I have often been asked to give an example illustrating what a Platonic Form might look like? Here is a possible answer, a possible ending of a long Socratic discussion of romantic love.
Romantic love is not a moral virtue. But it certainly fits the idea of something that is valuable in itself, fitting the broadened notion of “ethics” as something having “intrinsic value” or “absolute value” as proposed by G. E. Moore and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I also think romantic love is a topic that can benefit from Socratic discussion.
In relation to romantic love, if we understand “admirable” in the broad sense defined in other essays on Socratic reasoning, the question to ask is:
That kind of romantic love that is admirable, what is the precise essence of what makes it admirable?
Or equivalently: That kind of romantic love that is of intrinsic value, what is the precise essence of what gives it that intrinsic value?
Keep in mind that, according to the midwife principle, Socratic reasoning is by nature a matter of individual self-critical self-exploration, an attempt by some given individual to articulate his or her own perceptions about what is admirable and not-admirable, and then to test the results in the light of other perceptions by this same individual. On the present account, this prevents Socratic reasoning from ever reaching conclusions that might be valid for everyone everywhere. The following are the results of my own reflections.
I begin with some words and concepts that I personally associate with admirable romantic love:
Trust, communication, intimacy, chemistry, intense feeling, passion, sharing, unselfish caring, lasting, mutual, reliable.
This is a list of familiar words and concepts. The problem for Socratic reasoning is that all familiar words are vague and ambiguous when it comes to what is truly admirable (due to “the weakness of words” (as Plato puts it in his Seventh Letter 342D.)
If it were just a matter of choosing between words on this list, I would choose “intimacy.” But the trouble is that the word “intimacy” itself calls to mind many associations, some of which may turn out to be ambiguous with respect to true goodness, rather than a precise explication of my sense of the essence of what stirs my admiration about romantic love.
The following paragraphs are my attempt to make more clear and precise my sense of the core of what it is that makes admirable romantic love admirable. You can note that clarifying what the words mean to me requires some preparatory description setting a context that help make the meaning of my ultimate definition very clear and precise.
What is the opposite of romantic love?
One useful way of articulating what you find admirable about something is to define it by contrast with its opposite.
“Impersonal” relationships seem to me the extreme opposite of romantic love, and serve as a good starting point for describing romantic love by contrast. To have only impersonal relationships is to leave the deepest part of oneself untouched and undeveloped. Impersonal relationships are also relatively uninvolving emotionally. One can relate to others impersonally and remain emotionally rather dead. What makes Romantic Love admirable can be defined as the opposite of these things, as follows:
Intimacy as an element in Romantic Love.
The reason romantic love can be important is that those aspects of a person’s being that are most unique, valuable, and precious are also very often aspects that tend to be most private, least able to be shared in impersonal interactions with the general public. That kind of “intimacy” which is an element in great romantic love is what happens when two people meet on this level – when each makes contact with the other in such a way that each feels thoroughly recognized and contacted by the other, in what each is able to now feel is the most precious and unique, private part of his or her being.
The relation of intimacy to emotional flowering and intense passion.
Often a person falling in love was previously unaware of this part of her own being, it was something lying dormant, unawakened and undeveloped. Deep personal meeting awakens it, making the person flower and feel more alive, more deeply alive. This explains why people in love feel carried away by passionate feelings beyond their conscious control.
A resulting proposal about the unifying “essence” of what makes romantic love admirable.
In the context described above, my present theory about the essence of what makes admirable romantic love admirable would be: That kind of deep personal meeting which more fully awakens in each partner, and causes to flower in intensely involving emotion, what each can feel is most uniquely precious about him or herself.
This can serve as one example of what I think a Platonic Form might look like.
What makes this description better than other possible descriptions?
Unlike other descriptions, you can’t have this kind of deep personal meeting without having admirable romantic love.
Unlike other descriptions, all other things being OK, any increase in this deep personal meeting will invariably result in an increase in the quality of romantic love. If you want to “work on” your relationship and improve its quality, this is one good guide to such working and improving.
It is also worth mentioning some limitations to this proposal.
First, I cannot know that this description is absolute and final, that no “counterexamples” will ever reveal weaknesses in it.
I can be confident however,
(a) that it is an improvement over other more familiar concepts I had when I began thinking about this, and
(b) that every counterexample will reveal a particular weakness that can be remedied by a particular refinement in this definition.
Secondly, I cannot know that this is the only “essence” of Romantic Love that meets the above tests. There may well be others. Technically, then, I should not claim that this is “the” essence of Romantic Love only “an” essence of Romantic Love.
Leave a Reply