Diotima and Nagarjuna's Philosophy of Love

Both these sages believe that one should love everything until everything comes to be one thing of Beauty.

Do you agree in chess we should love everything?

SAVVILY MORENO

I am not sure if it is a proper reading of Diotima (it's rather from loving many things - not all things! - towards loving the Beauty itself). I don't know about Nagarjuna...

I am not sure either but it might be from loving all things, to one body to many bodies to souls to laws and customs to knowledge to the Beauty itself, which is everything

Everything or nothing, by this "inwards" turning from the perceptible world

At least you are not conceptualizing anything, no distinctions, all is beautiful ie Beauty

Nagarjuna says everything is dependently originated from Love

and it's also a return to this sublime thing

Why do you think it is many things and not all?

I disagree that life is a game of chess. Especially with this thread. When you come to be one with Beauty by the power of love, there is no more other or opponent. 

It is not a game of chess because there is no opponent ideally

Why do you say you are between love and war so that no love or no loss of love? 

Isn't love good? Or why not?

Because, at the early stage of your development at least, you make distinctions between beautiful and ugly things. (In Nagarjuna, as far as I know, you also live in the world of dualism at first)

Well maybe according to modern science but remember Diotima said it's not that you learn to see particular things as ugly but rather you despise or "disdain" them, or "turn away" from them (in repulsion). But it's not out of ugliness but out of love (of virtue or of goodness). 

So not that it's ugly but rather that it's what she terms "vulgar" (the opposite of virtuous, not of beautiful). 

Nagarjuna says you live in a dreamworld ie everything is an illusion or fiction. not about dualism (body versus mind or "self") but that in fact NOTHING exists.... so a kind of nihilism if you will (although I'm hesitant to use that word becasue he does say we have a determined function, just that determining substance lies outside of the world)

Nagarjuna (and Diotima) are all very similar to Kant, especially the causality of Nature (the world) versus the causality of Freedom (which I see as "Love") in these earlier thinkers.... but it is speculation

But I am right

Thank you for all these clarifications (I'll need to think about them because I'm pretty sure I read Plato in another translation - i.e. Polish one - than you did. And I am not sure if I ever read original Nagarjuna, rather than just secondary sources)

With love comes pain.