It must be placed or kept beyond the mind’s reach, away from a dutiful respect because of its mysteriousness, its awesome bisexual men, divine, or nature that is romantic. But then a philosophical examination seems appropriate: is it synonymous with certain patterns of behavior, of inflections in the voice or manner, or by the apparent pursuit and protection of a particular value (“Look at how he dotes upon his flowers-he must love them”) if it is agreed that there is such a thing as “love” conceptually speaking, when people present statements concerning love, or admonitions such as “she should show more love, ”?
If love does possesses “a nature” that is recognizable by some means-a individual expression, a discernible pattern of behavior, or any other task, it may nevertheless be expected whether that nature could be precisely comprehended by mankind. Love might have a nature, yet we might perhaps maybe not hold the appropriate intellectual ability to comprehend it-accordingly, we possibly may gain glimpses possibly of their essence-as Socrates contends into the Symposium, but its real nature being forever beyond humanity’s intellectual grasp. Consequently, love could be partially described, or hinted at, in a dialectic or exposition that is analytical of concept but never comprehended in itself. Love may consequently be an epiphenomenal entity, produced by human being action in loving, but never ever grasped by your head or language. Love might be therefore referred to as a Platonic Form, belonging to the greater world of transcendental principles that mortals can conceive of in barely their purity, catching just glimpses for the types’ conceptual shadows that logic and explanation unveil or disclose. […]