Talk:Eros (concept)

message: --- Έρως ---
The article is completely wrong. The Freudian view of Eros is completely distorted from what the Hellenes were meaning.
The comments of the user Skookum1 are right in some aspects however is wrong in 2 fundamental things 
Γαμώ is the sexual act, regardless the sex, as eros is not applied only to homosexuals...έλεος!!
It is truth that they are no sexual connotations...absolutely truth.
Removed the 'some scholars' clause as it's sloppy writing.  Cite sources, otherwise they're opinion.
:Especially in classics.  Although citing opinions but treating them as facts is popular, too.  For what I'm weighing in about, I'd have to dig out cites, and it's still controversial in classics.  And there are those classicists who can read the Symposium and still only indirectly discuss the overt predilections of those partaking at the "drinking party"; embarrassing stuff, and very politically incorrect nowadays (the Greek words pedagogy and pedophilia were complementary and often synonymous, as the core of the Greek education system was the partnership with older males that educated bright, handsome young boys/men .... well, I won't go on, as that's not the point so much as the way the Greek meanins of eros can be uncomfortable to deal with.  As from what I remember in my stumbling studies of ancient Greek and various writings, the verb ero (written erow, with the w an omega) doesn't mean heterosexual love at all - which is simply gamo (a vulgarity in modern Greek) - but the magnetic love and bond between men, even otherwise straight men but often enough the love-bonding so famously celebrated of the Spartans and Thebans and various Athenian gentlemen.  Something as "soft" and still macho as Aussie "matehood", perhaps, or the ways primos are in Latin culture.  I'd have to find cites on this in order to put it in the article but I'm fielding it here for discussion, or maybe somebody might know their Greek material enough for a cite or two.Skookum1 08:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 11:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I added the section on Eros and C.G. Jung as this artical is cited as being linked to psychology. I will work on expanding it as i have time. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suener (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions . 

message: I propose renaming this article to Eros (concept), since it encompasses more than just "love", but also creative drive, as seen in Jung and Freud.  Besides "love" isn't a category like you see in other like-named articles like "(series)" or "(film)" or "(mythology)", for example.  We could also then start the Thanatos (concept) article as its opposite and be consistent, since "Thanatos (love)" obviously makes no sense. Godheval (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Move

message: Eros (Freud) should be merged here because it fits under the general discussion as Eros the concept.  As of now there is very little information in the Freud article - only enough to fit within Freud's psychological articles or in Eros (concept).  Once merged here, the section should be expanded. —GodhevalT C H 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge From Freud

message: THE ETYMOLOGY OF EROS. I think this should help. A professional paper about this could be beneficial for this article. Komitsuki (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Eros 

message: As it stands, the section in the article titled "The Judeo-Christian Tradition" appears to be just one long, misinformed quote from a non-profession source. I changed the content of the quote to at least mention the fact that the word, "eros," does not appear in the "Song of Songs." However, the whole section needs to be rewritten to be less editorial and more scholarly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an IP editor • 15:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the "Judeo-Christian Tradition" Section . 

message: Since there is a distinct difference between the Eros concept of love and the concept that is presented by modern psychology and philosophy would it be beneficial to expand the lead a bit more to explain more of what the page is and how there are distinct differences in the two subjects. Or keep it the same and just remove the quote from C.S. Lewis since there isn't anything that expands the topic or definition that C.S. Lewis presents.
Tyreltg (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Lead