8 ms·

Could you give a citation for that "love for the ancient and medievals was akin to the word passion"? My understanding of that love-to-passion link is by way of

by rskar 8y ago

Could you give a citation for that "love for the ancient and medievals was akin to the word passion"? My understanding of that love-to-passion link is by way of Christianity, i.e. love as the motivation for the suffering (of Jesus). Otherwise, etymology doesn't show/suggest that sort of change in the meaning of "love" (e.g. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/110566 http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/110566). If anything, there's been a change in the meaning of "passion" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/passion https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/passion).

coliveira 8y ago
There is a lot of research around this topic, but here is an excerpt of an article from the Univ. of Oxford that touches on this change, that started to happen by the end of the middle ages: "People in every time and culture have fallen in love, but not every culture has written about love or valued it in the same way. 'In the 12th century, romantic love became something that was worth celebrating and exploring in songs and stories - and you only have to look at modern film and music to see that legacy is still with us.' Before the Norman conquest of England, Anglo-Saxon literature had a very different focus, said Professor Ashe. 'The world of the Anglo-Saxon warrior, at least in poetry, was based on the bond of loyalty between fighting men. Love in this world means love for your fellow warriors, and the idea of sacrificing yourself for the group." http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/did-love-begin-middle-ages http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/did-love-begin-middle-age...
- rskar 8y ago
  Maybe this is my limitation, but it still looks like "love" means about the same at its core, thru the times - I don't see a "lost meaning" to it. But I do see "flavors" for love, if you will - motivations or contexts for the love. And I accept the point that "not every culture has written about love or valued it in the same way." Yet the cited article does not indicate "love" as meaning "suffering for someone or something else" or anything like that. Instead, we get something about "tragic love" (an apparent "contradiction in terms"): "In the Middle Ages, the idea that suffering was in some way productive was very widespread." Earlier in that article: "So what changed in the Middle Ages? 'There was a transformation in culture,’ said Professor Ashe. ‘A series of church reforms in the 12th century took Christianity from a rather austere view of God the Father to a new focus on Christ's humanity. 'The spiritual lives of ordinary people were recognised, and people were encouraged to have a more emotional and personal relationship with God as individuals. And romantic love - giving yourself to another person - provides a justification, in the medieval moral compass, for the pursuit of self-fulfilment as an individual." And from there, I would argue, "passion" took on a definition of "love" (and not the other way round).
  - coliveira 8y ago
    From the article: "Love in this world means love for your fellow warriors, and the idea of sacrificing yourself for the group."
  - baldfat 8y ago
    Spinoza clearly makes definition statements of love. The love for neighbor was different than an emotionally based love. I have studied Ancient Hebrew, classical Greek, Aramaic, German, and Danish (WOWZ) and there isn't a time when the word love couldn't be translated. Sometimes with more then one word but love has always been a varied meaning word. Just as fear, sad and angry are translated love also is pretty clearly different categories within that emotion.
cicero 8y ago
The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis [1] is about four different Greek words that are usually translated as "love" in English: storge, philia, eros, and agape. The self-sacrificing love, agape, is what the GP is talking about. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves
- rskar 8y ago
  >The self-sacrificing love, agape, is what the GP is talking about. Perhaps, but the GP began with "the word love has lost its meaning throughout the ages". I don't think it has. Perhaps "love" can be parsed into several "flavors" (storge, philia, eros, agape, romantic, loyalty, etc.), but at the core it means still about the same (the "flavors" give hint or detail to motivations/context/obligations for the caring/concern/nurturing/keen-interest). In the phrase (from above) "truly free persons actively avoid love as in love is a passion", I think here passion means something like "intense emotion". "Passion" has taken on new meanings - barely controllable emotion, intense sexual love, arousing great enthusiasm, etc. Only by way of religious context would a word that meant "suffering" get linked to "charity" love (agape). If anything, its other new meanings seem to be about the kinds of suffering from unsatisfied/unsatiated/frustrated desires.
  - coliveira 8y ago
    > Only by way of religious context would a word that meant "suffering" Not true. The original meaning of the word passion was suffering, derived from Latin pati, the same root of patience. A passion in the emotional sense was suffering caused by love. This exactly shows that what was considered love in the old times was closely connected with suffering, a selfless feeling. Of course, religion had a lot to do with that. The happy feelings that we now assign to love are a conception of more modern times.
- baldfat 8y ago
  I love C.S. Lewis he is a good philosopher but a horrible Theologian or Biblical Scholar. There are only two words for love in the new Testament: Agape and Philia and they are used interchangably. Anyone that tries to say they mean different things are trying to sell you something. Exercise: Just look up the verses with the two words and read them (One difference (Many professors disagree that there is any difference)is that when Jesus and Peter had the conversation of "Do you love me." BUT I couldn't really tell you for certain why there were two words). Also same thing with rhema and logos they are used interchangeably. People that try to split words into "atoms" into definitions just haven't studied a language for academic purposes. The more I learn the more I know that the people who did the translations are at a different league and much better then I am. I cringe when people talk Greek or Hebrew in church because 75% of the times they are just wrong. Like dunamis (power from the inside) is "dynamite power" makes me want to scream there is no way Paul knew what dynamite was or was thinking about an explosive.

