Pyro Psycho wrote: Athos wrote:
Cookie wrote: You can't really define love; it depends on your definiton.
Taking the Justice Potter Stewart approach I see.
Well, it's not like it's the wrong thing to say in this case.
I have to agree with that "Justice Potter Stewart" person.
What is love? Baby don't hurt me ... don't hurt me.
Oh no, I didn't mean it in a bad way. (I am a huge fan of Justice Potter Stewart). Justice Stewart wrote a concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio
saying he could not necessarily define pornography, only that he knew what it was when he saw it. I have a fancy for sprinkling a little legal knowledge here and there. Love, like any other virtue, is by no means easy to define. [Edit] For example, in Plato's Republic
there are at least 3 different definitions of justice.
1. Justice (as proposed by Cephalus) is "to speak the truth and repay what one has borrowed."
2. Justice (as proposed by Thrasymacus) is "what is advantageous for the stronger."
3. Justice (as proposed by Socrates) is "not allowing the elements [of the soul] each to do the job of some other."
All of course, could be said to be justice. And, to a point, I suppose there are different degrees of justice, just as there is different kinds of love.
There is love on an individual level (affection) and there is love on the societal level (passion). Perhaps that'd be the best way to define it.