Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dachshund]

Gabriel Marcel argued that love and beauty were related to each other. He said:

"You know that you have truly loved someone when you have glimpsed in them that which is too beautiful to die".

I think he is right.

Does anyone disagree?

Regards

Dachshund

[Dachshund]

Oops the title of the OP should read: "How is Love related TO Beauty"

[LuckyR]

I don't disagree, though in common usage, various reasonable people would agree or disagree that the "beauty" used in the love context would be identical to other uses of the word "beauty".

[Hereandnow]

How is it that when one acknowledges something or someone as beautiful, one can escape one self to do so? It is not that there is no one or nothing there, beyond the self, it's rather that this "Other" is given to you through your self, that is, your faculties of perception, thought, and feeling. Love and beauty? Whence comes love if not from within? And how is it that the beloved can place this there? He, she or it can inspire, one might say, or, to put the matter on more objective footing, catalyze, through some emotional midwifery (think Socratic maieutics such that one cannot teach another what the other does not already know, for elsewise how could the other have the disposition to receive it?) love and aesthetics, but not be these themselves sort of transposing from one to the other. It cannot be made sense of to say that anything "out there" (if Wittgenstein will pardon me for speaking nonsense) can get in here.

[samseth]

Good day for all,

I agree with the quoted statement given but I also have my point of view on this. As a rational thinker, I also spent some time to think when this topic really 'poked' my mind.

In my way, I also agree that Beauty is indeed related to Love, but the relationship between them needs to be explained or expressed in different and detailed way. This is my way of thinking and I will present it in sequence and in simple ways.

• 1. By word itself (literal meaning)
  
  i. Beauty & Love - both are 'literally' nouns and can be expressed
  ii. Love - can also be a verb, but in this case it is a noun with capital 'L'
  iii. Beautiful & Lovely - now they become adjectives
  iv. Beauty (beautiful) - [no matter how I think, I can only tell that the word indicates an element of appearance (adjective) *based on what I know so far*
  v. Love - it is something we can feel (feeling)
  vi. Noun - Beauty = Love
  vii. Adjective - Beauty (beautiful) = Love (lovely)
  viii. Verb - Beauty ≠ Love (love is a verb)
  ix. Feeling/Emotion - Beauty ≠ Love or Beauty < Love (if any future arguments are included)
  x. Appearance - Beauty (beautiful) > Love (lovely) (if any future arguments are included)

As I see the 'foundation' above, I can confirm that they are related with each other at some points. I will move to the theory behind those words.

• 2. Theories or Philosophy
  
  i. Philosophy of Beauty (and explanation)
  In my point of view, after I read some opinions from other professionals, I can see that Beauty is the way particle by particle, cell by cell, and substance by substance which then made a thing (or being) are arranged in a certain way. This makes me think that Beauty is a part of 'perfection' and created by logical processes and does not require an emotion (at first) but a system whether it is naturally formed or created by human action.
  
  ii. Philosophy of Love (and explanation)
  "Love is an excitement towards something". This sentence means that Love needs a thing to be loved, which that thing must be constructed by systems, and contains Beauty in its way.
  Love and Beauty are also related to power, if this type of philosophy is included in this thread, I will say that now they are having a same type of title and degree. This argument cannot be included based on my opinion since each of them is now a 'mighty title' which cannot be related. Beauty is now having its own 'business' and the same thing happens to Love.

Therefore, after I went through this, I will jump to the aftermath. The final conclusion of my explanation is,

"Beauty is not important for Love, if any, maybe insignificant enough, but a sense of Love can be established from a spark of Beauty."

I am a 21 years old Malaysian named Sam, I am a bachelor student in business major. I am interested in philosophy since I think I need to see the world broader, and develop advanced critical thinking skill. I am not old enough to boast myself on my achievements or anything since I have no experiences as much as what others have. I am humbly being here to learn and share (not teach) my own thoughts too, so for those who read this, please give chances to this wandering young man with benevolence.

I am also a writer and working for my first ever poetry book, which hopefully will finished this year. However, I write poems mainly in my mother tongue, Malay and some of them are in English. If anyone out there is interested to read my artwork, please send me a message so I can share my website link. Thank you.

[aveenire]

where is love ? and lust and love are different thing.

[dawwg]

How is it that when one acknowledges something or someone as beautiful, one can escape one self to do so? It is not that there is no one or nothing there, beyond the self, it's rather that this "Other" is given to you through your self, that is, your faculties of perception, thought, and feeling. Love and beauty? Whence comes love if not from within?

Simply put, love is a subjective value based on habit, repetition and a sparing of the rod

And how is it that the beloved can place this there? He, she or it can inspire, one might say, or, to put the matter on more objective footing, catalyze, through some emotional midwifery (think Socratic maieutics such that one cannot teach another what the other does not already know, for elsewise how could the other have the disposition to receive it?) love and aesthetics, but not be these themselves sort of transposing from one to the other. It cannot be made sense of to say that anything "out there" (if Wittgenstein will pardon me for speaking nonsense) can get in here.

"Beware of strangers with candy" but not your ugly old grandparents (who may be Nazi sympathizers for all you know) or your ugly old town that stroke your ego's reliance on familiarity.

[ian37]

To love someone, I think you have to find him or her beautiful or at least appreciate seeing some sort of beauty within that individual. This could be inner, outer, or both. So it would seem that love cannot exist without some relationship to beauty. Yet, I still strongly feel that you can find beauty outside of love. Therefore, a demon of duality.

[detail]

Love can have many aspects not only visual but olfactorial (smells etc.) and a whole cloud or even bunch of other aspect. Some of these bunches don't seem to oblige you but may come from cultural aspect as for example for the gypsi culture or other third world countries even stronger definitions could be found.

[detail]

Just think about burt lancaster in from here to eternity , where he wanted to kill himself if the woman of his desire didn't wanted him.

[Count Lucanor]

There's a famous meme on internet with a phrase doubtfully attributed to Nietszche:

If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria.

The same aesthetic criteria could be attributed to love.

[Sculptor1]

Gabriel Marcel argued that love and beauty were related to each other. He said:

"You know that you have truly loved someone when you have glimpsed in them that which is too beautiful to die".

I think he is right.

Does anyone disagree?

Regards

Dachshund

Love can make someone beautiful. But to love beauty for the sake of it is false.

[Angel Trismegistus]

No one's picked up on the role of death in the Marcel quote. Strange.

[LuckyR]

No one's picked up on the role of death in the Marcel quote. Strange.

Though less strange than posting about something you find interesting while withholding your own opinion on it.

[Angel Trismegistus]

No one's picked up on the role of death in the Marcel quote. Strange.

Though less strange than posting about something you find interesting while withholding your own opinion on it.

Fair enough. So it seems to me that the Marcel quote resonates upon the theme of liebestod, the romantic idea that associates love and death. The classic expression of this theme, found in opera and literature, portrays love as transcendent -- Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "I shall love thee better after death." But Marcel appears to contradict this theme and to oppose love and death -- the beloved is in some sense "too beautiful to die." In the Marcel quote the association of love and beauty appears to be at odds with the association of love and death. The quote, as it stands, without the benefit of context, seems to deny the transcendence of love.