Spice and Wolf Light Novel Discussion

[Darknemo2000]

Originally Posted by salv87

well, in my opinion, they are already like a pair, just a platonic one ^_^

It always amaze me how people misunderstand what 'platonic' means. Plotonic actually means Horo and Lawrence already had lots of sex with each other and now starting to look for something beyond it, but healthy physical relationship is absolute must in a platonic relationship.

[seaghyn16]

hmmm...Salv isn't "1st language is english" but even so...I learned a new word today, lol.

as for the definition of "PlAtonic," according to

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Platonic

Is as follows:

Spoiler for Definition of Platonic (Love):

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of Plato or his philosophy: Platonic dialogues; Platonic ontology.
2. often platonic Transcending physical desire and tending toward the purely spiritual or ideal: platonic love.
3. often platonic Speculative or theoretical.

platonic
Adjective
friendly or affectionate but without physical desire: platonic love BC). The concept of `platonic love' between people of opposite sexes is based on a passage in one of his writings.

Thesaurus
2. platonic - free from physical desire; "platonic love"
passionless - not passionate; "passionless observation of human nature"

Spoiler for Platonic part II taken from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,:

Pla·toni·cal·ly adv.
Word History: Plato did not invent the term or the concept that bears his name, but he did see sexual desire as the germ for higher loves. Marsilio Ficino, a Renaissance follower of Plato, used the terms amor socraticus and amor platonicus interchangeably for a love between two humans that was preparatory for the love of God. From Ficino's usage, Platonic (already present in English as an adjective to describe what related to Plato and first recorded in 1533) came to be used for a spiritual love between persons of opposite sexes. In our own century Platonic has been used of relationships between members of the same sex. Though the concept is an elevated one, the term has perhaps more often been applied in ways that led Samuel Richardson to have one of his characters in Pamela say, "I am convinced, and always was, that Platonic love is Platonic nonsense."

[salv87]

Originally Posted by Darknemo2000

It always amaze me how people misunderstand what 'platonic' means. Plotonic actually means Horo and Lawrence already had lots of sex with each other and now starting to look for something beyond it, but healthy physical relationship is absolute must in a platonic relationship.

hmm.. you sure are right on the misunderstanding. ^_^
well, at least we agree on the "something beyond sex" part.. but looking for something beyond doesn't have to mean that they had tons of sex..

Originally Posted by seaghyn16

hmmm...Salv isn't "1st language is english" but even so...I learned a new word today, lol.

as for the definition of "PlAtonic," according to

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Platonic

Is as follows:

Spoiler for Definition of Platonic (Love):

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of Plato or his philosophy: Platonic dialogues; Platonic ontology.
2. often platonic Transcending physical desire and tending toward the purely spiritual or ideal: platonic love.
3. often platonic Speculative or theoretical.

platonic
Adjective
friendly or affectionate but without physical desire: platonic love BC). The concept of `platonic love' between people of opposite sexes is based on a passage in one of his writings.

Thesaurus
2. platonic - free from physical desire; "platonic love"
passionless - not passionate; "passionless observation of human nature"

Spoiler for Platonic part II taken from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,:

Pla·toni·cal·ly adv.
Word History: Plato did not invent the term or the concept that bears his name, but he did see sexual desire as the germ for higher loves. Marsilio Ficino, a Renaissance follower of Plato, used the terms amor socraticus and amor platonicus interchangeably for a love between two humans that was preparatory for the love of God. From Ficino's usage, Platonic (already present in English as an adjective to describe what related to Plato and first recorded in 1533) came to be used for a spiritual love between persons of opposite sexes. In our own century Platonic has been used of relationships between members of the same sex. Though the concept is an elevated one, the term has perhaps more often been applied in ways that led Samuel Richardson to have one of his characters in Pamela say, "I am convinced, and always was, that Platonic love is Platonic nonsense."

