History of the Notion of Love - HELP

[Peripheral300]

I need to research on the history of the philosophy (or nature, if love has one) of Love (specifically, pre-17th Century - Western Philosophy).

The only sources I could find were Platon's and Aristoteles's notion of the Philia and the Agape. I needed a contextualization of how the French society's philosophical frame of mind came to be in the 17th Century.

I know I need to brush up on my Ancient and Medieval Philosophy but going through a LOT of philosopher who may not have spoken about Love is hard work and wasted time.

I'm about to study St. Thomas Aquinas' and Saint Augustine's philosophy but other key philosophical figures might help. (parang overview lang naman gagawin ko - hindi naman ako gumagawa ng debate whether one's notion is superior than the other)

Salamat and FSM bless you all!

PS. kahit pangalan lang masaya na ako (as long as legit yung sagot)

[pooch]

Gusto kong magpost...pero after 10 seconds of thinking of philosophers I can recommend, hindi ako makaisip ng iba pa! haha...

Apparently, hindi gaanong pinaguusapan ang love sa philosophy kasi eh. Okey na si San Agustine at si Kumpareng Tomas..

Siguro kaya konti lang kasi irrational kasi siguro ang love.


Pooch

[FreyaLuna]

These are all I could find so far. Hope these help.

Philosophy of LoveÂ*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
http://www.rug.nl/filosofie/onderzoe...aperNuyens.pdf
http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/disordered_love.pdf
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play...er---Session-3

Other possible supporting material for your study:

The Love and Strife Philosophy of Empedocles
17th and 18th Century Theories of Emotions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Love (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Salamat and FSM bless you all!

RAmen.

[bishop]

I need to research on the history of the philosophy (or nature, if love has one) of Love (specifically, pre-17th Century - Western Philosophy).

Peri,

Check you premise.

Love is not a Philosophy.

You can try to analyze it in a Philosophical fashion. But then this is done simply as a mental exercise, nothing more.

But to try to understand love by assuming it is a Philosophy, would be an exercise in futility. This would be like trying to fix an engine by sticking you hand through the muffler in the hopes of getting to the engine.

The only sources I could find were Platon's and Aristoteles's notion of the Philia and the Agape. I needed a contextualization of how the French society's philosophical frame of mind came to be in the 17th Century.

I know I need to brush up on my Ancient and Medieval Philosophy but going through a LOT of philosopher who may not have spoken about Love is hard work and wasted time.

I'm about to study St. Thomas Aquinas' and Saint Augustine's philosophy but other key philosophical figures might help. (parang overview lang naman gagawin ko - hindi naman ako gumagawa ng debate whether one's notion is superior than the other)

Salamat and FSM bless you all!

First of all, the Greco-Roman concept of Love is completely different from the western concept.

Second, it was Poets who "spoke" of Love, not Philosophers.

This should already give you a clue on difference of thinking between the Greco-Roman and the post-modern Western mind.

[Peripheral300]

Peri,

Check you premise.

Love is not a Philosophy.

You can try to analyze it in a Philosophical fashion. But then this is done simply as a mental exercise, nothing more.

But to try to understand love by assuming it is a Philosophy, would be an exercise in futility. This would be like trying to fix an engine by sticking you hand through the muffler in the hopes of getting to the engine.

Hmm, nagkamali nga. Wala mang pilosopiya ang pag-ibig, meron naman tayong ideya tungkol rito - at ito ang pinag-uusapan ng mga teorista ng emosyon, phenomenologists, Ethicists, Psychoanalysts, etc..While it is true that the Greco-roman idea of Love is different from the western concept, you missed the fact that Western Philosophy came from the ancient greco-roman philosophies - hence "western".

First of all, the Greco-Roman concept of Love is completely different from the western concept.

