Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

Love is a combination of lust and trust. Desire for love -- either to be loved or love someone -- has an essential physical component that accompanies the emotion and thought of desire (for love). Love is said to make the world go round. Nobody ever said that the desire for the beautiful and the good makes the world go round. Of course, "love" requires an object. Free-floating objectless love is... what?

I tend to discount the ancient philosophers when they say things like "non-lovers desire the beautiful and good". Or that the beautiful and the good is loved by all.

Sure: who wouldn't desire what they think is good? Who wouldn't desire what they think is beautiful? Quite possibly Plato, you, and me would not find the same things good and beautiful. I suppose Plato and Socrates spent some time coming to a pat conclusion about what is supposed to be considered beautiful and good. You and me might be in complete agreement with Plato and Socrates, or not. Plato and Socrates also might not have experienced sexual/love desire the same as me.

Love is a combination of lust and trust. — BC

Isn't love more than lust, more than physical or sexual desire? In the dialogue Phaedrus, Plato made the ironic argument in two speeches that the lover ought not to be trusted or preferred because physical desire can wear off.

"Everyone sees that love is a desire, and we know also that non-lovers desire the beautiful and good. Now in what way is the lover to be distinguished from the non-lover?" — GregW

I do not agree with that statement because I experience love as a given. Walking along the river on a beautiful sunny day can intensify that feeling of love. I feel loved simply because I feel love. I can totally relate to the Christian notion that God is love, even though I think the Biblical explanation of God. Satan and sin are messed up. Believing in a personal God has unpleasant consequences, necessitating deifying Jesus as a personal savior.

I don't know how it is for others, but when I was young, I was much more needy than I am now. I would expect a person's notion of love to change with age.

Nobody ever said that the desire for the beautiful and the good makes the world go round. Of course, "love" requires an object. Free-floating objectless love is... what? — BC

That is an interesting observation about beauty. However, I think free-floating objectless love is enhanced by beauty. Like when I walk along the river on a sunny day, I can not help but be overwhelmed by a good feeling and feel gratitude for this experience. Beautiful, sacred places stir the feeling that all is well and manifest a feeling of joyfulness. That is not born out of desire but the opposite, appreciation of what is experienced.

Isn't love more than lust, more than physical or sexual desire? — GregW

Love is more than lust. It can also entail comfort, security, warmth, and acceptance. The 'feeling' of loving or being loved isn't exclusively a sexual sensation but may be accompanied by it. We are embodied beings; thought, emotion, and physical response are combined. Even the sense of God's love may have a sexual dimension (thinking here of the Ecstasy of St Theresa of Avila). She wrote:

I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.

"The body has a share in it." That is the case, and the necessity of our embodiment as physical beings. What St. Theresa experienced included 'awe' -- a sense now totally degraded in that damned dead-horse-word "awesome". But 'awe' means "a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder." Run of the mill love or sex may be 'awesome', but a terrific experience of love might invoke actual awe.

Like when I walk along the river on a sunny day, I can not help but be overwhelmed by a good feeling and feel gratitude for this experience. — Athena

We have an inventory of feelings, senses, and emotions which arise from experiences in the physical world as well as from encounters with ideas, such as those found in great speeches, powerful poetry, or moving novels, and science books. Perhaps what you feel on your sunny river walk is not love, but not therefore worth an iota less. I also am moved by beautiful landscapes as well as by wild storms -- thunderstorms or blizzards. Even an ordinary day with wind and strong gusts can be a significant experience. A good storm is physically exciting, objectively frightening, and altogether fascinating.

These are experiences not to be 'desired' but to be had when they are available.

I don't know how it is for others, but when I was young, I was much more needy than I am now. I would expect a person's notion of love to change with age. — Athena

In my youth, sex had an intense urgency; love was more intense than, too. Our "first love" is remembered until we die, and that intense feeling is, perhaps, once and done. The love between mates may cool yet deepen over the decades, and if death parts us from them, we remember them with painful loss for a long time, also till we die. Now, in my old age, sex isn't urgent at all, and in love I feel complete. I have loved and been loved in return. I live alone now, content. I suppose I am waiting to die -- though I am certainly not rushing it.