Nice find Seag, glad you're learning something new from me

but, frankly, I didn't quite understand the "Salv isn't "1st language is english" ". I think I know what you wanted to say, but I'm not sure ^_^
also just to make sure, the word "platonic" is unternational, meaning it's the same in other languages (ex Russian, english, german etc)

[Darknemo2000]

According to Plato love was the mean to reach the eidos of Good, but to do that you needed to go from physical objects to less physical. His love conception is actually based on physical closeness.

It got misinterpretated by the Christian philosophy tradition, that completely ignored the platonic love's physical part and went saying that it was non-materia based.

As a final product - yes, but not as love itself. According to plato you have to love some one physiclly first. When you love the body, you can see the beauty of that body, eventually you can separate the physical presence of the body and just love the beauty of that body, eventually you separate from the beauty of that body and love the beauty itself. And beauty is one of those general eidos that lead you to the eidos of good which is the highest eidos.

Yet for paltonic love, as it is, and not as it was misinterpreted by christians, - physical love is necessarily to achieve the recognize the eidos. only through the love of that particular physical object you can start learning about the eidos behind it.

So the whole term platonic as in international meaning, is based on a mistake and misinterpretation. Those who actually read Plato;s works can confirm taht Plato's idea of love is very different from this 'international' meaning.

[Vexx]

I know it was just a typo... but "paltonic" (pal-tonic love) just had me smiling.

And yeah, the phrase is seriously misused by most people who never read or don't remember Plato's articulation of it.

Horo and Lawrence share warmth under a blanket in the cold of night, but they've been remarkably mature and civil about their relationship - which makes sense given the fairly strict medieval standards of behavior Lawrence grew up under. He's obviously considering their relationship but being very careful to explore the ramifications (e.g. his questions about human-"other" relationships, the mortality issue, and so forth).

[Cinocard]

Originally Posted by Darknemo2000

According to Plato love was the mean to reach the eidos of Good, but to do that you needed to go from physical objects to less physical. His love conception is actually based on physical closeness.

It got misinterpretated by the Christian philosophy tradition, that completely ignored the platonic love's physical part and went saying that it was non-materia based.

As a final product - yes, but not as love itself. According to plato you have to love some one physiclly first. When you love the body, you can see the beauty of that body, eventually you can separate the physical presence of the body and just love the beauty of that body, eventually you separate from the beauty of that body and love the beauty itself. And beauty is one of those general eidos that lead you to the eidos of good which is the highest eidos.

Yet for paltonic love, as it is, and not as it was misinterpreted by christians, - physical love is necessarily to achieve the recognize the eidos. only through the love of that particular physical object you can start learning about the eidos behind it.

So the whole term platonic as in international meaning, is based on a mistake and misinterpretation. Those who actually read Plato;s works can confirm taht Plato's idea of love is very different from this 'international' meaning.

I didn't read the English version of the work, but isn't "Platonic" always strictly used as an adjective? Should "platonic love" mean "a love like the ideal of Plato?"

As such, even if, according to Plato, the eventual evolution is inevitable, "platonic" does not pertain to the process of achieving the eidos of Good itself, but rather its characteristic (as you say, final). So Shouldn't using "platonic love" in this case be appropriated?

Of course, a true, complete "platonic love" has always been impractical (cmmon, give me an example). In the first place, it's never meant to refer to couple love, but something much more grandiose. So you may say it still does not fit to describe Lawrence and Horo, but the reason for it is not because they HAVEN"T had sex yet (oh how I hope so )

[Darknemo2000]

Then in what language you read him? In Greek? I did read him in ancient Greek (as this language is a must to study in my univ) but to tell the truth, it was better to read it in Lithuanian or English because some words are pretty hard to remember.

Platonic love is un-imaginable without the basis of simple physical love. Plato himself stated that in the Fest. You are talking about final result of non-physical love, but the result is impossible to be attained without the physical means so talking about it as singular basis apart of its process is simply useless. It's like talking that wheels or engine is not a part of the races and just a result who is the first is. Plato never separated the physical love from his love ideal, because the basis of this ideal is non-idealistic, but otherwise it would be impossible to achieve. The final result will always be partly based on physical love. You just cannot separate the physical love and platonic love as simply platonic love has to have physical love, and the result will always have the recognition of ideas through physical means.