by rskar 8y ago

coliveira 8y ago

There is a lot of research around this topic, but here is an excerpt of an article from the Univ. of Oxford that touches on this change, that started to happen by the end of the middle ages: "People in every time and culture have fallen in love, but not every culture has written about love or valued it in the same way. 'In the 12th century, romantic love became something that was worth celebrating and exploring in songs and stories - and you only have to look at modern film and music to see that legacy is still with us.' Before the Norman conquest of England, Anglo-Saxon literature had a very different focus, said Professor Ashe. 'The world of the Anglo-Saxon warrior, at least in poetry, was based on the bond of loyalty between fighting men. Love in this world means love for your fellow warriors, and the idea of sacrificing yourself for the group." http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/did-love-begin-middle-ages http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/did-love-begin-middle-age...

rskar 8y ago
Maybe this is my limitation, but it still looks like "love" means about the same at its core, thru the times - I don't see a "lost meaning" to it. But I do see "flavors" for love, if you will - motivations or contexts for the love. And I accept the point that "not every culture has written about love or valued it in the same way." Yet the cited article does not indicate "love" as meaning "suffering for someone or something else" or anything like that. Instead, we get something about "tragic love" (an apparent "contradiction in terms"): "In the Middle Ages, the idea that suffering was in some way productive was very widespread." Earlier in that article: "So what changed in the Middle Ages? 'There was a transformation in culture,’ said Professor Ashe. ‘A series of church reforms in the 12th century took Christianity from a rather austere view of God the Father to a new focus on Christ's humanity. 'The spiritual lives of ordinary people were recognised, and people were encouraged to have a more emotional and personal relationship with God as individuals. And romantic love - giving yourself to another person - provides a justification, in the medieval moral compass, for the pursuit of self-fulfilment as an individual." And from there, I would argue, "passion" took on a definition of "love" (and not the other way round).
- coliveira 8y ago
  From the article: "Love in this world means love for your fellow warriors, and the idea of sacrificing yourself for the group."
- baldfat 8y ago
  Spinoza clearly makes definition statements of love. The love for neighbor was different than an emotionally based love. I have studied Ancient Hebrew, classical Greek, Aramaic, German, and Danish (WOWZ) and there isn't a time when the word love couldn't be translated. Sometimes with more then one word but love has always been a varied meaning word. Just as fear, sad and angry are translated love also is pretty clearly different categories within that emotion.

cicero 8y ago

The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis [1] is about four different Greek words that are usually translated as "love" in English: storge, philia, eros, and agape. The self-sacrificing love, agape, is what the GP is talking about. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

rskar 8y ago
>The self-sacrificing love, agape, is what the GP is talking about. Perhaps, but the GP began with "the word love has lost its meaning throughout the ages". I don't think it has. Perhaps "love" can be parsed into several "flavors" (storge, philia, eros, agape, romantic, loyalty, etc.), but at the core it means still about the same (the "flavors" give hint or detail to motivations/context/obligations for the caring/concern/nurturing/keen-interest). In the phrase (from above) "truly free persons actively avoid love as in love is a passion", I think here passion means something like "intense emotion". "Passion" has taken on new meanings - barely controllable emotion, intense sexual love, arousing great enthusiasm, etc. Only by way of religious context would a word that meant "suffering" get linked to "charity" love (agape). If anything, its other new meanings seem to be about the kinds of suffering from unsatisfied/unsatiated/frustrated desires.
- coliveira 8y ago
  > Only by way of religious context would a word that meant "suffering" Not true. The original meaning of the word passion was suffering, derived from Latin pati, the same root of patience. A passion in the emotional sense was suffering caused by love. This exactly shows that what was considered love in the old times was closely connected with suffering, a selfless feeling. Of course, religion had a lot to do with that. The happy feelings that we now assign to love are a conception of more modern times.
baldfat 8y ago
I love C.S. Lewis he is a good philosopher but a horrible Theologian or Biblical Scholar. There are only two words for love in the new Testament: Agape and Philia and they are used interchangably. Anyone that tries to say they mean different things are trying to sell you something. Exercise: Just look up the verses with the two words and read them (One difference (Many professors disagree that there is any difference)is that when Jesus and Peter had the conversation of "Do you love me." BUT I couldn't really tell you for certain why there were two words). Also same thing with rhema and logos they are used interchangeably. People that try to split words into "atoms" into definitions just haven't studied a language for academic purposes. The more I learn the more I know that the people who did the translations are at a different league and much better then I am. I cringe when people talk Greek or Hebrew in church because 75% of the times they are just wrong. Like dunamis (power from the inside) is "dynamite power" makes me want to scream there is no way Paul knew what dynamite was or was thinking about an explosive.