Rational love: Not mad at all

Love - romantic, passionate, erotic love - is often portrayed, understood, or lived as a type of madness. Scientists reveal chemical imbalances, psychologists classify it with various disorders, but while reading an old interview with Martha Nussbaum called “The Ethics of Literature” (sorry, no reference, it just exists as a dog-eared photocopied text found in a folder marked ‘personal’) I am reminded of the rational basis of this most misunderstood emotion.

Nussbaum, referring back to Aristotle, says:

…emotions such as love, grief and anger are based upon reasoning about what’s valuable, and in fact are suffused with reasoning.

And then, something from William Hazlitt:

Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be.

Falling in love then is surely a philosophical act, an act of reason. In falling in love we are acting to improve our life. Life with the object of our love is valued more than life without our love object. When we fall in love, we are concerned with the ‘good’ and how to live a good life. In this sense, falling in love is also an ethical act.

  

9 Responses to Rational love: Not mad at all »»


Comments

  1. Comment by Birdy | 2007/06/05 at 08:35:25Quote

    It may be argued that everything is a philosophical act. Falling in love certainly gives no guarantees of anything, and is often a disaster for the individual/individuals involved. Maybe the question that is more appropriate is this: does falling in love with a particular individual involve a pursuit of quality? And possibly if one were to think more in terms of quality, one might avoid unnecessary suffering at a later juncture.

  2. Comment by Birdy | 2007/06/19 at 04:17:06Quote

    Come back!

    All is forgiven!

    x

  3. Comment by kathryn | 2007/06/21 at 03:02:03Quote

    Birdy, you know that this post and your comment had Mr Kane and me up all night drinking our respective bottles of red and lost in drunken analysis. The question has yet to be resolved. And there is no forgiveness until it has! (Meanwhile, I’ve just been busy, that’s all! xx)

  4. Comment by maryanne | 2007/06/26 at 17:17:54Quote

    wouldn’t it be pretty to think so? ;-)

    interesting concept (drinking all night w/Mr Kane, that is. but the love thing, too.) I certainly think loving is an ethical act, especially as it applies to humanity, or the earth, say. falling in love–I dunno. wish I could join you for a bottle of red, though.

  5. Comment by Yogesh Budhiraja | 2007/06/26 at 21:07:38Quote

    hi….
    i was just browsing net and came across this page….
    this is really one of the best text ive came across in life…..
    nice work…
    take care…..

  6. Comment by kathryn | 2007/06/27 at 02:23:42Quote

    Yes, Maryanne - we must do the bottle of red sometime and get to the bottom of the love question!

    Yogesh, thanks for stopping by!

  7. Comment by Matthew da Silva | 2007/08/05 at 05:39:27Quote

    OK, so you decided to return to the cyber world and blog again!!???

    Love!

    It depends on who you listen to, I guess. Joann Ellison Rogers’ ‘Sex: A Natural History’ is full of it, but you will find no mention of philosophy. She is a journalist and interviewed scores of scientists in writing it. She says it is a survival mechanism. Sexual attraction is tied to the organism’s desire to have its genetic material propagated as widely and as long as possible.

    I married at 30. I’m now 45 and I have no desire to remarry. I have two kids and am separated. As far as me as an organism is concerned: the job’s done.

    You might consider discussing such things as ‘beauty’ and ‘truth’. But if you read Rogers (I’m not finished with it yet), you’ll discover that many people think in terms of genetic imperatives. In a way, tho not pretty, this line of thought simplifies things a lot.

    Beauty is conditioned to a large degree. Ideas of beauty change over time. Truth, also, is conditional on social mores. To what extent is sociability a survival mechanism? If we tolerate untruth for the sake of stability, that tells us something. But the yearning for ‘beauty’ and its confrere ‘truth’ are staples of the Western method. Notions treasured by the intellectual elite of one age become common to all people in the next. In other parts of the world, ‘truth’ and ‘beauty’ are not so closely allied. Or, at least, what constitutes ‘truth’ may not be what we expect.

  8. Comment by kathryn | 2007/08/07 at 00:56:53Quote

    Hey, Matthew :) You know, this line of argument - that sexual attraction/love is really just a means to getting one’s “genetic material propagated as widely” as possible - always surprises me. But, I know, it still must persist. I was talking to an acquaintance the other day. She, 38, single, no kids, but wanting kids. Me, 37, no kids, not wanting kids. We talked about various things, the possiblility of future regret and the basis of that regret, if we were to feel it. For her, in the end, having kids is about leaving something behind. Leaving a part of her behind. “If I don’t have kids, no one will remember me, and then what would have been the point of me living? No! I want to be remembered.” That was how the conversation ended. She wants to fall in love and have kids. Yes, I guess her attraction to men is a means to having kids and propagating a part of herself, so that, in some way, she may live on. Survival instinct. Maybe, yes.

    You say the job is done for you. You have no desire to remarry. But do you desire to fall in love again? If so, what sort of thing will this be? Will it be a love based more on beauty, truth? On aesthetics? Ethics? I’m not saying the first wasn’t, but now that the propagation is done with we can see more clearly, maybe?

  9. Comment by Matthew da Silva | 2007/08/07 at 03:05:05Quote

    Between 2001 and 2003 I was unemployed and as an alumnus of Sydney Uni could borrow books, which I did. Two stories touched me deeply. The first was the love between Admiral Nelson and Emma Hamilton. One day a decent movie might result from someone’s research. He, a son of the gentry and the most brilliant naval mind, possibly ever. She, a prostitute who married a diplomat, then left him (the diplomat graciously acceeded to her wishes - a very cultured man and possibly the real hero of the tale) to go with Nelson. It’s a story of intense desire and two very strong people who aspired, from their earliest days, to better themselves.

    The other story that touched me was the marriage of William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft. He, a brilliant author and philosopher, and a thoroughly decent man. She, the most dazzling female talent in eighteenth century letters. They were happy together, despite the calumny heaped upon her for her earlier indiscretions. At one point she tried suicide.

    It is these stories that stay with me. Rogers says that the mind is the most important sexual organ a human has. I’ve always thought this.

    Most young people are very conventional. I think it’s because they are trapped on the genetic treadmill. Once you’ve reached ‘a certain age’, I think, you begin (only then!!!!) to be able to choose. Really choose.


Leave a Reply »»

Quote selected text