Platonic love as such cannot exist - it has to be created in gradual process of eidos recognition and this goes through physical means.

In other words you cannot talk about separation of physical and non-physical love as a result simply because there would be no result without its creation (thus physical relationship).

So, if you are saying the love between Horo and Lawrence is platonic, then in a true sense of what platonic means, and not its misunderstand - you are saying that Horo and Lawrence did have a close physical relationship, but now are able to be without it because they started to see the eidos behind their physical closure.

Which is of course not true since Horo and Lawrence didn't have had physically close relationship so far, thus you cannot call their love platonic at all.

[seaghyn16]

Never argue with Dark...lol. Just nod your head and go "yep." After all, he's the one who single-handedly masterminded the operation which de-authoritized the Great Onizuka.

In the end though, i can say just 2 things:

1) Dark's right about the theory and ideaology of the word's history.

2) When a word's meaning is changed due to whatever, like popular demand, somebody says "that's what it means" and nobody double-checked him, etc etc, it usually changes as such. That's why when we say for example:

A little bird told me

it doesn't mean a little bird spoke understandable speech, but instead, "f someone doesn't want to say where they got some information from, they can say that a little bird told them."

although this example is an idiom...anyway, i hope it generalizes the point I'm trying to make O_o

[Darknemo2000]

It kind of annoys me to see when someone misuse the word 'platonic' so badly, and think it has something to do with Plato, whose real 'platonic' love was very different. I could well imagine that Plato himself would call such love that in a contemporary meaning is called 'platonic' a fake and a relationship of degenerates, invented by evil minds of poets and other similar kind imbeciles who cloud our realization of eidos (we all know how Plato despised poetry despite being well capable of writing poetry himself).

[judgment26]

Section 1/2 of Vol. 4 chapter 6 is done. Just two more sections left!!!

[Cinocard]

Haha, I know we are way off-topic, but I can't stop. Anyway, since I'm in a hurry, here's a short note of my points:

1: Linguistically, the term "Platonic love" hasn't been misused throughout the world. Rather, it has "evolved" from a strictly philosophical phrase to another, with a broader modern meaning.

2: Words of Plato aren't of absolute truth. I know how the eidos of love is realized in Plato's teaching. And I did use the word "inevitable," so you don't need to re-explain it. However, if I were to deny Plato's thinking, using "Platonic love" without concern to the process would still be correct.

After all, the phrase "Platonic love" wasn't coined by Plato himself, but by the people study his teaching. If the thousand people before me invented the phrase "platonic love" themselves to refer to what it is in philosophy today, why can't I use it in a different way, since the whole world is using it like that, and to replace the old "Platonic love" with "Platonism love" or something similar? We have the right to examine it, to believe it, or to question it, and to redefine it.

Again, words "evolve."

3: Also according to Plato, love is to love the true form of beauty, the element of ideal beauty that others possess. That said, from a more candid viewpoint, it may be feasible for Horo and Lawrence to have sex with different people, and still be able to achieve a "platonic love" between themselves. Though I can't prove it, I believe Plato never flatly denied such thing either.

Though, as I said, "Platonic love" is impractical from the first place, as Plato admitted himself that our love toward beauty can never be truly satisfied till we die. I can see why hardcore Plato fans would be annoyed when the term is "misused." But if so, just banish the term from any and all non-academic talk.

That "misuse" happens so often that there derives a need to discern between amour platonique and amour platonicien (Did I get it right? Damn French). In English, the adjective isn't so distinct as in French, and that's why I said using "Platonic" to refer to something non-sexual in love is totally acceptable.

So face it, you are the minority. To put it nice, you are an academic, philosophic person. To put it in a bad way,you are antiquated.

And now I'm late...

