rollerfox88 said:
But then you are arguing that animals cant possibly feel love on the basis that they are having sex - dont humans that love each other sometimes do that? What do you mean by animals cant comprehend love? How do you know? You, as I said in several earlier posts, are elevating the human condition beyond scrutiny.
Just because Keats did it, doesnt make it OK.
animals can't comprehend it because they havn't, i don't have evidence because there isn't any they're animals.
but if you want to whittle down the greatest single expression of humanities ability to feel and think to nothing more than biology or anatomy or chemistry or whatever science you feel puts it on no higher plane than a swan, i can not stop you.
but i will elevate it because it is worth elevateing.
Keats was not an odd duck and niot wrong to be beyond physicality, he lived to die his world was fleeting so he wanted the love he had to have meaning. That is why he threw off the shackles of mortality to grip the divine as fleetingly as he could because love is that powerful.
if such aspirations are worth so little and worthy only of reproach i'd rather the scorn of my peers than their approval.