5 Answers

  1. Just don't read the ancient Greeks – they say that you shouldn't. Especially Socrates, who even compared to his contemporaries was so distinguished by his preferences that he was expelled from Athens for this)

  2. Very interesting question. To begin with, I will say that the philosophy that we know now had roots. Greek and Roman languages. I will say right away that it will be difficult to find a direct answer to your question in their works. I will start with the Romans, since the Greeks were more lenient and the maintenance of family traditions and the very concept of family, they were less developed. Partly due to the good conditions in which they lived and the desire for beauty. The Romans were different by nature. There are three ancient Roman schools :

    My first favorite is Stoicism (Seneca and Marcus Aurelius), if you want to strengthen your moral foundations, understand the harsh truth of life, this book will suit you. Believe me, it has a lot of answers to a variety of questions: :Moral letters to Lucillius.You can buy it in the republic on Mayakovskaya Street ,but it's really expensive..

    I'm not so familiar with the next two, but they are much looser , and in the truest sense of the word.

    Epicureanism ( Epicurus) – very similar to life in the style of hedonism(the Greeks did so), all for their own satisfaction and knowledge of new joys. Of course, the role and knowledge of Epicurus is stupid to challenge , he was an interesting person.. But I doubt it will strengthen your true purpose.

    Here are some of his creations-http: / / www. koob. ru/yepikur/

    This branch influenced France in the 17th and 18th centuries,and what kind of debauchery was going on there(a separate story).

    About the latter, I will not be disingenuous, I know the least.

    Skepticism- ” .. contradictory in nature, some it encouraged to an in-depth search for truth, and others-to militant ignorance and immoralism..”

    Obviously, if you decide to look for the true causes of relationships between men and women in this branch, you can expect a completely different result.


    So to summarize:

    Stoicism is what you need

    Skepticism – can give you a new understanding of relationships, and can destroy some foundations..

    Epicureanism-destroys them completely.

  3. And it seems to me that love should not be anything to anyone, especially not only between a man and a woman. It also seems to me that the concept of morality and ethics is not directly related to love, they are not completely interrelated concepts. Read the book “We are our brain” by Dick Swaab, although the author is not a philosopher, but I think it will be interesting for you.

  4. The famous Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov has a work “The Meaning of Love”. There it is about the love of a man and a woman, although he says that the purpose of this union is not reproduction, i.e. procreation, because then a person is no different from animals. And the real union of a man and a woman is not yet visible, it is still to be seen in the future, when both sexes will become “the highest manifestation of themselves”, overcoming their limitations. Nevertheless, the work is about the union of women and men.

  5. From what I personally read-Fromm “The Art of Loving”. He was highly skeptical of the Enlightenment's claim that the soul has no gender, and believed that homosexuality was a consequence of the inability to achieve polarized unity. Thus, Fromm assumed that all homosexuals suffer from loneliness. Although according to Fromm, not all heterosexuals are capable of love. However, Fromm was not a researcher of homosexuality and devoted very little time to this topic, mentioning it rather casually.

    Still, perhaps, Schopenhauer, but I do not remember him at least some explanations, unnatural and all.

Leave a Reply