P/s: came back and edited the post a little bit. There ya go, the argument is stronger now. Also, do you prefer to be "dark," or to be "nemo?" Lolz

[judgment26]

Well, since everyone's talking about it....

I won't try to argue with nemo about whether or not the term is misused, because my knowledge regarding Plato's works is quite limited. However, what I do know is that the modern, widely-accepted meaning of "platonic love" is a kind of love that involves no physical contact. Applied to relationships in Medieval times, the term is frequenly used to describe the "courtly love" between a knight and a lady of high status, where the difference between the two's social class renders physical union impossible, or at least forbidden.

[Blank-Mage]

I prefer to avoid arguments.

[Darknemo2000]

Well again, I view it as an misuse, created by medieval Plato's interpretations who wanted to support their discussions by an authority, and although Plato was a pagan (naturally), he was widely regarded as an authority until late medieval ages when Aristotle's works were re-discovered. Plato was still a big hit, but Aristotle was bigger at that time.

If someone quotes you but says that you said something you never did, or worse something that actually is opposite of what you were claiming then how would you call it - evolve? I highly doubt it.

So yeah, I am still continue to argue that platonic love as long as it has Plato's name in the term is misused, and if someone wanted to describe a non-physical non-passionate love they should have invented another term rather than connecting it with Plato.

Though term Platonic love was not used by Plato his idea of love is refereed by this term so it doesn't change a thing. It was invented for the matter of convenience as Plato talked about love but it was obvious that it was somewhat different than what others imagined love to be.

It wasn't the one who first used term 'platonic love' and inventor of Plato's love ideas, it was still Plato himself. And to refer to his idea of love, separating it from usual understanding about love, the term was used. And is now misused as long as it is linked to Plato.

Words of Plato aren't of absolute truth.

Excuse but who said that they were? He was a great thinker but he also made his mistakes, specially regarding the city ruling. Yet when we are talking about his works we should be talking about his ideas in this case, and term platonic clearly indicates to Plato and his understanding of love, so as long as we talk about the platonic love he is a truth in a sense that he is an object of our discussion. Weather his ideas were right or wrong is not a question here, but a question is when others start to misuse his ideas about love, and still link it to his name, when that love is almost opposite to what he held to be love.

Nowadays, many people probably do not even know that 'platonic' is referring to the Greek philosopher at all, but it still doesn't change the fact that linguistically you are still putting a link between his idea of love and something that is quite different from the idea.

Evolving is great and all, but there should not be a linguistic link to the 'platonic' love and Plato, since then it is not really evolve but rather a mistake and misuse.

[salv87]

okay, since I'm the one who started it, I'll say something too.
First, I don't think saying the wrods "platonic love" can be counted as quoting him. on that note I agree with the french and what Cinocard mentioned about "amour platonique and amour platonicien" as in "platonic love" and "love according to Plato"..
since nowadays, the phrase platonic love more often is understood as a relationship there does not exist any form of sexual connection or sexual elements.

basically it's the same with the words weight and mass. Nowadays a common misintepretation of the terms is quite often.. many people don't even know the difference between the 2. But almost everybody unwillingly uses the word weight or weighs and so on most of the time, when speaking about mass. the same is in Lithuanian if that makes it clearer "svoris ir mase". you probably use the words "sveria" and you don't get the answer in Newtons.

I would agree that not all changes are to the best, but this is something I don't think that should cause a big fuss..

[judgment26]

I'm going to assume that you're right, nemo, but if I recall correctly, there are actually quite a number of instances in the English language where misusage has gradually developed into the accepted norm. Annoying as it may be, if you go around asking what the term "platonic love" means, almost 100% of those who actually know the term will give you the definition I just mentioned. Yes, it is a misuse as far as Plato is concerned, but few, if anyone would take it to mean what you intend for it to mean if you spoke the term with Plato's actual conception of love in mind. Adhering to the original usage is kinda like saying that someone is "gay" today and intending to mean that he is merry, according to the old usage of the word.

