3 - varieties of love (soble)

Varieties of Love

The Philosophy of Sex and Love (2008)Alan Soble

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

proposes methodology to look for what is or isn’t love: “One methodology we can apply in seeking an answer is this: if a claim or theory about love implies that many cases of what we ordinarily call love aren’t love, that is a reason (not necessarily decisive) for denying the claim or theory” (p. 11)

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

example: “love lasts forever” as long as both lover and beloved are alive do you think this is true?

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

concept of love: like concept of a ‘work of art’

source: wolpics.com

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

problem with concept of love (and art): are there distinct kinds of love, or is love love, common in all cases? e.g., Fromm’s six ‘types’

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

if there are different kinds – there are different ways to distinguish e.g., objects, basis, causal effects, etc.

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

distinguishing loves by their objects: “We love our spouses, parents, siblings,

children, friends, pets, country, abstract ideals, God, geometrical theorems, personal belongings, food, movies, books, and nature” (p. 12)

love for parents ≠ love for pizza ≠ love for Canada

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

distinguishing loves by their basis: desiring love, as in erotic love? friendly love? benevolent love, based in goodwill and

giving?

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

distinguishing loves by their causal effects: “Loves can also be differentiated by

their typical causal effects, whether a love causes a desire to benefit the beloved, or causes a desire for union with the beloved, or causes a desire to possess the beloved” (p. 12)

Varieties of Love: What is Love?

English: only one noun, ‘love’ – qualified with adjectives

source: revpaulbeedle.wordpress.com

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

relationship between loving and valuing “Do we love something because we find

value in it, or do we find value in it because we love it?” (p.12)

what do you think?

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

think of someone/thing you love… 1) do you love that thing or person

because it/he/she has features you find valuable or attractive? or

2) do you think that thing/person has valuable or attractive features because you love it/him/her?

general question for many emotions (incl. hate, fear, anger, admiration)

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

relation 1: eros-type (e-type)

relation 2: agape-type (a-type)

source: shelf3d.com

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

“In eros-type love, the value of Y, the object of love, exists first. Then X’s love for Y arises as a response to this antecedent value” (p. 13) Aristotle: “No one falls in love who has

not first derived pleasure from the looks of the beloved” – agree?

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

e-type love means that “if X loves Y because Y has a valuable set of properties P, we can expect X to love someone else (say, Z) who also exhibits P” (p. 13) translation?

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

“In agape-type love, the love exists first. Then the value of the beloved, as far as it figures into love, comes into existence” (p. 13) may not be able to explain exactly the

origin of love itself, but it’s the “independent variable”

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

mixing of the two? “Suppose that some value V1 in Y exists

first, and X loves Y because of V1. The love is based on, explained by, V1. However, in virtue of loving Y, X attributes other values, V2, to Y. This aspect of X’s love for Y is a-type. But X’s love is essentially e-type, because X attributing V2 to Y and X’s love for Y are both explained by X’s response to V1. These cases would be a-type only if X’s love was not grounded in V1, or other valuable properties of Y” (p. 13)

Varieties of Love: Love and Value

source: uglyswag.com

Varieties of Love: Evaluating and Assessing Love

which is better: e-type or a-type love?

Varieties of Love: Evaluating and Assessing Love

“Perhaps e-type love is preferable, because it encourages X to discover (by self-reflection) why X selects Y and not Z to love. Lovers are commonly called on to justify loving a particular person; even the beloved might press the lover with ‘why me?’ X must provide Y (and the unloved Z) with a more convincing reason than ‘that’s the way I feel’ or ‘I dunno, just do’ (or ‘just don’t’)” (p. 19)

Varieties of Love: Evaluating and Assessing Love

“Proponents of a-type love think ‘it is better to love without a reason, than with a reason.’ Why? Perhaps a-type love is constant [unlike values, attributes, or properties]” (p. 19) is it better for one’s love or lack of love

not to be based on specific reasons?

Varieties of Love: Evaluating and Assessing Love

other issue with e-type: our belief that

the object of our love has lovable qualities may be skewed/false

source: ripplen.deviantart.com

Varieties of Love: Evaluating and Assessing Love

difference between love and infatuation or desire? another example: hate is love a ‘special’ emotion, different from

the others?

Varieties of Love: The Fine Gold Thread

does love have a common ingredient – the “fine gold thread”? “Does love have a ‘central’ ingredient

(C)? C would be common to all loves, not only to all instances of one type of love but all types of love, period” (p. 22)

what might this central ingredient be?

Varieties of Love: The Fine Gold Thread

would have to be something significant and unique to love “C must provide a way to distinguish

love not only from things that are wildly different from it (dogs, meatballs) but also from things that are close to love but are either pretenders or associated phenomena (infatuation, respect, admiration, sexual desire)” (p. 22)

Varieties of Love: The Fine Gold Thread

problem: many varieties of love, many exceptions to general rules e.g., if we say the common ingredient is

caring for the wellbeing of the beloved, it wouldn’t make sense to say that a child loves its mother

e.g., if the common ingredient is forming a unitive bond – this might make sense of a child loving its mother, but not of a child loving its mother’s milk