The film Boogie Nights provides an interesting case study in the unique nature of human relationships, especially love and friendship. It presents a cross-mash-up of various combinations of traditional love categories: friendly love (plutonic or non-sexual), familial love, lust, master/servant or apprentice/teacher love, etc. In addition to being entertaining, Boogie Nights presents these combinations to provoke our insight into the nature of love. This insight is exemplified in Jack's notion of the ideal pornographic film. His ideal film also serves to echo the same flaws found in Plato's ideal forms. Boogie Nights attempts to demonstrate the false nature of defined and meaningful love by upsetting its categorization and presenting the absurdity of its definition. Jack's film cannot exist by definition, and as a product of natural language, not even the common conception of love can exist. The main relationship in Boogie Nights is that between Eddie, Jack and Amber. Although he does not have a positive family background, Eddie Adams can be seen as a participant in the family love bond with Jack and Amber playing the roles of father and mother. Amber is tender and caring towards Eddie, and is seen in several scenes offering him comfort and maternal affection. In contrast, Jack is a strong figure who directs Eddie and mentors him. He cares for Eddie, but is also hard on him. He is more than willing to throw him out to teach him a life lesson, although his paternal nature allows him to forgive Eddie in the end. This type of interpersonal dynamic is in stark contrast to the more immediate and physical nature of their relationships. Amber has sex with Eddie, something a mother's love should, by definition, precede... center of the card... theory of forms and focus on her own life. From there, he could work to establish true universal truths instead of doing little more than wasting his time. I think that ultimately the question of defining love is a useful question to stimulate a discussion about values, but the question itself is not valid. I believe I have adequately demonstrated that love is not something that can be defined in a general way. While this may seem depressing to some, everyone should take heart in the fact that we all have interesting values ​​that we can strive to satisfy and discuss with each other. It seems like it's probably best that love is individual in nature, because you're not limited by social conventions or the fictional definition of love. You can love whoever or whatever you want and, strictly speaking, you would never go wrong (although it may not be entirely legal).