[Darknemo2000]

Platonic has a linguistic link to Plato which is enough for me to call this term a misuse. It is bit different from word gay for example as Plato is an actual name and from his name was created this term and it still holds the language connection to the plato theory, which is why I consider it to be misuse when it is used to mark something that is quite different from what Plato were speaking about.

So face it, you are the minority. To put it nice, you are an academic, philosophic person. To put it in a bad way,you are antiquated.

Well, philosophy was always much bigger force than it is nowadays, but the two philosophers were the main ones that created such force - those were Plato and Aristotle. Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche or Kierkegaard - all of them are connected to these two philosophers. Thats why one of our professors even say such rather strong words - that if you studied Aristotle and Plato you studied all philsophy in general as all those others that followed them were just focusing on some parts of Plato's or Aristotle's philosophy. And when we talk about philosophy you have to realize that at those times philosophy was different from todays in a sense that it had much more influence. Hell it and medicine where the first two sciences. All other sciences came from philosophy (be it physics or psychology, or chemistry).

You cannot really discard the antique philosophy as old as it always comes back at us in our contemporary world, by it in form of atoms, or depression or socio-cultural problems - antique philosophy does influence us quite a bit and the funny thing that it never really grows old as it keeps on being revitalized over and over again.

Right now the philosophy may not have such strength as when during Marks times, but it still invades our life through our ethics (assuming you belong to western world) and other aspects of life. If you think that nowadays culture escaped for from the Plato and Aristotle making them just old antiques then you are just ignorant.

Of course this is not what we are originally discussing about and a nowadays philosophy's influence and antique philosophy's influence to our contemporary lives should be discussed elsewhere...

Anyways, even this same platonic love has many possibilities to be discussed, yet when we discuss them we should not give a linguistic link between one philosophers name and an idea that does not belong to him, because this will be mistake.

[seaghyn16]

I have a solution to our problems, lol. If the word "platonic" love will be taken to define what plato defined in his study, that of the end result of love without the need of physical contact develped by physical contact, and that won't change, then we just need to do what American's do best, and make up words and/or new meanings. So, for a word which means deep affection/love without the need/requirement/desire for sex, let's call it...

Flibol.

pronouced: FL (as in :flunk") I (as in "it") BOL (as in "bowl")

The relationship between Horo and Lawrence is more of a flibol kind of love. wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: Ideas develp. That's a fact. But it's not the same. Plato and his ideas weren't new. They never were. They were just vocalized, recorded, and contemplated on. After all, they weren't the beginning, but merely one small drop in a much larger, and longer history. Theirs was a time that was nothing more than the devolpment and contemplation of ideas to live by, which came from the time before them. Likewise, we take some of their ideas and live by them, changing them and growing ever stronger as we continually modify our histories, to change our futures. So like, Plato wasn't antique, because he wasn't old. he isn't old. He's just one part of history. Also, ancient is relative O_o. Like the word "bakari" in japanese, it's taken to mean "it's only been a short while" but meant from the speakers perspective. for example, after 18 years and their kid leaves home, this word could be used to say 18 years was short. Or it could be used to say something like you already just ate, so you don't want a snack or something. Like this, ancient is relative to that which seems to have happened long ago, relative to the one using it.

At least this is my two cents. But as words relate and correspond to the one who uses them, their meanings can differ. Expressing one's thoughts into words, because words aren't the expression, merely a way to try and communicate that understanding/feeling/knowledge/etc. We use them for that purpose.

EDIT2: About Plato's ideas being new. I'll say again they weren't "new" but this is relative to my understanding of what "new" in this case means. He expounded on what was before, and brought different, more usable, more deeper understanding to things, yet it wasn't "new" in the context of how I'm using 'new' in this case.

[Cinocard]

Woa, now, here, I wanted to argue this in a civilized manners just for some entertainment, but your methods of doing this pisses me off.

I asked you a "calm down" question. You ignored. Okay, may be it does not seem that fun to you, but:

I tried to write something that seemingly accepts both sides of the debate. It may be successful, may be not. But either way you are not satisfied. You want to trash me.

