Comparing Plato And Rumi And Plato's Concept Of Love

1945 Words8 Pages
The goal of both the philosophers is same, but the way they approach it is altogether different. Plato regards world of forms as eternal and calls thought/idea as the supreme reality through which he undermines the physical world. While as Rumi regards the world of meaning as supreme and everlasting through which he undermines the world of forms (physical world for Rumi). Rumi beautifully explains this through the following verses: “forms are the oil, meaning the light- otherwise, You would not keep asking why. If form is the sake of form itself, then Why ask why? Pass beyond form, escape from names! Flee Titles and names toward meaning! (M IV, 2994-95, 98, 1285) Rumi has nothing but pity and disdain for those who look at the world around and…show more content…
In his “Mathnawi,” he says: “If love’s pulse does not beat within a man let him be Plato, he is but an ass. To Rumi, growth, evolution, assimilation and unity in this world are manifestations of the form of love. He says, “If there had not been love,” “there would have not been any existence. Had it not been for pure love’s sake, how should there have been any reason for the creation of heavens”. The fundamental difference between the two is that Plato approaches reality through rational inquiry and regards love as mediator between the two worlds. Its goal is to find truth, which is objective, impersonal and outside the human soul, only to be looked and admired like a perfect piece of “art”. While as Rumi’s idea of love is irrational. In Rumi love and reason are contradictory. Reason for Rumi is light and a guide, but love is the goal. Rumi says: “Love is the ocean upon which heavens are just a flake of foam; they are like a Zulikha madly in love with
Open Document