Okay so I have a few thoughts - very interesting approach overall though.
Firstly, I think it's generally true that English has a fairly limited number of terms for love, although there are others such as friendship, desire, etc. Even so, I think english has a fairly powerful way of enacting love through language, due to this limitation, so I wouldn't say it's inherently bad and can provide one with a greater sense of the experience of love in some cases (though of course these can also be provided in languages such as Ancient Greek, but potentially without such a necessity for it).
I too would push back slightly on the idea that the biological love's are simple - eros seems to me incredibly complex and interesting, which can be seen for example through Plato's depiction of it in Symposium (see especially Alcibiades' speech).
I enjoyed the way you practically applied examples of things such as Xenia, giving a sense of what the experience of these loves can feel like. but I think that ultimately gets to the slight overall quarm I have with your approach. As much as I think it's really cool to use these defined terms, combining them, to create a sense of different types and instances of love, this seems to miss the point a little for me. Love is something so intimate, unique and experiential, that I think describing them in this almost quasi-mathematical way feels slightly antithetical to the experience of love. Although that being said, I can understand the practical use of a system such as this, and I'm sure it could provide benefit, so maybe I'm just being too idealistic here.
Either way, this is a very interesting approach to understanding love, and while I may disagree in places, it has certainly been an interesting way to evaluate my own stance on this topic, so thank you, and well done for your interesting and thought out theory of describing love!
What can I say, I’m autistic. Unironically. Diagnosedly. Coldly analytical is the way I interact with the world. The only way I can.
I did make a point not to think much about Eros. I believe that it’s the basest, least worthwhile form of love. The one most prone to mania, objectification. Not that it’s inherently wrong or bad. Just,,, suspect, and dangerous
As far as “simple”. Yeah, that was the wrong choice of words. Not simple. Just…. “Most instinctively understandable. Less necessary to explain in depth, because you KNOW what they mean already”
And, lastly…. No, the way I experience love isn’t antithetical to the idea of love. It’s just different than yours. (Read 200% less accusatory than it sounds, I just don’t know how to say it otherwise )
This is very interesting. I can understand how being autistic would lead to viewing the world in an purley analytical manner. I think that I sort of have the opposite problem. I tend to reject simply analytical approaches in favor of an experiential one.
I can understand your caution and disdain for eros (if that's a fair characterisation), but for me it's one of the most interesting to explore because of - as you said - it's universal understanding. This gives so much interesting scope for powerful depiction, as I think is done so brilliantly through Alkibiades in Plato's symposium. In fact I think Symposium is - if you haven't already - a vital work to read for this sort of study, because of how it provides so many contrary depictions of eros (although it could apply to broader love certainly), and climaxes with Alkibiades' slightly mania-filled declaration of love, brilliantly encapsulating the dangers of eros, or at least that's one way of looking at it.
it’s pretty fun tbh. I don’t get to just *get* it, so I get to think about it a lot and try and reason through why I feel things! It’s kind of a great mode of existence I’m ngl.
Okay so I have a few thoughts - very interesting approach overall though.
Firstly, I think it's generally true that English has a fairly limited number of terms for love, although there are others such as friendship, desire, etc. Even so, I think english has a fairly powerful way of enacting love through language, due to this limitation, so I wouldn't say it's inherently bad and can provide one with a greater sense of the experience of love in some cases (though of course these can also be provided in languages such as Ancient Greek, but potentially without such a necessity for it).
I too would push back slightly on the idea that the biological love's are simple - eros seems to me incredibly complex and interesting, which can be seen for example through Plato's depiction of it in Symposium (see especially Alcibiades' speech).
I enjoyed the way you practically applied examples of things such as Xenia, giving a sense of what the experience of these loves can feel like. but I think that ultimately gets to the slight overall quarm I have with your approach. As much as I think it's really cool to use these defined terms, combining them, to create a sense of different types and instances of love, this seems to miss the point a little for me. Love is something so intimate, unique and experiential, that I think describing them in this almost quasi-mathematical way feels slightly antithetical to the experience of love. Although that being said, I can understand the practical use of a system such as this, and I'm sure it could provide benefit, so maybe I'm just being too idealistic here.
Either way, this is a very interesting approach to understanding love, and while I may disagree in places, it has certainly been an interesting way to evaluate my own stance on this topic, so thank you, and well done for your interesting and thought out theory of describing love!
What can I say, I’m autistic. Unironically. Diagnosedly. Coldly analytical is the way I interact with the world. The only way I can.
I did make a point not to think much about Eros. I believe that it’s the basest, least worthwhile form of love. The one most prone to mania, objectification. Not that it’s inherently wrong or bad. Just,,, suspect, and dangerous
As far as “simple”. Yeah, that was the wrong choice of words. Not simple. Just…. “Most instinctively understandable. Less necessary to explain in depth, because you KNOW what they mean already”
And, lastly…. No, the way I experience love isn’t antithetical to the idea of love. It’s just different than yours. (Read 200% less accusatory than it sounds, I just don’t know how to say it otherwise )
This is very interesting. I can understand how being autistic would lead to viewing the world in an purley analytical manner. I think that I sort of have the opposite problem. I tend to reject simply analytical approaches in favor of an experiential one.
I can understand your caution and disdain for eros (if that's a fair characterisation), but for me it's one of the most interesting to explore because of - as you said - it's universal understanding. This gives so much interesting scope for powerful depiction, as I think is done so brilliantly through Alkibiades in Plato's symposium. In fact I think Symposium is - if you haven't already - a vital work to read for this sort of study, because of how it provides so many contrary depictions of eros (although it could apply to broader love certainly), and climaxes with Alkibiades' slightly mania-filled declaration of love, brilliantly encapsulating the dangers of eros, or at least that's one way of looking at it.
it’s pretty fun tbh. I don’t get to just *get* it, so I get to think about it a lot and try and reason through why I feel things! It’s kind of a great mode of existence I’m ngl.
I’ll get back to you on symposium after I read it