You bent my words.

You deduced my points into something else, then trashed it to prove that I'm wrong.

You involved your own opinion of my argument. Don't said you didn't. You looked down on it, and that appeared in your text, which is rude. Contrast to mine, which I tried to make it objective, except the sentence where i criticized your thinking clearly. Oh, but I'm doing the exact thing I said you did. And in your next post, if I don't say this already, you will say that I'm twisted, that I bite my own tongue. Except this is a retaliation.

Spoiler for Quote from Darknemo:

Words of Plato aren't of absolute truth.

Excuse but who said that they were? He was a great thinker but he also made his mistakes, specially regarding the city ruling.

Excuse me, but who said you'd said that they were. You know how to write? It's called writing technique. Need I explain what it is here?

Spoiler for Quote from Darknemo:

If someone quotes you but says that you said something you never did, or worse something that actually is opposite of what you were claiming then how would you call it - evolve? I highly doubt it.
...
Nowadays, many people probably do not even know that 'platonic' is referring to the Greek philosopher at all, but it still doesn't change the fact that linguistically you are still putting a link between his idea of love and something that is quite different from the idea.
...
It wasn't the one who first used term 'platonic love' and inventor of Plato's love ideas, it was still Plato himself. And to refer to his idea of love, separating it from usual understanding about love, the term was used. And is now misused as long as it is linked to Plato.
...
Evolving is great and all, but there should not be a linguistic link to the 'platonic' love and Plato, since then it is not really evolve but rather a mistake and misuse.

They, who "misused" the term, did not know Plato. Then they, who "misunderstood" the term, did not know Plato. Where's the link? A new meaning of an already existed word is born. The two meanings are completely separated. Know what "multiple-meaning-word" is? Such words were mostly "misused" in the past.

And then, if they do not know Plato, do not refer to Plato, do not refer to his thinking, then they do not quote from Plato. It started from something that involved Plato. Now it's not anymore. I call it "evolve." (here you will say it do involve, but didn't you say that Plato thought the product and the process are inseparable? So they should be completely distinct, right? )

Now, if I call an anime anime, you go around Animesuki and rant: It's not anime. It's a Japanese-style cartoon! Assuming you know Japanese uses anime to refer to all form of animation, Disney and whatnot.

Or Albert Einstein, his general relativity theory basically dismissed Issac Newton's "Law of universal gravitation." But you know how many time he used the symbol "G" in his work? Why don't you try telling him to invent something else to use?

And Salv's post about weight and mass is another excellent example.

Shoot! Super long, critical hit! I still have more to write. Better split it into 2

[Cinocard]

Spoiler for Quote from Darknemo:

Weather his ideas were right or wrong is not a question here, but a question is when others start to misuse his ideas about love, and still link it to his name, when that love is almost opposite to what he held to be love.

Ignore the typo error.

I used the term "Platonic," I refer to something close to final product, the Eidos of good in Plato's teaching. I refuse to believe what causes it, however.

I didn't talk about Horo and Lawrence specifically in this part. I talked if there exists such a love, but without the eventual process Plato mentioned. Assuming such love do exist, it proves that Plato was wrong. However, that love still carries the characteristic of Plato's ideal love. He was the first who mentioned such state of love, and I name the newly-found love after his name to honor it. You call it crap.

Spoiler for Quote from Darknemo:

You cannot really discard the antique philosophy

Excuse but who said I did? I said your way of thinking is antiquated, means that you are not capable of accepting both the proper old philosophic meaning; and the widely-used modern meaning of the word.

Spoiler for Quote from Darknemo:

Of course this is not what we are originally discussing about and a nowadays philosophy's influence and antique philosophy's influence to our contemporary lives should be discussed elsewhere...

I never did.


Afterword: sorry about this post, but disregard it, especially the first part. It has been sometime since I had a fun argument on a forums. And if I did not write it like this, it'd feel incomplete, haha. I was so tempted to write this, even though I knew I shouldn't So, bring it on, Nemo.