Solomon and His Attempts to Separate Different Kinds of Love - Assignment Example

Assignment One – Short Answer Exercise I.D. Number: Term and Year Assignment One – Short AnswerExercise 1. What problems does Solomon identify in attempts to separate different "kinds" of love? (Solomon, In the Beginning was the Word, p. 7) Solomon’s emphasis is on the sexual nature of affection as related to intimate love, most commonly referring to heterosexual sex. During the early stages of human civilization, fidelity was a major issue that remained at the focal point of the relationship between a man and a woman. Now the kind of love that explains the relationship between man and woman, those are a couple of sexual partners, can be defined as a category in itself. However, referring to Aristotle’s works, Solomon might have tried to define love in a broader context. Consequently, he selected to reflect on human behavior (and particularly his/her statements) during sex. And Solomon does not hesitate to consider love from both homosexual and heterosexual perspectives. This turns a possible classification scheme rather blur because homosexual relationships cannot lead to child birth and be adjusted within the traditional concept of family. So, Solomon’s theory gives rise to a possible categorization scheme, where love is to be redefined as per the different situations that come up in the course of making love. And this love-making can be just hugging and kissing. It can also be a more intensive activity like sexual intercourse. Or it can be just like sharing words of affection or staring at each other in fascination. In sum, categorizing love on the basis socio-sexual behavior becomes so much multidimensional so that no categorization remains achievable at all. And a single category of romantic love appears to be most difficult to shape. Finally, Solomon expresses his lack of confidence on today’s definition of romantic love. According to him, romantic love without sufficient emphasis on sex is absurd. But unfortunately, sexuality in the category of romantic love cannot be constrained to just doing sex … it has far deeper emotional implications. 2. How does Diotima (as reported by Socrates, according to Plato) explain her claim that love is...for begetting and birth in the beautiful? (Symposium, 207A) Diotima has been a controversial figure in the history of philosophy. There are opinions that Diotima is nothing but a character created by Plato himself. On the other hand, historical research reveals that Plato talked about the prophecies of real characters; so Diotima might have been a real philosopher of ancient Greece. Whatever was the case, Diotima’s definition and perspective on human love can be better understood as a Platonic concept since most of her ideas have been conveyed and/or analyzed by Plato only. Diotima was a female philosopher, so her analysis is important from the perspective of studying gender relations too. Hence the term Platonic love can be attributed to Diotima in a wider way. Apparently, Platonic love is an acceptance of the power of beauty and it might be related to sexuality too, because beauty is largely about physical attractiveness of a person. However, Diotima’s treatment of the topic was not as much linear as a sexuality and physical beauty related affair. In fact, she tried to correlate love with the beauty of mind. For Diotima, begetting something cannot be just a physical achievement as must be explained in terms of touch, visibility, etc. Diotima put more emphasis on the realization of beauty by human mind that culminate at divinity. So originating from Diotima’s fundamental prophecies, Platonic love accomplishes at the essence of asexual love, where beauty and creation are still at the prime focus. So sexuality can also be introduced in this realm, but not from the viewpoint of fulfilling sexual desire. Sex and beauty, from the view of Platonic love can be more purposive as for to have children or build relationship. Finally, Diotima’s approach appears to be more holistic and humanistic form a modern viewpoint. 3. Briefly explain Freuds reasoning for his claim that the behavior in love of men in the civilized world today bears the stamp of psychical impotence. (Freud, On the Universal Tendency to Debasement..., p. 185) Although Freud’s critics like Maslow have complained that Freud stresses too much on the darker side of human thinking and psychology, Freudian explanation of love cannot be ruled out. Although idealists hold that pure love is free from greed, lust, expectations, possessiveness, etc., that is not the actual case. Freud adopted a more practical approach toward developing the understanding of love. Freud’s argument at this level is based on the truth that forced sex was common in prehistoric era, which later took the form of marriage. Women were regarded as a possession, not an intellectual partner. She would be given recognition of equal and/or benevolent treatment against an exchange sex. On the other hand, women were also never taught about ideal, reserved behavior, and things like family honor. However, with the advent of civilization, interpretation of love became more complex. Possessive masculine behavior appeared to be irrational because examples of fidelity were now studied even among certain species of animals and birds. Also, when tools were invented and administrative hierarchies were developed, even physically weak and/or older adults began to dominate others with the help of their intellectual capabilities. So now the concept of manliness began to change. Moreover, institutions like religion and state began to suppress feminine sexuality and a woman’s craving for sex began to be identified as unacceptable. With the rise of modern civilization, man becomes more unmanly from Freudian view. Now he cannot take away the woman he wants. According to modern law, such activities are punishable. Moreover, traditionalistic education coupled with the imagery of a gentleman denies the pleasure of a woman’s orgasm as well. Consequently, civilized behavior and gentle ways of making love have been interpreted as a kind of impotence by Freud. 4. What reasons does Delaney give for his view that unconditional love should not be part of the ideal of romantic love or of loving commitment? Philosophers are always enquiring to know what should be the ideal way of behavior or understanding that might properly explain a philosophical issue. Delaney attempts to correlate the psychosocial and emotional beings of a person vis-à-vis the question that what should be regarded as true love. Subsequently, in order to formulate a broader perspective of this issue, Delaney separates out unconditional love from other forms of love including even the most romantic and idealistic implications. Delaney does this from a more practical viewpoint. And he claims this perspective encompasses romantic relationships even when sexuality has no significant relevance. For example, when one of the partners in a married couple is sick while the other is healthy, romantic love may not be possible but still the condition of fidelity cannot be neglected. Consequently, interpretations of human sexual as well as romantic desires begin to take the form of a psychological, societal, and behaviorist riddle. In order solve this riddle Delaney attempts to simplify the ideal of romantic love. He sees commitment as an ingredient to romantic love, where the main ideal of fidelity cannot be achieved in the absence of commitment. On the other hand, unconditional love can neither be possessive or demanding, at least by definition. Therefore, it cannot be suitable for forming relations necessary for social coherence. For example, sex is necessary for having children and building family. Such a relationship between man and woman can be romantic but not unconditional. And the degree of commitment would vary from one relationship to another. Also, the societal dimension of spousal sexuality must involve fidelity, which is a commitment in the form of a condition. In such a state of affair, Delaney rules that unconditional love can be a good idea, but not suited for ideal romantic love particularly where sexuality is important. Read More