Rules: A Key Part Of The Platonic Type Relationship Definition

Click here: => coecavide.fastdownloadcloud.ru/dt?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzA6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZHRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6Mzc6IkRlZmluZSB0aGUgdGVybSBwbGF0b25pYyByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAiO30=


You don't worry about them leaving you like you would a lover. It applied to all forms of relationships.

In some respects the dialogue differs from any other Platonic composition. Each step closer to the truth further distances love from beauty of the body toward love that is more focused on wisdom and the essence of beauty. So please correct my ignorance with information which is clear.

Rules: A Key Part Of The Platonic Type Relationship Definition

If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the about philosophy content on Wikipedia. This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's. This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's. 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. 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. 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. 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. Not just between a man and a woman, but EB1911 might not have wanted to say so? Dates back to Sir William Davenant's Platonic Lovers 1636? It does nothing for the article. Who are some and who are others? Misuse of the term upregulation which is related to increased density of dopaminergic receptors. Whose opinion is it? Certainly not that of individuals who do not believe in the spirit or in a spiritual world. In addition, this sentence is confusing. This use of i. 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. 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. 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? How can that be? Johhny-turbo 00:01, 24 December 2005 UTC Hehehe. Still unfixed more than a year later... But then that oasis won't give you any. It should say who sees this as a paradox. I'd leave out the last paragraph entirely. I'll try re-wording it, and I'll remove the last paragraph. See if you think that helps. 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. See what you think of the present version. Thanks for your work on this article! How can a reputable encyclopedia allow such flagrant innuendo in the educational intercorse that occupies its pages? Let's stay with the topic, shall we? To not be biased, I posted a section below on Platonic Love. 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. Cute, but not overly gay. Well, yeah REALLY gay, but in an adorable way. You can watch it on Veoh. For example 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 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 , 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! 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? Also see the of Socrates about love and pederasty. In ancient times in greece there was no community i. Socrates-Alcibiades, but as I mentioned above, it is misleading since many people today haven't read first the article about to understand this kind of desire. This is a collaborative effort. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Niether book said that. I have copy edited the statement to fit within the statements made in both books. This article has way too much jargon to be accessible to the reader. 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. The wiki dictionary states this meaning then points to this confusing mess. 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. Is this not slightly off topic? I know its related, but really. Does it let anyone understand platonic love? I vote to help clarify the article by deleting it. 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? 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. Nietzsche, inspired by Plato's Symposium, used the German word for sublimation, and Freud adapted it. The concept of 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. I have therefore added and as associative links. I wonder if the redirects and should point somewhere else, perhaps , or possibly or , although I think these are less helpful.

I know its related, but really. Philia is the type of love that is glad towards friendship or goodwill, often is met with mutual benefits that can also can be formed by companionship, dependability, and trust. A secondary meaning that also stems from the name of the philosopher describes feelings or a relationship that are characterized by an absence of romance or sex a resistance relationship in this sense might simply be called a friendship. If there are trips you made, see the memoirs over and over again. The Three Phils are strictly platonic. When you love someone romantically, your relationship is based on compromise. Pausanias, in Plato's Symposium 181b—182amet two types of love or Eros—Vulgar Eros or earthly love and Divine Eros or.