Letters to Juliet

[SickbyDefinition]

In my opinion, true love or a love that is chaste and spiritual [The Platonic concept of love] has no basis in reality. The "love" between individuals quickly degenerates into immoderate passions and excess.

Since man as a whole or in a collective sense is a wicked, lascivious and vulgar animal, pure love cannot be achieved.

Simi did not ask about pure love, she asked about true love.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

I maintain that in order for love to be true it is required to be chaste, spiritual and pure.

[This coincides with my Neoplatonic viewpoints]

[SickbyDefinition]

I maintain that in order for love to be true it is required to be chaste, spiritual and pure.

[This coincides with my Neoplatonism]

The concept of something being true does not always have to be accompanied or associated with the concept of that same thing being pure. But since you believe love must be pure in order to be true, I won't argue.

[rasterbee]

I maintain that in order for love to be true it is required to be chaste, spiritual and pure.

Connie, I say this with no malicious intent: That comment of yours is a grandiose assumption from a position of ignorance.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

First of all, I consider true love to be synonymous with pure love. On the second point, I consider pure/true love to be chaste and spiritual in nature. This viewpoint has originated from my Neoplatonism in which true/pure love is non-sexual in nature. This noblest form of love cannot be achieved as men are sadly wicked, lascivious and vulgar in nature. The opposite of pure/true love is lust which is immoderation and excess. Since sex is a temporary loss of reason or rationality [According to Plato, knowledge/reason is the highest virtue], it is immoral [Lacking in virtue], irrational and animal-like. Furthermore, if the human soul is divided into two parts as attested by the Neoplatonists [Followers of Plotinus], then the irrational aspect represents animals and non-rational creatures while the rational or the divine represents the human aspect. Therefore, sex is animal-like, vulgar, immoral and a temporary loss of reason. As a result, lust or "love" that involves intercourse for pleasure, is not pure/true love. However, since the majority of men are animal-like and are governed by their lust and base emotions as opposed to reason, mankind as a whole is incapable of achieving true/pure love.

[*jdm*]

How is sex a loss of reason

[rasterbee]

This noblest form of love cannot be achieved as men are sadly wicked, lascivious and vulgar in nature.

Sure it can! Even the most wicked, lascivious and vulgar could experience pure, true love. Nothing you can say can disprove the existence of someone else's emotions, Conrad.

However, since the majority of men are animal-like and governed by their lust and base emotions as opposed to reason, mankind as a whole is incapable of achieving true/pure love.

Love doesn't originate from reason. This topic isn't in your field of specialty, Connie. Just let it go.

[Richie_B]

First of all, I consider true love to be synonymous with pure love. On the second point, I consider pure/true love to be chaste and spiritual in nature. This viewpoint has originated from my Neoplatonism in which true/pure love is non-sexual in nature. This noblest form of love cannot be achieved as men are sadly wicked, lascivious and vulgar in nature. The opposite of pure/true love is lust which is immoderation and excess. Since sex is a temporary loss of reason or rationality [According to Plato, knowledge/reason is the highest virtue], it is immoral [Lacking in virtue], irrational and animal-like. Furthermore, if the human soul is divided into two parts as attested by the Neoplatonists [Followers of Plotinus], then the irrational aspect represents animals and non-rational creatures while the rational or the divine represents the human aspect. Therefore, sex is animal-like, vulgar, immoral and a temporary loss of reason. As a result, lust or "love" that involves intercourse for pleasure, is not pure/true love. However, since the majority of men are animal-like and governed by their lust and base emotions as opposed to reason, mankind as a whole is incapable of achieving true/pure love.

We are animals...however, if they are your beliefs about love, intercourse and all that goes with it, I won't shun them.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with fornicating for pleasure or a bit of lust every once in a while.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Why, this forum is populated with many hedonists and sybarites.

[WarSimi]

I made this thread to hear everyones opinion, even Conrad's. He believes what he believes. That's fine with me, don't fight about it. I like the different ways people see things. I don't like people thrusting what they think is right in others' faces.