What are your thoughts on platonic love?

[AceLurker1]

Quote

"Platonic love in its modern popular sense is an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not enter, especially in cases where one might easily assume otherwise."^[9] "Platonic lovers function to underscore a supportive role where the friend sees her or his duty as the provision of advice, encouragement, and comfort to the other person [...] and do not entail exclusivity"

 

Quote

 

Seven types of love

Throughout these eras platonic love slowly was categorized into different subsections, which were: Eros, Philia, Storge, Agape, Ludus, Pragma, Philautia. Eros is a sexual or passionate love, or a modern perspective of romantic love. Philia is the type of love that is directed towards friendship or goodwill, often is met with mutual benefits that can also can be formed by companionship, dependability, and trust. Storge is the type of love that is found between parents and children, and this is often a unilateral love. Agape is the universal love, that can consist of the love for strangers, nature, or god. Ludus is a playful and uncommitted love, this is focused for fun and sometimes as a conquest with no strings attached. Pragma is the type of love that is founded on duty and reason, and one's longer term interests. Philautia is self-love and this can be healthy or unhealthy; which can be unhealthy if you are hubris if placed ahead of gods, and it can be healthy if its used to build self esteem and confidence. These different forms of love can be mistaken as any of the listed different loves. There is a type of porosity that allows love to filter through one type and into the next, although for Plato love is to be of the beautiful and good things. This is due to the ownership of beautiful and good things equates into happiness. All beautiful and good things sit below truth and wisdom, for everyone looks to truthful and wise people as the truly beautiful for the effort of being considered beautifully good, and this is exactly why Plato suggests that love is not a god but rather a philosopher.

 

Quote

One of the complications of platonic love lies within the persistence of the use of the title itself "platonic love" versus the use of "friend". It is the use of the word love that directs us towards a deeper relationship than the scope of a normal friendship.

-Wikipedia

 

I've seen platonic love described as "connecting using the higher chakras instead of the lower ones" or "connecting over the Divine".

 

1. What do you understand by platonic love (what are the dynamics of a platonic relationship)?

2. Have you ever been in a platonic relationship? If yes, do you prefer it over other types of relationship/love? Why/ why not?

3. In your relationships (platonic, sexual, etc...) which type of love of the seven ones mentioned above is more prevalent?

4. What is your interpretation of "connecting using the higher chakras instead of the lower ones" or "connecting over the Divine"?

5. In a relationship what do you consider to be the highest form of intimacy? Why?

5.a. Do you think platonic love is unfulfilling? If so, what is it missing?

6. Which of the 7 types of loves do you understand platonic love to be based on?

7. Opinion on the 3rd quote?

 

(This thread is open to asexuals and non-asexuals alike, naturally)

 

[Ceebs]

Non-ace here.

 

1. You love someone without a romantic or sexual element to the connection.

 

2. Yes. No I don't prefer it, I don't prefer anything. They're just different types of relationships.

 

3. Philia I guess, since you said we're supposed to be taking all relationships into account here.

 

4. Not much. I fully understand the concept of chakras but place no importance on such things. I get what they're going for... an intellectual/emotional/spiritual connection vs. "just sex", however I've never had a relationship in which the sexual component was "just sex", it's based on the depth of the other types of connection, so it's not a dualistic thing to me.

 

5. In what type of relationship? In a romantic/sexual relationship, I think sex with deeply-felt emotions and a strong underlying interpersonal connection is the highest form of intimacy. Complete and open honesty and sharing of personal stuff (emotions, experiences, thoughts, etc.) is up there too, but sex has a physical element to it that makes it particularly intense. In a platonic relationship, I guess the openness and honesty things still, but minus any sexual desire between the two people.

[Ceebs]

Platonic love isn't unfulfilling unless it's not platonic on one side of the equation, and then one person is suffering through unrequited feelings of a different type of love. A strong platonic connection, when that's where both people are at, should be very fulfilling though.

 

I guess philia, for the second question?

[Ceebs]

I think we have friends we truly love, platonically, and then we have friends where we don't feel something as strong as love but still value them in our lives. I'm not sure how the term "platonic love" makes anything complicated. I feel platonic love for close friends, and it is indeed something deeper than with casual friends.

[Smol Fox]

Ace o/

 

1. A love unassociated with romantic or sexual attraction/desire.

 

2. Yeah I have. Not my favourite kind of relationship, but then again I tend to avoid most relationships anyway.

 

3. Philia and pragma in my most intimate relationships, but Ludus makes up the majority.

 

4. Sounds fancy. I'm guessing that's like spiritual, emotional, and/or mental attaction. I feel like most people have some of this in their relationships, unless you literally view someone as an emotional punching bag or sex doll or something.

 

5. Depends on the type of relationship. Each relationship is founded on and maintained by different types of love. For me personally, a strong emotional/alterous/spirtual (whatever you call it) bond is the most intimate.

 

5a. Really depends on the feelings of those involved. If one side feels platonic while the other feels romantic or sexual, then platonic love may seem inadequate. But to the platonic party, the person expressing only romantic or sexual interest in them may be the inadequate one, so it's relative.

 

6. Philia probably

[Smol Fox]

7 hours ago, AceLurker1 said:

Ironically, in those cases both parties would feel that the other is "emotionally detached". I wonder which is right.

Both and neither. Everyone expresses their emotions differently. Say you have one person who exchanges gifts to express their love and another person who values physical touch. The former may see physical touch as lacking since it's an intangible thing that lasts only as long as the act itself. The latter may find gift-giving materialistic and emotionally shallow, feeling as if their partner thinks their love can be bought. Each form of expression is only inadequate in the context of a mismatched relationship, because each individual has certain needs that aren't being met. Individuals with compatible desires won't feel that the other's love/expression is inadequate. There is no official ranking of the importance of the different types of love/attraction/expression except to the individual.

[Joe the Stoic]

Platonic love is vapid and loathsome.  Aristotelian love is the one true way.

[what the face]

I view love, in all forms as seeing/appreciating the divine or god in another.

If we are all in god's image then we ought to love all.

 

Distinctions and categories do lead to confusion between persons.

Much of the dance of love involves a sorting out or a coming, sometimes to a 

mutual love relationship.   Sometimes not.

 

And these distinctions can change with time, 

with another chance to dance,

love redefined.

 

But love is there, in all

 

 

 

[Karst]

I think society tends to privilege romantic relationships and family bonds over platonic relationships, which is unfortunate and inconvenient.