Philosophy and Theology 8 (2):113-128 (1993)
AbstractThis paper explores the question of whether there is a conceptual distinction between romantic love and friendship and whether such a distinction would support the normative conclusion that friends should not be lovers. Laurence Thomas has argued that, given an egalitarian conception of romantic love, there is no such distinction between romantic love and friendship. This paper shows that equally egalitarian alternatives to Thomas’s conceptions of love and friendship do suggest that friends should not be lovers. Moreover, the alternative view of romantic love defended in the paper supports a link between romantic love and sexual exclusivity
Similar books and articles
Socrates on Friendship and Community: Reflections on Plato's Symposium, Phaedrus, and Lysis.Mary P. Nichols - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
Sex, Love, and Friendship: Studies of the Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love, 1993-2003.Adrianne McEvoy (ed.) - 2011 - Rodopi.
Why lovers can't be friends.James Conlon - 2011 - In Adrianne Leigh McEvoy (ed.), Sex, Love, and Friendship: Studies of the Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love: 1993-2003. Rodopi.
The Character of Friendship.Laurence Thomas - forthcoming - In Danian Caluori (ed.), Thinking About Friendship: Historical and Contemporary Prespectives. Palgrave MacMillon.
Romantic Love: Neither Sexist Nor Heterosexist.Carol Caraway - 1987 - Philosophy and Theology 1 (4):361-368.
Thinking about friendship: historical and contemporary philosophical perspectives.Damian Caluori (ed.) - 2012 - Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Aristotle on Other-Selfhood and Reciprocal Shaping.Anthony Carreras - 2012 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (4):319-336.
Love, Ethics, and Authenticity: Beauvoir's Lesson in What It Means to Read.Michelle Boulous Walker - 2010 - Hypatia 25 (2):334 - 356.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads