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.

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?

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.

"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?

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.

My point was the love of parents for their children is not affected by whether their children are ugly or disable. A disable child is disable and cannot look in the eyes of parents otherwise. — MoK

Your point is partly true, but it is not the complete truth. The intrinsic love of parents for their children is not affected by whether their children are ugly or disabled because loving parents see their children through their "minds eyes" which overlook their children`s disability and sees only the intrinsic beauty of their children. If the parents were not able to look past their children`s extrinsic ugliness or disability, then they only love their children`s extrinsic beauty and not their intrinsic beauty and goodness.

Don't you think that the parents believe that their child is disable yet they love him/her? — MoK

Yes. I think that the parents can love their child even though they believe that their child is disable. The parents see their child through their "minds eyes" which overlooks deformity and sees the intrinsic beauty and goodness of their child.

Don't — MoK

MoK, I don't know why my tablet would not allows me to select your full question "Don't parents of a disabled child love him/her?" It is because they love their child that they can overlook their child's (outer and inner) deformity and see the intrinsic beauty and goodness of their child.

I — MoK

MoK, I can't seem to be able to select your quote to Tom Storm "I think they mix love, affection, and the like with beauty." This is not true. Love is inexcorably linked to beauty. Beauty and good is exactly what is loved. Parents love their children because they believe that their children are beautiful and good. People love their beloved not just for their looks or other extrinsic features but also for the intrinsic "beauty in the inward soul". This is what those who love see in their beloved regardless of whether others see them as beautiful or ugly.

Goodness comes into beauty because beauty is a part of good. Whether we think that the rose or the bulldog, for that matter, look good or smell good does not affect the intrinsic beauty of the rose or the bulldog. We are merely debating our (subjective) measure of the beauty of flowers and dogs.

The extrinsic features of the rose, its color, shape, or scent are consider beautiful and good because we enjoy it. It brings us pleasure. The beauty of the rose has intrinsic value because it increase the beauty in the world.

Beauty can be both subjective and objective, it can be in both the debatable class and the undisputed class. If we define beauty as the good perceived by our senses, beauty as sensible goodness, then beauty is a feature of our perception and our experience. Subjectively, when we say that the rose is beautiful, we are saying that the rose looks good or that it smells good. Objectively, beauty in it's perfect form is in the undisputed class. What is debatable is our measure of beauty.