Indeed, I work at delaying it. I am still delighted to learn new things. My current book is "The British Are Coming: From Lexington to Princeton". I've heard American history since 7th grade, but now I'm finding the (new) gory details of the revolution from both British and American POVs fascinating. It took 78 years to get here, but I'm glad to have arrived.

"love" requires an object. — BC

I think free-floating objectless love is enhanced by beauty. — Athena

I agree with you both. Love is the love of something and not of nothing. I believe that something is beauty. Beauty can be manifested in a man, a woman, or a Grecian urn. And if the beautiful is also good, then love is the love of the beautiful and good. My question is, what is the nature of the beautiful and good that is beloved?

a Grecian urn — GregW

Keates and his overwrought urns and lines of verse!

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

I've always been reluctant to embrace this statement. Truth defining beauty defining truth: one large abstraction defining another even larger one.

There are many manifestations of beauty for which we should be grateful. Men, trees, mountains, planets (now that we have closeups), galaxies, flowers, horses, houses, towers, oceans and beaches, lakes, rivers, springs, cars (mostly in the past--now they all look alike), sculptures, paintings, film, photos, music (especially music), and more -- much more.

But is a beautiful horse, car, or tree "truth"? Was Keates thinking of a beautiful object conforming to Plato's forms? What about horse shit, car wrecks, and rotten trees? Bombed out Gaza is not beautiful, but there is a grave truth there.

Does Keates think that scientific truths are beautiful? (Don't know enough about the man.) What about Germ Theory; fission; DNA; gravity waves; the speed of light; continental drift? These are, as far as we know, real, true, and reliable. Are they beautiful in the way Greek sculpture, architectural proportion, urn-shape and urn-decoration is beautiful?

Perhaps. But "truth" seems dicier than beauty. Most people would probably agree that Mount Fuji is beautiful. Suppose it blew up (it could; it's considered an active volcano.). Suppose many were killed in the blast. Would it still be beautiful?

Truth, as Trump has demonstrated, is slippery. I think it is true that Donald Trump's policies are a threat to democracy and our economy. Millions will dispute that view. So is it true?

Concerning the object of one's love, one is painstaking.

for example: https://www.sorefingers.co.uk

Other body parts can become painful when other activities are beloved.

But love pays the price, no matter how high.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. — Jesus

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A13&version=KJV

There is a secular myth, that Jesus tricked Judas into betraying him, thinking he was magic and would escape, in order to forestall a populist rebellion against Rome, using Jesus as a figurehead - ie he sacrificed himself to prevent a massacre.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,

I too cannot accept Keats' proclamation that beauty is truth. Beauty is not the same as truth. I believe that truth and beauty are a part of good. Now the obvious question is raised. What is the nature of the good of which truth and beauty are a part? I would welcome any insight that you may have.

Concerning the object of one's love, one is painstaking. — unenlightened

Unenlightened, you are advocating that love is painstaking and sacrifice.

Love is a combination of lust and trust — BC

BC, you are advocating that love is lust and trust.

I feel loved simply because I feel love. — Athena

Athena, you are advocating that love is feeling.

You are saying these are parts of love. But what is love as a whole? In what way is love to be distinguished from its parts?

You are saying these are parts of love. But what is love as a whole? — GregW

Well if you want to theorise, I might say it is the transcendence of identity. That is, whereas rationality identifies a self and acts in its own interest, love is not interested in self as a limit to action. Because it goes beyond the limits of self it is beyond the ratios of comparison and attains to the immeasurable. In this sense, to answer you question in a way satisfactory to the rational mind would be to set a limit to the illimitable.

Never mind my "lust and trust" quip. The person who said it was describing the transition from eros to a more complex love, casual to more serious. I like it because it belongs to an important time and place for me (gay liberation in the early 70s).

But to get serious, we need to reference some Greek terms. It isn't that the Greeks experienced emotions that we do not, but they developed a vocabulary which is maybe more efficient than English's terms.

philia (affectionate friendship)
eros (sexual desire)
agape (unconditional love)
storge (familial love)
Philautia (self love)
mania (obsessive love)
meraki ("to do something with soul, creativity, or love)
ludos (playful, noncommittal love - from Latin)
xenia (the moral obligation of hospitality)
eroteuo (this verb can mean to love, say, an artwork, or a house)

These are not different parts of love, they are different kinds of love. All the various kinds of love, in your phrase "love as a whole", are what attaches us to one another, and without which we would not exist.

