-Any love has the character of a vow in that it can’t be tried for a time. You can’t propose to be in love with someone for a year to see if if works out. If anything, love is stronger than a vow- we can at least make sense of a temporary marriage or marriage of convenience.

-It might be significant that it’s philosophy and not, say, sopheroticism. It’s too vague to call it a love of wisdom – it is a friendship or shared life with it. This is in one sense better than eros so far as there must be real community and goodwill between the philosopher and wisdom and not just longing and search; but it falls short of it so far as we remain just friends with wisdom. The Nietzschean or Machiavellian daydream of dominating lady wisdom is not gonna happen before we transform to something as different to us now as the living and the corpse.

-Love demands both eternity (it cannot be temporary) and omniscience (we cannot be mistaken. We cannot say “I will love you unless I’m wrong to). That reason protests it can be mistaken and has no experience of life after death is a constant critique that love continues to make vows through. What is ultimately demanded is a co-signer to the vow.

-To exist at all is to be good and so to diffuse, demanding both powers of assimilating things into oneself and assimilating oneself to other things. In us, the first power is reason and the second appetite.

-It’s a discourse among caterpillars trying to come to terms with their desire to fly.

%d bloggers like this: