Platonic relationships, so called

Remove all ads!

First, we may agree or disagree that anything platonic is actually possible. But that's not the point. The point is that I've seen 'platonic relationship' in various dumping dialogues (ie. a way of saying no). In some questionnaires, I've also seen a ridiculous (to me) term 'platonic friends'. Or 'platonic relationship' used when speaking about friends. I suspect it's another abomination of Political Correctness double-speech and something in me nods that I'm probably right, sadly.

What's the deal? Do most people get the meaning of the world 'platonic' wrong or do they see their friends of opposite sex as some sort of no-sex-gf's/bf's?

I don't get that. If we see opposite sex friends as some sort of minor girlfriends/boyfriends on the grounds that friendship of opposite sexes is hardly possible, then whence platonic if it's all about biology?

Or, if we stick to platonic - free from carnal drives (OK - in fact free from letting them motivate you, but that's a higher degree of initiation ), then why platonic friends if friends are opposed to girlfriends/boyfriends where physical desire is a factor?

At any rate, why 'platonic relationship' at all?

Your thoughts, please?

 

Some of my thoughts (I leave the naughty parts out):

"What does platonic mean exactly?"
"Am I just a dumb foreigner who doesn't know such a simple word?"
"Does it have something to do with Platon?"
"Or maybe plutonium?"
"Where are my pants..."

 

Platonic means a relationship that isn't romantic or sexual.

Your pants are over here. Sicko.

 

I want to sleep with just about every female friend I have. I know it'll never happen, but it doens't mean the thought never enters my mind.

 

Death Rabbit, is it understood so now when you live? That would be in agreement with my experience.

The strange thing, however, is that 'platonic' has long been used mostly with 'love'. That, therefore, would be romantic... unless the understanding of 'romantic' has become different. Back to platonic, though. Platonic love would be a spiritual affection trascending the carnal side. In orthodox platonic doctrine, that would even be unmixed with carnal desires, divorced with sexuality. Renaissance and baroque would add aesthetic admiration for beauty and pleasure from it. Thus, if not sexual, it is still reliant and even more focused on mutual complement of man and woman, bringing the psychic and spiritual aspect to the etreme.

How then is it synonymous to 'ordinary friends', 'just friends' or perhaps 'exclusively friendly relation', or in harsh reality - relation with people of opposite whom you know and tolerate but consider non-option if sex is concerned? Why is it used and, what's more, used with the word 'relationship' in those 'where is this going to' talks?

It would be hard, however, to assume such a gross and mass misunderstanding of the word. Neither can we assumed that the word has been picked for the snazzy sound and sophisticated touch. There must have been a reason why this and no other word has been chosen and, as it can't in all cases be misunderstanding, what is that reason?

Thoughts, please?

 

Well, to tell the truth, neither would surprise me.

It seems likely that the word was originally used either in the concept you have spoken of chevalier, or in a universal type of love that can be felt for anyone or anything- and again, being deeply spiriual or psychic as you have supposed, and I agree, of a far closer or at least deeper or more involved sort than the baser as dmc has put it, which is all mental and physical (simply put, emotional) and then was butchered by the mindless mobs to mean "I feel no attachment whatsoever" instead of "I love in an absolute sense, transecending the physical realm". But so it is with most things these days. I don't think many people even knew who Plato was.

I don't think that a lot of the modern culture these days sees past their desires, so to associate no attachment with no sex is not a huge leap in my opinion, in several countries at least.

My advice is just to be a nazi about it, to indiscriminantly and relentlessy correct people whenever they use it, stubbornly using the definition you think is correct when it is discussed, even when you know full well they mean something else, until they get the message. Works for me.

Edit: BTW, I'm not calling anyone who uses the phrase in that manner mindless- I myself think of it in such terms when I hear it because that has become the common usage. I'm assuming you had one of those talks you were talking about recently chevalier, and this is what sparked this curiousity?

[ December 10, 2003, 04:55: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

I agree with Klorox. I have lots of friends who are girls. Some I have gone out with, some not. But all I would like to be more then platonic with. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.

The way I see it, platonic means just being friends.

 

Apparently, Webster agrees with my previous post.

The second meaning, "a close relationship between two persons in which sexual desire is nonexistent or has been suppressed or sublimated" could mislead people into believing that Platonic is a descriptive term for relations between two persons who won't bed each other for whatever reasons. The entry is still 'platonic love', so it still seems odd when used about relations that aren't actually love in the first place.