It takes a lot of love to make us human.

A human infant will not thrive without loving care--not just food and warmth, but touch, stimulation, eye to eye contact, and so on. From infancy onward, love in its various kinds builds the complex fabric of both personality, mind, and society.

We have now distinguished the lover from the non-lover, but the eternal questions remain. What is love? Is love a mighty God, or is love a desire? And what is the beautiful and good that is desired and beloved by all? — GregW

I'm in my fifties and so far absolute categories of 'good' and 'beauty' have never really come up or mattered. It strikes me that these adjectives are contingent qualities varying between eras, cultures and individuals. Love? I think we feel emotional attachment toward people that can't be readily put into words. It's more like a commitment, a bond with intimacy and concern. You are raising idea of transcendentals - I have no good reason to believe in ideals or values which transcend ordinary experince or material reality.

deleted response

I'm in my fifties and so far absolute categories of 'good' and 'beauty' have never really come up or mattered. — Tom Storm

Tom, I will save the discussion of absolute categories of good and beauty for later. But good and bad, beauty and ugliness are subjects that we experience that govern our everyday lives. I am leaning into Plato's claim that love is a desire and what love desire is the beautiful and good.

But good and bad, beauty and ugliness are subjects that we experience govern our everyday lives. — GregW

Well, it is the depth of that relationship that is the issue. Delicious, revolting, warm and cold are also experiences 'governing our lives' in your words. I'm not so keen on this word 'governing', it lends a particular resonance. I would prefer 'influences our choices'.

Because it goes beyond the limits of self it is beyond the ratios of comparison and attains to the immeasurable. In this sense, to answer you question in a way satisfactory to the rational mind would be to set a limit to the illimitable. — unenlightened

You are raising idea of transcendentals - I have no good reason to believe in ideals or values which transcend ordinary experince or material reality. — Tom Storm

I do not agree that love is immeasurable and illimitable. Love is an experience shared by all. I am leaning into Plato's claim that love is a desire, a desire for the beautiful and good.

I do not agree that love is immeasurable and illimitable. Love is an experience shared by all. I am leaning into Plato's claim that love is a desire, a desire for the beautiful and good. — GregW

Well the best of luck with that. We don't have to agree.

Well the best of luck with that. We don't have to agree. — unenlightened

Fair point.

I am leaning into Plato's claim that love is a desire, a desire for the beautiful and good. — GregW

Plato believed in transcendentals (the forms in his language) and thought there was an ideal form of love (along with beauty and goodness). I don't.

Love is an experience shared by all. — GregW

Do you know this for certain? I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it.

Plato believed in transcendentals (the forms in his language) and thought there was an ideal form of love (along with beauty and goodness). I don't. — Tom Storm

I can understand why you don't believe that "Love is a mighty God".

some people never experience love — Tom Storm

I can't understand why you believe that "some people never experience love". Are you saying that some people never experience the desire for the beautiful and good?

some people never experience love
— Tom Storm

I can't understand why you believe that "some people never experience love". Are you saying that some people never experience the desire for the beautiful and good? — GregW

These are two separate matters. Yes, I am saying that some people never experience love. As for the beautiful and the good—no doubt some people attempt pursue these abstract notions through things like porn or sport, perhaps?

As for the beautiful and the good—no doubt some people attempt pursue these abstract notions through things like porn or sport, perhaps? — Tom Storm

The beautiful and good are not abstract notions. Beautiful and good things exist. It can be experienced through art, music, and human interactions like friendship and marriage. Not just through things like porn (?) or sport.

I’m saying that they are abstractions because they are not physical things, they are ideas and there are dramatic variations in what people recognise as good or beautiful, hence for some, porn and sport. They are abstractions because they are intangible, mental constructs. You point to some instantiations like marriage. Well again, there are many people for whom marriage is a painful trap. This is a slippery, context dependent matter.

Indeed, I work at delaying it. I am still delighted to learn new things. My current book is "The British Are Coming: From Lexington to Princeton". I've heard American history since 7th grade, but now I'm finding the (new) gory details of the revolution from both British and American POVs fascinating. It took 78 years to get here, but I'm glad to have arrived. — BC

I am 78 too, and know what you mean about getting more meaning out of books than we once did.

Do you know this for certain? I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. — Tom Storm

Thank you. I believe you are correct. I think we have underestimated the importance of nurturing and the people who do the nurturing. This is what AI has to say...

Leaving a baby alone in a crib for extended periods, especially without interaction, can negatively impact their development and ability to form healthy attachments, potentially leading to emotional and behavioral issues. While it's natural for parents to need time for themselves and to adjust to a new routine, neglecting a baby's need for interaction and emotional connection can have detrimental consequences.

You are saying these are parts of love. But what is love as a whole? In what way is love to be distinguished from its parts? — GregW

Love is hormonal. This is what AI has to say.....

The term "love hormones" often refers to hormones involved in social bonding, emotional connection, and feelings of pleasure and attraction. Specifically, oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin are key players in the experience of love and attraction.

We can stimulate the production of these hormones by doing kind things for others, nursing a baby, running on a path. Don't believe me? this is what AI says.....

Running, along with other forms of exercise, can significantly impact the release of hormones in the body, including those associated with feelings of pleasure, connection, and well-being. Specifically, running can boost endorphins, dopamine, and oxytocin, which contribute to the experience of the "runner's high" and overall mood enhancement.

I agree with you both. Love is the love of something and not of nothing. I believe that something is beauty. Beauty can be manifested in a man, a woman, or a Grecian urn. And if the beautiful is also good, then love is the love of the beautiful and good. My question is, what is the nature of the beautiful and good that is beloved? — GregW

Here is what AI has to say.....

In ancient Greek philosophy, "good" (agathos) and "beautiful" (kallos) were closely intertwined, often considered aspects of a single ideal called "Kalos Kagathos," meaning "beautiful and good". This ideal emphasized a balance of inner and outer excellence, encompassing both virtue and physical beauty.

This would also go with notions of good music. Here is what AI has to say...

Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed in the power of music to shape character, educate, and even influence societal well-being. They saw music as having ethical power, arguing that specific musical modes and styles could influence emotions, character, and even the development of good citizens.

I want to say this thinking is very dependent on words. Without a word for a concept, we can not think about the concept. Linguistic differences separated Rome and the Greeks, and some of us believe the Greek culture in areas like Athens was superior. So Kalos Kagathos is a mix of good and beauty.

Another way to look at this is through science, and what proportion has to do with recognizing beauty. Here is what AI has to say.....

Proportion, particularly when measured by the "golden ratio," is a concept that has been used to describe beauty across various fields, from art to architecture to even facial aesthetics. The Golden Ratio, approximately 1:1.618, is often seen as the most aesthetically pleasing proportion, and its application can be found in many works of art and design.

I’m saying that they are abstractions because they are not physical things, they are ideas and there are dramatic variations in what people recognise as good or beautiful, — Tom Storm

I believe the "they" that you say are abstractions are beauty and goodness and not the beautiful and good. Beauty and goodness are the defining attributes of beautiful and good things. The beauty of art, music, and human interactions are physical things that can be experienced by our sense of sight, hearing, and feeling. Beauty and goodness belong to the undisputed class. It is our measure of the beautiful and good that can be debated. It is the "dramatic variations in what people recognize as good or beautiful" that is endlessly debated. I believe what you described as intangible abstractions is the recognition of beauty absolute with knowledge absolute in existence absolute. The beauty and goodness that can only be witnessed in a winged chariot through the "heaven above the heavens". This beauty [s undisputed and undebatable.

The beauty and goodness that can only be witnessed in a winged chariot through the "heaven above the heavens". This beauty [s undisputed and undebatable. — GregW

Winged chariot? I don't think any subject in philosophy is undisputed and undebatable.

Beauty and goodness are the defining attributes of beautiful and good things. — GregW

That's a circular argument. E.g., Truth is what true statements express.

If you believe that beauty is not a culturally constructed or contingent concept, then what exactly is beauty as you understand it and how do you access or recognise it?