Yost mentions steam rooms and McEvoy c-ontology. We are discussing the _title_ of Nussbaum's book, "Love's Knowledge" I was thinking Greek. Love is complex enough for the Greeks: 1. philos 2. eros 3. agape I of course think it's eros with philosophy, but I tend in mixed company to say it's philos. Since Nusbaum is mixed company, I do philos (or philia if you must). But then there's the anathema, 'knowledge'. --- Love’s Knowledge, Also, shouldn't it be Love's _Wisdom_, which doesn't make sense, incidentally. "Episteme" sounds so restricting! ----- So I thought how _that_ would come out in Greek. Obviously, Nussbaum is doing it again and trying to be clever. The book would just as well be entitled, "Philosophy", but she wanted, as I say to be clever, so it has the 'inversio' figure of speech: instead of philosophia being the philia of sophia, it becomes the sophia of philia. But what irritates me is that it's not the _eros_ for _wisdom_ (or Sophia, if you must -- not in vain it was a popular girl's name for the Byzantines) but the _knowledge_ of 'eros'?????? Genitives, as in "Love's" are usually tricky, as Geary knows. Subjective, objective? If we don't do abstract notions, the idea is that we have a LOVING agent, and a KNOWING agent. This is the KNOWING activity by a LOVING agent, i.e. LOVING agency ("Love") itself. This is a far cry from Philosophy, which was coined as a mere desire or appreciation of sophia where you found it. There is _no_ knowledge of love, and there is no way a _love_ for 'knowledge' rather than _wisdom_ be made into an imperative. "Know" is a typical English construction, unknown in even the Germanic languages who would use 'kennen' (for 'can') and 'weissen', cognate with 'wise', 'wisdom'. So Nussbaum, who's done Greek and Latin, should do a bit of Germanic philology, too. "Know" possibly occurs in Old High German ("knoweren"). But I'm sure if you say "knoweren lieben" in Hamburg, they'll think you want to f*ck* a prostitute ("Adam knew Eve"), "Liebling" = sweetheart = tart. JL