Romantic and Platonic Love
What is the essential difference between the two?
After publishing my piece on Ayn Rand’s conception of love with FEE, I’ve been pondering what distinguishes (romantic) love from platonic love, i.e., friendship.
The two certainly have a lot in common; in love as in friendship, the two individuals value each other’s company, thoughts, and values. To delineate the former from the latter, one might respond that romantic love = friendship + sexual attraction. While the simplicity of this equation is attractive, I don’t think such a simple equation holds up under scrutiny.
Is it not the case that one can be platonic friends with someone who one finds sexually attractive? I certainly find this to be the case (and I imagine all my readers have come to the same determination). Therefore, we can see that such attraction, while an insufficient condition of romantic love, might still constitute a necessary condition therefor. And yet, I can immediately conjure examples in which one or both of the romantic lovers are not sexually attracted to each other. For example, say one of the lovers is transfigured in such a way that the other lover is no longer sexually attracted to the other. Does it stand to reason that this lover is necessarily no longer romantically attracted to their partner? Certainly not. If I were in love with a woman who suffered a terrible accident, I am confident that this would in no way affect my romantic love for her. I genuinely cannot imagine anyone else responding differently.
We now find that sexual attraction is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for romantic love. Consequently, our equation has been reduced to romantic love = platonic love. This is clearly not true; when one confesses one’s love to an amorous partner, this is different in type to platonic/friendly/familial love. So what is this peculiar form of love we call “romance”? I proffer no answer to this question; romantic love’s essence remains elusive to me. I welcome all my readers to comment or email me what they believe to be the essence of such an integral aspect of the human experience.