9
   

Philosophy of love

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 06:30 am
Ooops
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 06:45 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Cavalcanti is best remembered for belonging to that small but influential group of Tuscan poets that started what is now known as Dolce Stil Novo, to which he contributed the following (note: translations provided in parentheses do not match the titles by which are widely known in English manuals but are meant to be a more literal rendering of the Italian originals): "Rosa fresca novella" (New, Fresh Rose), "Avete in vo' li fior e la verdura" (You Are Flowers in the Meadow), "Biltà di donna" (A Woman's Beauty), Chi è questa che vèn (Who's This Lady That Comes My Way), "Li mie' foll'occhi" (My Crazy Eyes), "L'anima Mia" (My Soul), "Guido Orlandi", "Da più a uno" (From Many to One), "In un boschetto" (In A Grove), "Per ch'io no spero" (Because I Do Not Hope), "Voi che per gli occhi mi passaste il core" (see below), and "Donna me prega" (A Lady's Orders), a masterpiece of lyric verse and a small treatise on his philosophy of love. Starting from the model provided by the French troubadours, they took Italian poetry a step further and inaugurated the volgare illustre, that higher standard of Italian language that survives almost unchanged to the present day. The founder of this school, Guido Guinizzelli, a law professor at Bologna’s University wrote the first poem of this kind, a poem whose importance does not so much lie in its literary merits but in outlining what would the fundamentals of the Stil Novo program, which was further perfected by a second generation of poets, including Dante, Cino da Pistoia, Lapo Gianni, and Guido himself. As Dante wrote in his De Vulgari Eloquentia, I, XIII, 4:

"Sed quanquam fere omne Tusci in suo turpiloquio sint obtusi, nunnullos vulgaris excellentiam cognovisse sentimus, scilicit Guidonem, Lapum, et unum alium, Florentinos et Cynum Pistoriensem (...) (“Although most Tuscans are overwhelmed by their bad language, we think that someone has experimented the excellence of high vernacular, namely Guido, Lapo and another [i.e: Dante himself], all from Florence, and Cino da Pistoia”.

This second generation, active between the later 13th and early 14th centuries, however, is not a school in the literary sense of the term. Rather, it is a group of friends who share similar ethical and esthetic ideals though not without noticeable differences in their approach; Dante is probably the most spiritual and platonic in his portrayal of Beatrice (Vita Nuova), but Cino da Pistoia is able to write poetry in which “there is a remarkable psychological interest in love, a more tangible presence of the woman, who loses the abstract aura of Guinizzelli and Guido’s verse” (Giudice-Bruni), and Guido Cavalcanti interprets love as a source of torment and despair in the surrendering of self to the beloved. An example in kind, and one of Guido’s most widely read lyrics is a sonnet entitled Voi che per gli occhi mi passaste il core (Transl. You, Whose Look Pierced through My Heart), dedicated, to his beloved Monna (lady) Vanna:

Voi che per gli occhi mi passaste ‘l core
e destaste la mente che dormìa,
guardate a l’angosciosa vita mia
che sospirando la distrugge amore

E’ ven tagliando di sì gran valore
che’ deboletti spiriti van via
riman figura sol en segnoria
e voce alquanta, che parla dolore.

Questa vertù d’amor che m’ha disfatto
Da’ vostri occhi gentil presta si mosse:
un dardo mi gittò dentro dal fianco.

Sì giunse ritto ‘l colpo al primo tratto,
che l’anima tremando si riscosse
veggendo morto ‘l cor nel lato manco.



You whose look pierced through my heart,
Waking up my sleeping mind,
behold an anguished life
which love is killing with sighs.

So deeply love cuts my soul
that weak spirits are vanquished,
and what remains the only master
is this voice that speaks of woe.

This virtue of love, that has undone me
Came from your heavenly eyes:
It threw an arrow into my side.

So straight was the first blow
That the soul, quivering, reverberated,
seeing the heart on the left was dead.
Quote:


This type of philosophy traces back to Solomon and Ovid and influences, in modern times, Swinburne, Joyce, Pound, Lawrence etc and, of course Bob Dylan: troubadour extraordinaire.

Quote:
As I walked out tonight in the mystic garden
The wounded flowers were dangling from the vine
I was passing by yon cool crystal fountain
Someone hit me from behind.


Ain't Talkin'.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 06:49 am
Cripes--I forgot Shakespeare.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 07:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I am perfectly free and able to like something
without communicating that sentiment to any others.


But you just did ! Smile
Being conscious of liking is in the report format of "I like..." (compared with loving, which when vocalized tends to become cliche)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 09:39 am
@fresco,
David wrote:
Quote:
I am perfectly free and able to like something
without communicating that sentiment to any others.


fresco wrote:
Quote:
But you just did ! Smile

Tomorrow I might like a host of other things without
communicating that fact to others.
Suppose I drank too much or voted for a liberal:
I might well be ASHAMED to let anyone find out about it,
even tho I liked it.



fresco wrote:
Quote:

Being conscious of liking is
in the report format of "I like..."

Clearly, it is impossible to like anything
without being conscious of liking it.
I did not imply otherwise.


fresco wrote:
Quote:

(compared with loving, which when vocalized tends to become cliche)

I don 't understand what u have in mind.

