The concept of love and eros has been present throughout history, dating back to ancient Greece and Rome where it was seen as an important part of life. In fact, Plato believed that love was one of the four cardinal virtues necessary for living a good life alongside wisdom, justice, and temperance.
There is also a dark side to love; it can be misused and lead people astray. It is this dual nature of love that makes it such a powerful force in human affairs, especially when judging moral character and leadership ability. This essay will explore how philosophers have grappled with these tensions through their writings and theories on love and morality.
Let's define what we mean by 'love'. The Greek word agape means "brotherly love" while philia refers to friendship or affection between friends. Eros refers specifically to sexual attraction and romantic love. According to Plato's Symposium dialogue, love is a universal longing that brings humans together into relationships with other people, animals, plants, and even objects like music or art. For him, it is one of three primary drives along with hunger and thirst. Later philosophers such as Plotinus believed that love could be divided into two types - the physical (or sensual) type based on desire and pleasure and the spiritual (or rational) type which is higher than physical pleasures because it leads to knowledge.
St Augustine saw sex as essential for procreation but warned against indulgence in lustful desires since they would distract from God's glory. He believed that sex should only occur within marriage, otherwise it was immoral. Martin Luther also viewed eros as unavoidable but argued that Christians should use self-control instead of satisfying their desires outside marriage.
For Kantianism, goodness is defined by duty rather than feeling; actions must be done out of duty not emotion. This puts them at odds with utilitarianism which sees happiness as the ultimate goal. Aristotle disagrees with this viewpoint by saying emotions play an important role in motivating us towards moral action; without feelings there would be no incentive for doing anything virtuous.
The debate continues today over whether emotional intelligence can enhance leadership abilities or if leaders need more logical reasoning skills. Some argue that emotions help build trust between individuals while others say they hinder decision making due to bias or irrationality. There are also arguments about whether gender affects how much emphasis we place on morality versus leadership ability when evaluating someone's character or potential success as a leader.
Different philosophies have approached these tensions in various ways – some see love as a positive force while others caution against its dangers – but all agree that understanding love's complex nature is key when judging moral character and leadership ability. It may be worth considering how our own beliefs about love shape how we evaluate others as well as ourselves in terms of personal development.
What philosophical tensions emerge when the erotic becomes a lens through which to judge moral character and leadership ability?
The idea of judging someone's moral character based on their erotic preferences can be seen as problematic due to the fact that it could potentially lead to discrimination against individuals who are marginalized because of their sexuality. This concept has been explored by scholars such as Michel Foucault, who argued that power structures create certain forms of knowledge and ways of thinking about sexuality, which can have negative effects on marginalized groups.