ADN

In the Greek text Synopsium (sp?), Socrates is talking about how he was instructed that love is the lacking and desiring of something..

Think about it, if we were all perfect, we would have no reason to admire anyone/anything, for they would have nothing to offer us to improve us. He is basically saying it is our imperfections that enable us to love. On a basic level, we love food when we are hungry, all the way to saying we love one another because others resemble traits that we dont possess but would like to possess, so therefore we are attracted to them.

So, with this mindset, how is it possible that God could love us if he is perfect?

I know you said love is complete awareness of the divine, could you answer the above mentioned as well as elaborating on your viewpoint and im sure we would all be gratefull /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

/It's been a while since I have read Socrates, as I am not exactly a fan of the Socratic method, which is a very manipulative form of philosophy. Essentially, it is Socrates' manner of making a claim, and providing pieces of evidence for his claim, and telling you exactly how they should be considered...which inevitably proves he is right, and forces you to accept him or "abandon reason." He controls his audience well, but perhaps manipulates them too much. Diogenes is a much better philosopher in my opinion, or the Samothracian father of Algebra; Pythogoras.

1. Regarding Love in the Symposium; find out what Greek word for "Love" he used, there are over twelve in common use all of which have a specific use. Socrates never said anything of the word "Love", he didn't speak English,.. find out what He ACTUALLY stated and then see what He actually MEANT, or you can only see in the mind of the translator. I bet you he was not using [font=Symbol:fb9a778031] [/font:fb9a778031]agaph[font=Lucida Console:fb9a778031] [/font:fb9a778031], and therefore not referring to a love of divine origins, but rather a human condition of "love" [as in: I love to play video games, or I love tomato soup and grilled cheese sandwiches].

And personally, I would say our experienced awareness of our own "imperfections" allow us to be humbled, and humility is a key to Love, as it is the greatest challenge to hubris, or undeserved pride and agressive competition when one is ill-suited to win by virtue. But love is not born of imperfection...per se.

Hen Alatheiaton Ton Thaliton,
(As true as the Ocean) ( a classic Greek way of saying "your mileage may vary").

Vertical,
Raum

If you think about it...God cant be perfect if he created man who is not perfect. If he was then he would have created us without flaws. But, obviously, he is not perfect in all aspects and neither are we. I like the way you looked into that. I agree that we love people because they have traits that we desire to have ourselves. Now, where does happiness fit into to this? Does it? Part of love is joy.

P.S. I did not mean any disrespect to Our Lord, I'm simply expressing a pov.

Nah dawg, remember we were created perfectly until the fall of man, ya feel?

Renee Descartes said based on the fact we're imperfect "how we, that are imperfect, can concibe the idea of something perfect, without existing a perfect entity to give us that"

Now i wonder how can we consider a Cirlcle is perfect?
let's notice that in nature for example you can found a pretty round orange but it's far from being perfectly round.

To me (I believe in God) he would never wanted to create us perfect.
When you are perfect you can't improve yourself.
Imperfection is the pure state of free-will you can be better or worse it's up to you and your sourrounding circunstances.
Love is a perfect feeling sometimes it doesn't work out but that's because we are imperfect.

I talked to my boy, Greek Master, and he smiled big when he told me this.

I was correct the word used by Socrates is "eros" not agape, or any other the other `10+ words in Greek for "Love." Eros is desire or wanting, not adoration or appreciation. Also, interestingly enough, the word Socrates used for "imperfect," actually translates to "incomplete," not "flawed."

Vertical,
Raum

While we are on the lap of philosophy and it's creators, I would like to share the thoughts of one of my favorite philosophers, CG Jung...Regarding our existence, whether it was meant to be that way or not, he provided a very interesting view of how the the creation itself (of man) was not a purposeful one on behalf of our Lord...From "Memories, Dreams, Reflections," :

If the Creator were conscious of Himself, He would not need conscious creatures; nor is it probable that the extremely indirect methods of creation, which squander millions of years upon the development of countless species and creatures, are the outcome of purposeful intention. Natural history tells us of a haphazard and casual transformation of species over hundreds of millions of years of devouring and being devoured. The biological and political history of man is an elaborate repetition of the same thing. But the history of the mind offers a different picture. Here the miracle of reflecting consciousness intervenes -- the second cosmogony [ed. note: what Teilhard de Chardin called the origin of the "noosphere," the layer of "mind"]. The importance of consciousness is so great that one cannot help suspecting the element of meaning to be concealed somewhere within all the monstrous, apparently senseless biological turmoil, and that the road to its manifestation was ultimately found on the level of warm-blooded vertebrates possessed of a differentiated brain -- found as if by chance, unintended and unforeseen, and yet somehow sensed, felt and groped for out of some dark urge...

Although the theory is flawed in some ways, it does make an interesting point....Among other things, the fact that our Lord evolves...I found it totally interesting, that this topic would come up while I was studying this...

AYHJA

there HAS to be a Creator for life's meaning? and this creator, not conscious of itself, is that not the same as energy?, or matter in it's highest frequency?.