Loving is not distinct in principle;
loving is liking a person or an object to a greater degree than liking it.
Suppose that a legislature emulates Alaska and repeals
all of its gun laws: I will LIKE that legislature;
if it thereafter proceeds to repeal discriminatory taxation,
so that every taxpayer pays the same amount: my liking of it
will INCREASE such that I will then LOVE that legislature,
regardless of whether I report my sentiments to anyone, tho again,
the same as liking anyone, I cannot love anyone without being conscious of that fact.

I cannot love Jennifer Love Hewitt, nor can I love guns
without KNOWING that I love Jennifer Love Hewitt and I love guns.
I can freely conceal or reveal my love for either.

I can LIKE General MacArthur when he defeated the Japs,
and then LOVE General MacArthur when he ALSO defeated the communists in Korea,
but I need not necessarily communicate my sentiments; I might be taciturn.
(It is not necessary to point out distinctions in principle between love and gratitude.)





David
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 10:33 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Okay, my apologies for being opaque.

There are at least two existential points here which are difficult to convey to someone who is unfamiliar with the literature. (Note my reply was to pq whom I know has some of the background)

The first point is that the "self" is not "consciously present" during the normal flow of existence. We don't normally notice any separateness from the flow when we are within a pleasurable flow. The summary of "liking it" is either a standing back from it and commenting to ourselves,or a later report of the experience. (This follows Heidegger).

The second point (asked by pq) is the difference between "like" and "love" and the direction she is going in on this is towards a "transcedent holistic love" where neither "selves" or "words" are applicable. Hence "I like X" is a at a different observational level to "lovingness". (This follows spiritual writers like Krishnamurti).

Note that your usage of "love" as intense "liking" is at odds with the second point, but in accordance with the first.

Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 11:06 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Einstein said something along the lines of, "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one". There's also this idea of a mirage and in what sense it's illusion. That sense is in what it purports to represent, i.e. water that we can take physical nourishment from but not in that the experience is non existent if you like, which it isn't, it just doesn't equate to what we might hope it does in an arid desert. We still see water though. I'm just repeating some ideas mentioned on this site before.

In these ways it's possible to see a holistic notion of love as connected with dissolving boundaries. Take the example of a romantic couple and the actual momentary experience of love, not the declaration, the ineffable experience people often cannot express after the fact. And this is sometimes related to "mystical visions" and religion too I guess. But I imagine that the experience might be related to a passing sensation of total and all encompassing contentment whereby the object of attention is no longer objectified due to its losing relation to fulfilment, the experience is complete and in so being, the subject, I, also drops off in unison.

Therefore the "artificial" boundaries are, you might say, dissolved. I don't know, I'm just writing this to explain where I was coming from. Dissolved might be a poor choice of word. It's not that this way of relating is a different variety to normal and should replace the norm. It's really a transcendence of relating to anything because relation implies boundary. But these experiences which seem to be widespread amongst so many cultures, and often not related at all to people, do tell us something interesting about the experience of life. At least I'd say so.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 12:27 pm
What about Orwell's 1984 fresco?

And Ted Hughes' Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being?

I take your post to mean that there is no difference between love and like or that love is, as the ancients maintained, a madness.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 10:41 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Quote:

The second point (asked by pq) is the difference between "like" and "love"
and the direction she is going in on this is towards a "transcedent holistic love"
where neither "selves" or "words" are applicable. Hence "I like X" is a
at a different observational level to "lovingness".
(This follows spiritual writers like Krishnamurti).

WHAT does it transcend?
Y r words not applicable?





David
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 11:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
....because, as Ashers pointed out, boundaries between "self" and "not self" have been dissolved, and this cannot be expressed in words. (In any sentence like "I love you" "I" must be separate from "you" for it to make sense, but transcendence eliminates that separation).
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 11:41 pm
love is not a philosophy, it is a spiritual imperative.......the union of self with GOD.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 11:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

love is not a philosophy, it is a spiritual imperative.......the union of self with GOD.

Do u deny that an imperative can be filosofical ?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 12:14 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye,

As soon as the word "imperative" is used, "spirtituality" is trampled under its feet !
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 12:37 am
I prefer the philosophy of love as expressed by Spendius instead of the rethorics (nitpicking) expressed by the others..
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 01:01 am
@fresco,
Quote:
As soon as the word "imperative" is used, "spirtituality" is trampled under its feet !


i assume that to you imperative is "what the bosses require" , while in this instance I use the word to mean "what the soul requires". This is of course wholly a spiritual matter.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 01:43 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye,

The subtle point is that both "gods" and "souls" are things evoked by "selves" (more things). The transcendent position sees "things" as transient conveniences.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 03:43 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

....because, as Ashers pointed out,
boundaries between "self" and "not self" have been dissolved,
and this cannot be expressed in words.
(In any sentence like "I love you" "I" must be separate from "you"
for it to make sense, but transcendence eliminates that separation).

O, Fresco: How impassioned is my love for Me!

HOW do I love Me? Let me count the ways. . . .





David
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Form an orderly queue girls.
solipsister
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 08:34 pm
@spendius,
didn't shakespeare say "to be or not to be" lovely
0 Replies
 
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 03:38 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
If one understood the word Philosophy, what it really means, one would understand that "Philosophy of x" is an oxymoron.
If Philosophy is over every endeavor of man, how can it be "in" any of them" Is the container in the contained?

The word Philosophy today, takes its meaning from Sophistry. An early example of Transmigration of Soul.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Philosophy of love
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 12:52:12