If we made two controversial assumptions:

1. One can love more than one person at a time the way men love women,

2. Platonic quality is of the relationship, not of the way people handle it,

then we could say that a person can love some person(s) platonically and some the 'normal' way. That would mean, for example, a traditional relationship and a platonic feeling for someone else at the same time while not nuking sexual desire into oblivion as a general rule. For me, it looks schizoid and still logically inconsistent. It is even more so when speaking about the 'where is this going to' talks. If platonic is love but one transcending sex for the sake of love alone, then what does it have to do with turning someone down as your potential girlfriend or boyfriend?

Technically, there would be just one faulty but still roughly valid explanation:

You're a guy (I'm speaking from experience, so switch girl & guy around if you like). You have a friend who's a girl. For some obscure reasons pertaining to ****ed up life, you don't act on physical attraction towards her. She's in the friends area but not quite there. Not only do you love the person (as people at some point get to love their friends like family members), but your feelings are in their nature more loving than friendly... and loving not quite like brother and sister. Optionally, you want to keep it the way it is, that is you want to keep the spark of love in what is not essentially a love-oriented relationship, but are afraid that mundane sexual concerns could possibly ruin it, severe the bond which is so precious to you (not the same as dumping a friend in order not to lose friend in her/him if it wouldn't work).

As I say, it's still more or less valid but has three grave flaws. The other person isn't considered your lover or love affair. It's not begotten from faith in love that transcends sex to such an extent that sex (orthodox platonic: sexuality) is unneeded. Consequently from the latter, there are loving relations in your life where sex and co does belong. The third grave flaw is that it still looks like a feeling attraction to your friends issue.

Even these three grand flaws pale before another one, though: just how many people would have such morbid feelings developed to such an extent? Let alone such reasoning, but that's another thing. The use of the word 'Platonic', however, doesn't seem marginal. More like omnipresent.

OK, maybe I'm one picky classical scholar (have served my 4 years), but something does look wrong.

As always, thoughts, please

[ December 10, 2003, 16:32: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

@ Chev

You make a very logical, sound arguement. I can't disagree with anything you wrote above. However, (and this is directed towards everyone) it is possible for the definition of words to change over time, and even over a relatively short time frame. Just because Plato defined Platonic Love as being transcendent and absolute, it does not necessarily have that meaning today, and perhaps shouldn't even be intended to have that meaning today. Perhaps some examples are needed here to illustrate my point. I'll use these two off the top of my head:

"Show your true colors"

"The whole nine yards"

These are common figures of speech used today (at least in the United States). They have been in use for a long time, but today, mean something completely different than what they originally did. Actually, they are both warfare oriented references.

"Show your true colors" today means to be honest with someone, or at the very least to reveal your motives for your actions. However, that term originated in the 18th century and had to do with naval warships. The rules of war stated that all ships must "Fly (show) their true colors (the flag of the country they fight for) before opening fire on their opposition." This is used to great effect in a recent movie release.

"The whole nine yards" now means to give something your all out effort. However, this term originates during World War II. The allied fighter pilots rolled their machine gun ammunition up in coils before loading it onto their planes. When those coils were spread out to their entire length, they measured 27 feet, also known as 9 yards. So when you gave someone your "whole nine yards" at the time the phrase was invented, it meant that your emptied your entire stock of ammunition on a single target - usually an opposing ship, but possibly other targets.

The point of all of this is that the first term is around 300 years old, and the second term is only about 60 years old, yet their meaning has changed completely. To finally get back to topic, the original meaning of "Platonic Love" may have no bearing on what is meant by it today, given that the term "Platonic Love" was coined a couple of millenia ago. (Today no one thinks that when you give something the whole nine yards that you were in a fighter plane, and emptied nine yards of machine gun ammunition into it.)

So while it may be technically correct to point out today how people use the term improperly, it is likely you will not find an example of actual "Platonic Love" in modern day society. That is because it its essence, the term "Platonic Love" represents an ideal that is not overly realistic. I do not believe that it could exist today, if it ever could. At best, one person could have such feelings for another person without the other person knowing it. However, that doesn't really fit the bill as "Platonic Love" certainly implies a mutual feeling between two people - and not the type of one-sided adoration this would include. (There's another phrase whose definition has changed - "fit the bill".)

So while everyone here brings up some very good points, and Chev makes a very logical arguement over what the original definition of Plutonic Love would be like in modern society, we may be having a discussion of an archaic definition.

Edit: Spelling, grammar

[ December 10, 2003, 19:01: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]