Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The kind of love Plato discusses in the Symposium is not ... — Carmelics
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The kind of love Plato discusses in the Symposium is not found in God

    AestheticsAgainst an attribute of God
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The love Plato defines is a desire of beauty
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whatever desires beauty lacks beauty and is therefore not beautiful
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God is the highest beauty and lacks no beauty
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Platonic eros in the Symposium is not merely lack-based desire but also an overflowing creative impulse toward generation in beauty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Diotima's account explicitly links eros to productive excess, which is compatible with divine plenitude rather than privation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A God of infinite beauty may still exercise eros as a generative outpouring toward creation, not as desire born of deficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pseudo-Dionysius and the Neoplatonic tradition explicitly attribute eros to the divine as a self-diffusive love that flows outward from fullness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If divine eros is understood as agapeic overflow rather than acquisitive want, Abrabanel's premise that desire entails lack is defeated on its own Platonic grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    AestheticsAgainst an attribute of God

    Connections

    2 topics

    Divine Attributes2 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A God of infinite beauty may still exercise eros as a generative outpouring towa...Diotima's account explicitly links eros to productive excess, which is compatibl...God cannot desire beauty because God already possesses it fullyGod is the highest beauty and lacks no beauty
    +5 moreShow less
    If divine eros is understood as agapeic overflow rather than acquisitive want, A...Platonic eros in the Symposium is not merely lack-based desire but also an overf...Pseudo-Dionysius and the Neoplatonic tradition explicitly attribute eros to the ...The love Plato defines is a desire of beauty

    Similar

    Alcibiades is presented as a case where love does not lead to love of ...74%Annihilation is inconsistent with God's love74%such a thing is inconsistent with God's love73%If the above is true, Annihilation is inconsistent with God's love73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: abrabanel
    View source passageHide passage
    Plato in his Symposium discusses only the kind of love that is found in men, which has its final cause in the lover but not in the beloved (terminato ne l’amante ma non ne l’amato), for this kind mainly is called love, since that which ends in the loved one is called friendship and benevolence (ché quel che si termina ne l’amato si chiama amicizia e benivolenzia). He rightly defines this love as a desire of beauty (desiderio di bellezza). He says that such love is not found in God, because that
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Whatever desires beauty lacks beauty and is therefore not beautiful
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit