PHM 3020 Philosophy of Love. Michael Strawser [email protected] The Lack of Love. According to Kierkegaard, “love is our greatest need,” and yet the philosophy of love has been lacking in our universities and departments of philosophy
PowerPoint Slideshow about 'PHM 3020 Philosophy of Love' - pier
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
This distinction lies at the basis of Singer’s, love trilogy, which begins “love is a way of valuing something. It is a positive response toward the ‘object of love’…love affirms the goodness of this object.” (The Nature of Love 3).
Here Singer also distinguishes love from “liking” and “lusting” (desiring obsessively), which he says don’t necessarily affirm goodness
“What else is love but understanding and rejoicing that another lives, works, and feels in a different and opposite way to ourselves? That love may be able to bridge over the contrasts by joys, we must not remove or deny those contrasts. Even self-love presupposes an irreconcilable duality (or plurality) in one person. (Human, All Too Human, Sec. 75, “Love and Duality”)
“It is true we love life; not because we are used to living, but because we are used to loving. There is always some madness in love. But there is always, also, some method in madness. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “On Reading and Writing”)
But a more positive view can be found in what he intends by amor fati (literally“the love of fate”).
Singer interprets this as a wrong-headed cosmic love of everything (see 62 & 96), but it can be interpreted more positively as a way of affirming all aspects of one’s existence. (Is this a kind of bestowal?)
“I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! . . . And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.” (The Gay Science, §276)
Shouldn’t a philosophy of love be one that values love? In which case the pessimistic philosophies of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, and Sartre should not be as prominent as the philosophies of Spinoza, Kierkegaard, and Scheler, which are centered on love.
Problem with considerations of Sartre (cf. 86 & 97)
Which perspective shall we take in exploring the philosophy of love, a pluralistic one or a unitary one. Which is preferable? Which is more edifying?
A perspective like Singer’s that expresses the plurality of love and opposes the search for a univocal concept, or one like Jean-Luc Marion’s in The Erotic Phenomenon that opposes the desire to make numerous distinctions and instead argues for a concept of love that is distinguished by its unity (5).