Read on about love’s biological function, the difference between eros and agape, and whether romantic love facilitates or hinders the moral enterprise.
Better for whom or for what? The rest of the universe is indifferent to whether we live or die, and if we all die, there's no one else to care or to benefit from our absence. So the question seems nonsensical.
The third escape is that of strength and energy. It consists in destroying life, when one has understood that it is an absurdity. A few exceptionally strong and consistent people act so. Having understood the stupidity of the joke that has been played on them, and having understood that it is better to be dead than to be alive, and that it is best of all not to exist, they act accordingly and promptly end this stupid joke, since there are means: a rope round one’s neck, water, a knife to stick into one’s heart, or the trains on the railways; and the number of those of our circle who act in this way becomes greater and greater, and for the most part they act so at the best time of their life, when the strength of their mind is in full bloom and few habits degrading to the mind have as yet been acquired. -Leo Tolstoy
That romantic love has the potential of becoming antisocial is certain. Countless crimes, usually murders, have been committed in the name of that kind of love.
And yet, I think that it can be morally edifying in some circumstances. Someone who is in love, really in love, will see their love object in an otherworldly light. A mediocre man will become a courageous hero or mighty warrior in the eyes of the woman he loves. Likewise, an emotionally superficial woman might become an archetypal mother-figure or an incarnation of the virgin goddess in the eyes of her male lover.
I am not so sure if I agree with Socrates that love actually allows us to see something that is really latent in someone, though hidden to ordinary eyes; but I think he does have a point when he observes that when we are aware than someone sees us this way, we feel compelled to live up to that vision of us. Love can bring out the worst in us for sure, but it can also reveal the potential for greatness that we otherwise never would have suspected was there.
As for the procreative aspect: that would only apply to heterosexual pairing and, even in that case, the sexual element might be secondary or even nonexistent. The delicacy associated with love is hardly compatible with human sexuality, which is intrinsically violent. In a sexual relationship, love is unbecoming and vice-versa.
This article was meant just to raise the question, not so much to argue the case. I've written another article that does the latter and it takes into account some of these observations of yours.
Procreation wouldn't apply to homosexuality, but the key point for me is the social divisiveness that exclusive emotions like romantic love seems to entail.
From a purely consequential standpoint, isn't it better to be dead than alive?
ReplyDeleteBetter for whom or for what? The rest of the universe is indifferent to whether we live or die, and if we all die, there's no one else to care or to benefit from our absence. So the question seems nonsensical.
DeleteThe third escape is that of strength and energy. It consists in destroying life, when one has understood that it is an absurdity. A few exceptionally strong and consistent people act so. Having understood the stupidity of the joke that has been played on them, and having understood that it is better to be dead than to be alive, and that it is best of all not to exist, they act accordingly and promptly end this stupid joke, since there are means: a rope round one’s neck, water, a knife to stick into one’s heart, or the trains on the railways; and the number of those of our circle who act in this way becomes greater and greater, and for the most part they act so at the best time of their life, when the strength of their mind is in full bloom and few habits degrading to the mind have as yet been acquired. -Leo Tolstoy
DeleteThat romantic love has the potential of becoming antisocial is certain. Countless crimes, usually murders, have been committed in the name of that kind of love.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, I think that it can be morally edifying in some circumstances. Someone who is in love, really in love, will see their love object in an otherworldly light. A mediocre man will become a courageous hero or mighty warrior in the eyes of the woman he loves. Likewise, an emotionally superficial woman might become an archetypal mother-figure or an incarnation of the virgin goddess in the eyes of her male lover.
I am not so sure if I agree with Socrates that love actually allows us to see something that is really latent in someone, though hidden to ordinary eyes; but I think he does have a point when he observes that when we are aware than someone sees us this way, we feel compelled to live up to that vision of us. Love can bring out the worst in us for sure, but it can also reveal the potential for greatness that we otherwise never would have suspected was there.
As for the procreative aspect: that would only apply to heterosexual pairing and, even in that case, the sexual element might be secondary or even nonexistent. The delicacy associated with love is hardly compatible with human sexuality, which is intrinsically violent. In a sexual relationship, love is unbecoming and vice-versa.
This article was meant just to raise the question, not so much to argue the case. I've written another article that does the latter and it takes into account some of these observations of yours.
DeleteProcreation wouldn't apply to homosexuality, but the key point for me is the social divisiveness that exclusive emotions like romantic love seems to entail.