It must be placed or kept beyond the mind’s reach, away from a dutiful respect because of its mysteriousness, its awesome, divine, or intimate nature. But then a philosophical examination seems appropriate: is it synonymous with certain patterns of behavior, of inflections in the voice or manner, or by the apparent pursuit and protection of a particular value (“Look at how he dotes upon his flowers-he must love them”) if it is agreed that there is such a thing as “love” conceptually speaking, when people present statements concerning love, or admonitions such as “she should show more love, ”?
If love does possesses “a nature” that is recognizable by some means-a individual expression, a discernible pattern of behavior, or any other task, it could nevertheless be asked whether that nature are correctly recognized by mankind. Love could have a nature, yet we might maybe not contain the appropriate intellectual capability to comprehend it-accordingly, we might gain glimpses maybe of its essence-as Socrates contends when you look at the Symposium, but its real nature being forever beyond humanity’s grasp that is intellectual. Correctly, love might be partially described, or hinted at, in a dialectic or analytical exposition for the concept but never comprehended in itself. Love may consequently become an epiphenomenal entity, produced by individual action in loving, but never ever grasped by your head or language. Continuar leyendo «The claim that “love” can not be analyzed is significantly diffent from that“love” that is claiming not be susceptible to examination-that»