6

The question that is nagging me is that if romantic love happens after an individual achieves a certain degree of financial success or any condition that may be desirable, is such a love more love like, than love that has very few conditions? I would like to read on this and related topics. Can someone refer me to a book or source that discusses love and its conditions?

Barinder Singh
  • 1,298
  • 1
  • 13
  • 20
  • 4
    As written, I'm not sure it's a good ft for our site, because it's going to inspire mostly opinion-based answers as written (including claims based on sociobiology). At a minimum, can you explain what you mean by "pure"? What sort of framework should answers operate under? – virmaior Sep 12 '15 at 04:37
  • i've never read a philosopher as opposed to psychologist, say much on romantic love. supposing that someone has, seriously, i do suppose that they address your question, tho –  Sep 12 '15 at 04:46
  • i stand a little corrected http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/#H3 –  Sep 12 '15 at 04:47
  • @virmaior i totally agree - i edited the "purity" question, to how it seemed to read. i hope to have kept the original intent. like i suggested, it's quite a thought provoking question, but the term "romance" is so malleable that i expect nothing but opinion for answers. if i were to express my opinion, i'd likely say that "romantic love" just can't be sui generis. i don't know what can be added: romance is desirable, as are the emotions associated with it; if not always the people haha. but then, i believe i may live in the 1980s –  Sep 12 '15 at 05:17
  • 1
    @MATHEMATICIAN I'm not sure your edit necessarily improved the question. / There's quite a few philosophers who have written about love (as you note from the IEP). – virmaior Sep 12 '15 at 06:19
  • http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love is a little better. there's also a book by an irving singer, which is taught, but not celebrated. i can't imagine there being *that* much really to say about "love". i'm not being precious - but the idea seems really intangible. you could say the same about e.g. "justice", but there's going to be a lot more serious work into that, it's obviously not just a psychological term, thinking clearly and critically about it seems more essential, etc –  Sep 13 '15 at 02:45
  • 2
    @MATHEMATICIAN I rolled back your edit [because it changed too much](http://meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/2976/2953). –  Sep 13 '15 at 19:00
  • 1
    There are some interesting angles here. Unconditional love means no reasons for love, which would seem to render it immune to any logical analysis (which would require analyzing the premises and inferences thereof), which makes it seem the antithesis of philosophy or at least what philosophy generally values. – R. Barzell Sep 14 '15 at 15:18
  • This is definitely within the scope of contemporary analytic philosophy and this SE. You might be interested in the writings of CI Jenkins and her project about analytic [metaphysics of love](http://www.themetaphysicsoflove.com). See also the [publications](http://www.themetaphysicsoflove.com/publications/). – DBK Apr 08 '16 at 00:52
  • Related: an exhaustive list of [literature on romantic love](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/535e77cae4b039ef276e0cf2/t/5447ee9ae4b0ca3b917cce40/1414000282037/Metaphysics+of+Romantic+Love+Annotated+Bibliography.pdf). – DBK Apr 08 '16 at 00:55

2 Answers2

4

It is unfortunate that "love" in English has so many meanings, with at least these three:

  1. agape - willing the good of another person independent of one's self.
  2. eros - attraction (from where we get "erotic")
  3. philios - "brotherly love" - something like friendship or love for the mutual benefit of two people

To address your question, it seems that you may be equating different kinds of love that ought not to be - one type isn't more "real" than another, although in some cases may be exhibiting one particular type better or worse.

The IEP has a good article giving a high-level overview of the philosophy of love, and it suggests these readings:

  1. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics.
  2. Aristotle Rhetoric. Rhys Roberts (trans.).
  3. Augustine De bono viduitatis.
  4. LaFallotte, Hugh (1991). "Personal Relations." Peter Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics. Blackwell, pp. 327-32.
  5. Plato Phaedrus.
  6. Plato Symposium.
  7. Scheler, Max (1954). The Nature of Sympathy. Peter Heath (trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
James Kingsbery
  • 5,919
  • 1
  • 18
  • 41
  • Digging further beyond the first three meanings you supply, it is worth arguing that poets have spent *centuries* trying to pin the meaning on the word "love," and they're still working at it every day. – Cort Ammon Sep 15 '15 at 22:52
0

To paraphrase your question: Is conditional love more love-like than unconditional love?

I believe the short answer is "no" since, as has been pointed out, many different definitions of "love" exist. And by what measure could one form be more love-like than another?

The concept of pragmatic love or pragma that may fit what you ask about. It is an ancient concept. One can imagine all sorts of conditions between partners engaging in pragma.

Pragmatic lovers want to find value in their partners, and ultimately want to work with their partner to reach a common goal. The practicality and realism of pragmatic love often aides longevity of the relationship, as long as common goals and values remain shared for the duration.

Source

Unconditional love could refer to agape.

Pragma and agape are neither more love-like than the other. Both fall under what we refer to as "love." Different authors define "love" very differently. There seems to be no centrality to "love."

jaycer
  • 101
  • 3