the lover is a mirror
in which one may see oneself.
When the lover is present, pain ceases;
but when the lover is absent,
the youth is filled with yearning inspired by love;
and its image of requited love lives within,
but the youth believes it to be friendship, not love.
from a relationship with one not in love,
watered down by deathly prudence,
with deathly and miserly regulation,
will be implanted in the soul of the friend
an unfree virtue praised by the multitudes;
wandering around the earth for nine thousand years
the soul is left under the earth mindless.
2007-11-14 12:45:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Socrates was a smart cookie. Except for, you know, drinking the Hemlock... ¬_¬ But yeah, I totally get this.
2007-11-15 04:12:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is poorly written, whoever the author, and as for where I agree with it, it really make no sense, and I have read it about seven or eight times.
The first line in correct.
The second line is stupid in that it says that the young have no idea what love is as in there is only one type of love and you can't recognize it until you are older.
And the third thing is not even a sentence. If I work on it a bit I come up with a condemnation of relationships without love as being absent a soul, which I could agree with if it were not for that weak second line that seems to absent any concept of undertstanding of what love is or trust in the power of love.
This really looks like a bad exerpt of a much larger and deeper thought.
I think you have to look at the concept of love as a disease that unbalances the mind to make one think that life is good when you are "in love" and life is miserable when you are not "in love". That seems to be the point here that reason and wisdom went out the windo the minute love walked in the door.
That sounds like something attributed to Socrates, only I thought it was better written than this.
And no, I do not agree with the thought. I find that understanding, trust and love work like three legs to a table all supporting the same relationship, whether that be a friendship, a kinship, a courtship, a fellowship, a partnership, or whatever. And the sould is more the that in virtue of which we are declared , good or bad, wise or foolish, stupid or smart. It is also that by which we are declared warm or cold.
Socrates not being much of a ladies man failed to see the wisdom in love....
2007-11-15 01:04:31 · answer #2 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the first half, except for the friendship part. I have never mistaken unrequited love for friendship, because I have never wanted a friend to want me. The second half is pretty gloomy and obscure.
My philosophy is that unrequited love is the best kind, because one is never disappointed by reality, which is a love killer.
2007-11-14 13:43:19 · answer #3 · answered by LodiTX 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I were in that position previously and that i need to say, I hated it. the very reality the guy i changed into deeply infatuated with felt no longer something changed into heart breaking. I felt insecure because I couldnt comprehend why 'X' didnt love me. Felt emotionally exhausted after making alot attempt and getting so connected.definite, its lonely.
2016-10-24 06:25:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally disagree with Socrates. He was a great philosopher, but it seems he was much better at understanding politics than love.
2007-11-15 03:14:23 · answer #5 · answered by Elaine P...is for Poetry 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
only on the first part
2007-11-14 14:01:43 · answer #6 · answered by Mary S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only the beginning. Not so much the end. ERRRROOF!
2007-11-14 13:58:42 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like this. it good.
2007-11-14 23:51:11 · answer #8 · answered by Can't Stop Smiling 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