the subject is not really about a sexual relatioship and further research should be done by editors to understand what some of this is discussing. I can see it was attempted to be explained yet I feel it falls short of a clear enough explanation because it relies to heavely on the sex.

I am not worried about a debate on the coverage of the project, it is fine with me if everyone else wants it, but my point is my being uncomfortable with this page carrying the badge of the gay community when it is not truly an article about gays, the gay community or gay history, doesn't mean I can just change it on a whim. This subject is more akin to class association, but my opinion is just that, mine.

Anyway, there seems to be a vandal among us, editing here that continues to change the core subject by deleting information regarding the practice of the sexual relationship between Plato and young boys. It is extremely understandable. Must people don't have a clue about this subject and even many scholars have a hard time describing it properly. But the editor is still vandalising the article by changing it's lead and core subject to fit something so sterilized it completely looses it's original meaning.

TheDecanome continues to remove accurate and fully referenced material in the lead. To say it is against consensus falls very short of what he is doing. His edits remove material in place of about two words to remove material the editor obviously disapproves of.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that I have discussed this with the editor and while showing him the references I noticed that they actualy did not mention man-boy in the books used. While the editor had other ideas in mind his removal of that phrase was actualy correct and I have made the copy edit to reflect what was said by both authors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

get your LGBT crap (yes) out of my platonic relationships.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.91.223 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes in lede

I opened the complete link to Pederasty in ancient Greece and copy edited the sentence to be more accurate to that link and exchanged the word "Love" one time in the lede to Eros where it was appropriate.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations

It apears that the citations lack proper formating. No page is listed where the information is found and the ISBN number is lacking as well. I will take a few moments and adjust these.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cushy job

You know, Platonic love is a hell of a lot more than what Cushman thinks it is. He does not belong anywhere near the lede, which has to be a editorial distillation of the topic, to be supported later with citations such as you presented. Otherwise it sounds like this is something Cushman made up. Haiduc (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of made up...the references to the mention of man-boy in reference number two and three do not support the claims. Niether book said that. I have copy edited the statement to fit within the statements made in both books.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

could be romantic

sometimes the friend may have deep feelings for someone but the other wants to keep their relationship platonic or both love each other but do not share those feelings.--Sweetheart2009 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009

Definition?

• Has anyone noticed that the article never actually says what platonic love is? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. This article has way too much jargon to be accessible to the reader. bibliomaniac15 04:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• So what the hell is "Platonic love"? Are there are many definitions as societies have defined it differently? Are they bastardisations of what Plato came up with? Then explain them clearly and how they differ. My socially driven and probably misconceived view is that Platonic Love is the relationship between two people that is unsexual adoration. That view could be totally misconceived but after reading the article i'm more inclined its how we should see as a man, other men as equally beautiful as women but in a non-sexual way. Which doesn't make sense to me because women are beautiful partially because it is in a sexual way. So please correct my ignorance with information which is clear. I'm not really convinced I've understood the article at all.124.171.185.36 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• I am concerned about this article's clarity, no clear definition of platonic love is given, yet many details and permutations are discussed, leaving me confused as originally thinking platonic love meant non-sexual love. The wiki dictionary states this meaning then points to this confusing mess. Perhaps a disambiguation is needed between the modern definition of 'platonic love' and 'Plato's philosophy of love'
• Just wanted to say I agree with all of the above comments. Not only does this article not define Platonic love as it related to Plato's theories, it doesn't explain how the modern definition came to be.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.136.218 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it on about?

Very confusing and unclear. I remember there being a good article here a year or so ago, now it's unreadable un-summarised academic nonsense which most wikipedia readers will not find useful and will just be confused by. Fancy giving a proper definition of platonic love anywhere?

Why is the Close Relationships Bar Here?

How does the "Close Relationships Bar at the side of the article enhance it? Is this not slightly off topic? I know its related, but really. Does it let anyone understand platonic love? NO! I vote to help clarify the article by deleting it.Knightt (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Would the Plato bar be more appropriate? Pollinosisss (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has this article been altered? Why has "above sex" been replaced by "non-sexual" in the first sentence?

Why has this article been altered? It initially said "platonic love is a chaste but strong love that is above sex". of course, it is not always possible to give an exact definition of human emotions, motives and spiritual issues, and the words may have multiple meanings. But i think, the previous definition gave a good idea of the core meaning, derived by Plato's "The Symposium" (which does not necessarily mean exactly that). What do you call that type of love anyway (deep, unconditional love that transcends the flesh- a rare love that is depicted in works like Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities") if not platonic love? It is used liberally in a not-so-profound sense to define affection between one's friends and family, but how can one say that that is all it stands for? It is a deep, spiritual love that does not sink to the level of carnal pleasure -which is why it is "above sex", not merely "non-sexual". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalice Deathray (talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples?

Any real life examples of platonic love? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.141.39 (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the Friend zone a Myth?

