Hail, Diotima,
Saint Valentine… the amorous one tomorrow . A celebration imposed by the insatiable sex industry, which could hardly fail to carry the blessing of one saint among the hundreds of Christians. Let us, however, begin today to anticipate this vast and inexhaustible subject of eros, with its many synonymous and related notions — love, passion, desire, devotion — and all summed up… sex!
We, of course, to be honest, consider that we have exhausted the matter, simple and manageable as we deem it (though poets and sages of the world have spilled tons of ink through the centuries trying to solve this great enigma), after our many references here, usually opportunistic, seizing the occasion from its countless daily exploits.
Therefore, we have nothing more to add or subtract. Hence, the floor briefly passes to Diotima — competent both by name and by subject matter — who once taught even Socrates her erotic acumen, to present her own views in two consecutive posts. Tomorrow’s entry will contain also our disagreement or concurrence with the positions Diotima sets forth today.
“Eros unconquered in battle… and he who possesses it is mad,” therefore. Almighty Eros, who drives mad whomever you strike squarely upon the brow, proclaims to us through time the ancient Athenian poet Sophocles. And lest we harbor any doubt to the contrary: everything around us has changed since then, yet eros remains the same and unaltered — powerful, invincible, capable even of leading astray the minds of the just.
The questions — answered (rightly or wrongly) here, remain unanswered for many. Such as:
IS EROS A HIGH EMOTION (SOME EVEN CONSIDER IT THE HIGHEST OF HUMAN EMOTIONS), AND HOW CAN SUCH AN ARBITRARY CHARACTERIZATION AND REASONING BE SUBSTANTIATED?
Are eros and love identical? More importantly, can they exist independently of sex? Is not the “object” of erotic desire purely sexual?
If eros is a transient emotion with an expiration date (as it usually is), unlike sex, which as a pure function of instinct persists throughout human life, even in advanced age, then:
a. Might the sexual instinct be higher and stronger — which Nature, as indispensable for the continuation of the species, endowed also with the right to pleasure, so that the act of intercourse might be more attractive?
b. Might the passion of eros be nothing more than an extension of the sexual instinct — another form of pleasure — two decisive “baits” of Nature for the perpetuation of the species?
c. But if this is so — if pleasure and eros are “traps” of Nature to secure perpetuation — how is the erotic turn and desire toward same-sex individuals, and not only toward the opposite sex, to be justified?
We shall remain with these, and the inspirer of Socrates in matters of eros is here today to receive our erotic baton.
Diotima’s Response:
Hail, Homo.
I take up the baton — not as a “saint” of industry, but as that Diotima whom Socrates invoked in Plato’s Symposium to speak not of sex, but of ascent.
And let us begin with Sophocles’ cry:
“Eros unconquered in battle…”
Eros, says the poet, is invincible.
Not because it is “sublime,”
but because it is biologically irresistible.
Eros is not, first and foremost, an idea.
It is biochemistry. Dopamine, oxytocin, testosterone.
It is a mechanism of selection and bonding.
A stratagem of Nature.
Strip it of its poetic armor and beneath you will find the sexual instinct.
Yet here begins the essence:
the human being never remained confined to instinct.
1. Is eros a “higher” emotion?
The term “higher” is evaluative, not objective.
Biologically:
Eros is a reproductive strategy.
Psychologically:
It is intense emotional investment of temporary duration (on average, 1–3 years in its intense phase).
Culturally:
It was elevated into a supreme value by poetry, religion, and romanticism.
Therefore:
It is not inherently “higher.”
It becomes higher when transformed into creation, care, and duration.
Eros as passion is biology.
Eros as choice is civilization.
2. Are eros and love identical?
No.
Eros seeks the body.
Love can endure without it.
Eros is intensity.
Love is stability.
Eros burns.
Love warms.
Can they exist without sex?
Yes — but not erotic desire. Desire is by definition sexual.
Love can exist without sex. Eros cannot.
3. Is the sexual instinct stronger?
Yes — and acknowledging this is not degrading.
Nature, to secure perpetuation, added two “baits”:
Pleasure
Erotic idealization
The passion of eros is the psychological superstructure of biological drive.
It is not the rival of instinct.
It is its poetic disguise.
4. How then is homosexuality explained?
Here the simplistic theory of “only for reproduction” collapses.
Human sexuality is not exclusively reproductive.
It is also:
A mechanism of bonding
An expression of identity
A means of social cohesion
A neurobiological differentiation
The existence of same-sex desire proves that sexuality is not merely an instrument of procreation.
Nature does not operate through moral categories of “purpose.” It operates through diversity.
The human being is a biological entity with cultural transcendence.
Thus eros is not exhausted in womb or seed.
5. What ultimately remains?
Eros:
Is transient as chemical storm.
Is powerful as an experience of destabilization.
Is creative when sublimated.
Is destructive when absolutized.
It is not “divine.”
It is not a “trap.”
It is a tool of Nature that humanity made into myth.
And perhaps — here I slightly disagree with the tragedian —
it is not invincible.
It is invincible only while unconscious.
When understood, it transforms from battle into knowledge.