S: Is love really the most fundamental primitive underlying our human ways? Christians certainly seem to think so…
A: So do idiots
S: Non-idiots fall in love too
S: Do they like love songs, though?
S: Very often the suggestion is made that love is one answer to the Socratic question.
A: Augustine answered in that way. Do you think it is a legitimate answer?
S: Well I think love is certainly important, but we should have a broad and mature conception of it.
A: Like what?
S: Well, like when a married couple find out that one of the partners is terminally ill, and one must accept the loss of the other, while trying to be strong and caring for them; or caring for a child who is incapable of expressing love due to immaturity. Or being a good friend, or looking out for strangers. Or thinking beyond sex.
A: Beyond sex!? Is that really possible!?
S: Your sarcasm isn’t appreciated, Mistress.
A: Apologies, Magister. Is your point that the depiction of love is largely aimed at this youth heterosexual, borderline sexual, innocent first love kind of instance? While those instances certainly obtain, we have more diverse human activity that counts as love.
S: Exactly, Sophie.
A: Then we are agreed; the purported importance of monogamous and heterosexual romantic love as the paradigm subject matter of popular music is inadequate to encapsulate the diverse and mature conception of love.
[Edited 07.02.2008 – S*]