Out of curiosity, is it a stereotypical point of view that when you agree to being friends with someone of the opposite gender, that it's basically never going to progress to romance from that point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.237.112 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The stereotypical view is that men and women can never just be friends because there is always the possibility that they will have sex with each other (at least if heterosexual, otherwise open to engaging in sexual activity with the opposite sex, and one is not considered too old by the other). Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the stereotypical view is that if you claim to be friends with a MOTOS, either you secretly fancy the person, or it's liable to turn into something more. But it's just a stereotype, and I don't agree with it at all. Some may affirm that they want to remain just friends; others may indeed develop into something more; yet others would just keep the options open. There's just no rule about it. — Smjg (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Platonic love is erotic love sublimated

the article, and the Talk Page, seems to entirely miss the central idea of true Platonic love, that it's sublimated erotic love, i.e., sexual, specifically (male) homosexual erotic attraction.

the article seems to miss the idea of sublimation entirely. Nietzsche, inspired by Plato's Symposium, used the German word for sublimation, and Freud adapted it.

the lover resists the desire to act on his desires via his body, and instead channels them to into other, higher, outlets.

2601:18A:8100:33E0:78D3:C42E:7AD4:D559 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Michael Christian

Same gender sex

Could you tell why the lead refers to same-gender sex? And which part of Plato's work explicitly refers to same-gender sex? No sources are given for this. Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Group Project

Myself and 4 other university students will be attempting to improve and expand this article over the next few weeks as part of a project for our anthropology class. - Oxidental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxidental (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Queerplatonic relationships

The concept of "queerplatonic relationships", which has repeatedly added to and removed from this article, appears to originate from the asexual/aromantic scene; however, it also seems to be connected to relationship anarchy. It describes a relationship (between people of any gender) that is considered much closer, deeper and more intense than a regular friendship, but is not of a sexual nature and is not perceived as "dating" by the partners, either (and therefore not described as "romantic love", either, because the element of falling in love – compare limerence and puppy love – appears to be missing, and perhaps the aspect of passionate love too). The concept of companionate love sounds like it might be what partners in a queerplatonic relationship experience. (It also occurs me that the partners in such a relationship may sometimes compare their relationship to love between siblings – chosen siblings, so to say.)

The most similar concept already described on Wikipedia (even in its own article) I can find is romantic friendship (which sounds itself paradoxical, but appears to be a long-established concept), despite having "romantic" (or alternatively "passionate") in its name. I have therefore added romantic friendship and relationship anarchy as associative links. I wonder if the redirects queerplatonic and queerplatonic relationship should point somewhere else, perhaps romantic friendship, or possibly relationship anarchy or Romantic orientation#Aromanticism, although I think these are less helpful. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Queer platonic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Queer platonic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Queer platonic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Circular reference

Section 3.1 Definition starts with a definition with a footnote that references ScienceDaily. However, the definition at that link references this article. So this is a circular reference, which is useless.

Incoherent section on "virtue"

Reading through the subheading "virtue" under heading "Classical philosophical interpretation", it is hard to see what the author of this section intended, in fact it appears almost ungrammatical.

First of all, what is "virtue" according to "Greek philosophy"? - did the author intend to state, "virtue according to Platonic philosophy"?

Second, "...how closely reality and material form equates good, positive, or benevolent" - is this intending to say that material form equates to goodness, etc., or that material form somehow aids the equation of good, positive, or benevolent? This section is not necessarily incoherent, but it is unclear what is actually meant. It also appears irrelevant to reference linguistic relativism in the context of the Symposium, unless someone is capable of demonstrating why it is relevant.

Third, the citation given in the last fragment simply makes no sense in context. The quote seems to equate beauty and goodness, which is common enough when considering the question of transcendentals (that "goodness" and "beauty" are transcendentally convertible, along with "being"), but the interpretation given by the author of the wiki section seems to be that virtue is being equated with "the good." Yet nowhere here is virtue even mentioned. If the author was attempting to show that "good" had been substituted incorrectly for "virtuous", then it needs a greater elaboration. ShawKeogh (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Exlusion of Islamic views and interpretation in "historic views"

Essentially stated in the title of this topic. The works of Aristotle and Plato were essentially as important to middle ages Islamic societies and the faith's development as the works of st Paul's were for early Christianity! Essentially stated in the title of this topic. The works of Aristotle and Plato were essentially as important to middle ages Islamic societies and the faith's development as the works of st Paul's were for early Christianity! And despite this, the article neglects to mention anything about the middle East and it's scholar's interpretations or the resurgence of popularity of classical philosophical/sociological works being due to the crusades.

I'm not stating that middle ages Islamic Philosophy and/or its interpretations of classical philosophers is superior to European/Christian Renaissance scholars, I am putting forward the view however that this article should have the warning of "this article does not represent a global view". 92.237.155.25 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)