My title refers to three accounts of interpersonal love: the rationalist account that Terence Irwin ascribes to Plato; the anti-rationalist but strikingly similar account that Harry Frankfurt endorses in his own voice; and the ‘ekstatic’ account that I – following the lead of Martha Nussbaum – find in Plato's Phaedrus. My claim is that the ekstatic account points to important features of interpersonal love to which the other accounts fail to do justice, especially reciprocity and a regulative ideal of equality.

Plato’s dialogues, the Symposium, and Phaedrus, provide a reasonable explanation of love. G. Vlastos and M. Nussbaum do not share such an opinion. The former contends that Plato’s view of love is about loving only a person’s beauty, but not the entire person; thus, it falls short of an appropriate explanation of love. The latter holds that a theory of love should be complete, and that Plato’s one is incomplete on the grounds that it does not account for personal love. (...) These criticisms will be re-evaluated in light of the duality of love as well as participants’ views in the Symposium; a re-assessment will weaken the mentioned objections. This paper contends that from the Symposium and Phaedrus, one can have a fruitful understanding of being in love, being out of love, falling in love, loving for its own sake and being erotically in love. In order to account for these related issues of love it is important to consider Plato’s works in terms of his “official” and “unofficial” views. The former is construed as the doctrine of the lover or loving for its own sake: this is associates with Diotima’s views which are repeated by Socrates. With reference to the latter, it is possible to explain what personal love or being in love, being out of love, falling in love, and being erotically in love involve. Erotic love will be interpreted as an extension of our philosophical conception of love, related to views of love that are mentioned in the Symposium other than Socrates’ report of Diotima’s conceptions. This paper is divided into two parts: the first one will show views of love in the Symposium. That is, being in love, being out of love, falling in love and loving for its own sake will be discussed. In addition, the forementioned criticisms will be re-evaluated. In the second section, we will show that Aristophanes’ speech expresses erotic love, and then Kant’s objections will be explained and discussed. (shrink)

In The Reasons of Love, Harry Frankfurt proposes a philosophical account of love according to which there are four necessary conditions for the occurrence of love. We may ask reasonable questions about these four conditions: (1) Is each condition adequately analytically defined? (2) Is each condition plausibly a necessary condition for love, and has Frankfurt defended their necessity with good arguments? (3) Are all four conditions consistent with each other? And (4) if the four conditions are only necessary, and hence (...) tell us only when love is absent, what must be added to Frankfurt’s account which would tell us, just as importantly, when love is present? In this essay I address these questions, although some more than others, especially in trying to understand Frankfurt’s claims about “self-love.” It emerges from this investigation that Frankfurt’s central metaethical thesis, which he has been advancing for three decades—that caring about or loving something logically precedes valuing it, and hence that we cannot have value-mentioning reasons for loving something or someone—starts to fall apart. (shrink)

Although we can try to explain why we love, we can never justify our love. Love is neither based on reasons, nor responsive to reasons, nor can it be assessed for normative reasons. Love can be odd, unfortunate, fortuitous, or even sadly lacking, but it can never be appropriate or inappropriate. We may have reasons to act on our love, but we cannot justify our loving feelings. Shakespeare's Bottom is right: "Reason and love keep little company together now-a-days." Indeed, they (...) keep none and they never kept any: there are no justifying reasons for love. (shrink)

It seems better to love virtue than vice, pleasure than pain, good than evil. Perhaps it's also better to love virtuous people than vicious people. But at the same time, it's repugnant to suggest that a mother should love her smarter, more athletic, better looking son than his dim, clumsy, ordinary brother. My task is to help sort out the conflicting intuitions about what we should love. In particular, I want to address a problem for the no-reasons view, the theory (...) that love cannot be rationally justified. Since it seems better to love good people rather than evil villains, it appears that there are indeed reasons for (or, at least, against) love. Is it coherent to talk this way and deny that love can be justified? I think so and will explain how. (shrink)

Several of Plato's dialogues seem to question the moral and epistemic value of image-making. Yet Plato's own word-images are powerful and alluring. I reconsider a conception of "Platonic" metaphysics in which the visible is denigrated relative to the purely intelligible, and in which only the latter can be an avenue to philosophical enlightenment. Viewing the apparent criticisms of image-making in the context of Plato's own use of images, I argue that his use of images can and does lead to philosophical (...) enlightenment and that images are necessary, in addition to logico-deductive reasoning, because of human limitation. (shrink)