Second, it was Poets who "spoke" of Love, not Philosophers.

okay:
1.) France's philosophical enlightenment is westernized - it did not take its philosophies from ancient Chinese or Indian or Japanese philosophical doctrines (though no one is asking). England, Germany, and France has taken its concepts from the writings of our dear footnote western forefathers and from there, developed their philosophies further. What I am aiming for is an Anthology of Philosophical concept discussing the emotive part of Human. Though love - as a concept - is not taken seriously by medieval philosophers - there is still a budding respect on the understanding of the human self - the spiritual and the passionate. Ancient Greece talked about Philia and Eros (THANKS, ATE FREYA!) while, and there is a huge assumption here because I haven't read Thomas and Augustine yet, spoke of the Agape - all of which have something in common: "Affection of the other" with the difference of the degree of affection.

2.) Apparently, you were wrong about philosophers not talking about love. From ancient Greece and Roman, we have Platon, Aristoteles, Epictetus and Ovid. From the Christian Vantage, we have Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Hume and Kant. and from the Modern, we have Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx and Engels and Fromm

3.) I'm not talking about Post Modern Philosophy or Contemporary Philosophy, I'm talking about Medieval Philosophy and Ancient Philosophy, I am well aware of the discrepancies between these two periods of Philosophical thought and, as I've said before, I need contextualization of French Philosophy (pre-17th century). And when the Church's beliefs were mainly Aristotelian during those times, There is a need for me to brush up on Ancient Philosophies (especially when the Arabic notes of Platon's written works were later transcribed into Latin).


PS.
I need a lot of reading to do... Baka di muna ako makapag-post or reply.
on

[bishop]

okay:
1.) France's philosophical enlightenment is westernized - it did not take its philosophies from ancient Chinese or Indian or Japanese philosophical doctrines (though no one is asking). England, Germany, and France has taken its concepts from the writings of our dear footnote western forefathers and from there, developed their philosophies further. What I am aiming for is an Anthology of Philosophical concept discussing the emotive part of Human. Though love - as a concept - is not taken seriously by medieval philosophers - there is still a budding respect on the understanding of the human self - the spiritual and the passionate. Ancient Greece talked about Philia and Eros (THANKS, ATE FREYA!) while, and there is a huge assumption here because I haven't read Thomas and Augustine yet, spoke of the Agape - all of which have something in common: "Affection of the other" with the difference of the degree of affection.

Uhmm..well, sort of.

It would be very difficult to make a definitive comparison because of historical and gramatical contextual difference.

This is like a Filipino trying to read the word English word "snow" and trying to get the exact meaning in Tagalog.

While there will be a close approximation, the true meaning and concept itself gets lost in the contextual transfer.

2.) Apparently, you were wrong about philosophers not talking about love. From ancient Greece and Roman, we have Platon, Aristoteles, Epictetus and Ovid. From the Christian Vantage, we have Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Hume and Kant. and from the Modern, we have Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx and Engels and Fromm

Like I said in my earlier post.

These Philosophers discuss 'love' in a philosphical manner. But they do not seek to understand love as a philosophy. As I said, there is a difference.

They are Greeks. They not only already understood the concept of 'love', they live it. But mind you, this understanding is confined within the cultural context itself. You cannot isolate one from the other and expect to get a full grasp of the meaning.

And when you put these two cultures side by side, the Greek and the Western (Marx, Engels, Nietzsche..etc) you can see the big jump in difference in the way the concept is understood.

[Peripheral300]

Uhmm..well, sort of.

It would be very difficult to make a definitive comparison because of historical and gramatical contextual difference.

This is like a Filipino trying to read the word English word "snow" and trying to get the exact meaning in Tagalog.

While there will be a close approximation, the true meaning and concept itself gets lost in the contextual transfer.

Ay naku, inday, mapupunta na tayo sa pilosopiya ng lengguwahe't ermenyutika. ... I think "Culture" yung hinahanap mo dun sa sinabi mong contextual difference (I would like to disagree pero mapupunta naman tayo sa basis ng knowledge).

[bishop]

Ay naku, inday, mapupunta na tayo sa pilosopiya ng lengguwahe't ermenyutika. ... I think "Culture" yung hinahanap mo dun sa sinabi mong contextual difference (I would like to disagree pero mapupunta naman tayo sa basis ng knowledge).

You cannot have one without the other.

You are trying to compare/understand Greek and Mideaval Philosphy.

This entails including the study of Culture.