Love as a form of isolation - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Thoughts - 思考者

Love as a form of isolation

Love as a form of isolation# Thoughts - 思考者

D*N2002-11-21 08:11

1 楼

This question is probably more suited for a sociology board but we
don't have one here, there must be a logical explaination but for so
long all I've seen and read is unconstructive suggestions in the form
of lamentations. Maybe you guys know better...
Why does love (as in emotional attachments, not friendship or family
relations) have to be exclusive? For centuries, people agnoized them-
selves over the so-called "faithfulness", without recognizing human
being's capacity for faith is not limite

o*e2002-11-21 08:11

2 楼

我的答复和你的问题可能不完全是一回事.

p*r2002-11-21 08:11

3 楼

I would put forth two arguments:
1 This love is an image of "love of God", which gives it spiritual and
transcendental meaning. It is therefore exclusive.
2 Extra-relationship love introduces instability and disrupts the union of the
two people. Unless the foundation is safe, the union cannot be deep and
complete. This is more an argument from convenience.
But what I personally find most interesting is to give a phenomenological
characterisation of romantic love in terms of "why the experience o

【在 D****N 的大作中提到】

: This question is probably more suited for a sociology board but we
: don't have one here, there must be a logical explaination but for so
: long all I've seen and read is unconstructive suggestions in the form
: of lamentations. Maybe you guys know better...
: Why does love (as in emotional attachments, not friendship or family
: relations) have to be exclusive? For centuries, people agnoized them-
: selves over the so-called "faithfulness", without recognizing human
: being's capacity for faith is not limite

D*N2002-11-21 08:11

4 楼

hehe.. thanks, this is very interesing, I can see how our social
structure is based on the relationship-as-a-contract model, I'll
check out the Dawkins book before asking more on this.. :)
What I was looking at originally, though, was how love as an sincere
emotional state, is isolating in its most intense moments, at least
with the moral boundaries in the monogamy society. But morality aside,
we all have the psychological conviction that love for lovers, is
essentially the opposite from love fo

【在 o*****e 的大作中提到】

: 我的答复和你的问题可能不完全是一回事.

D*N2002-11-21 08:11

5 楼

The love of God is what Erich Fromm proposed in "the art of love", the
book is very touching as a whole, but to say love is exclusive because
God prohibits other idols (or otherwise), is that a little harsh? :) Why
are we not allowed to love the whole world because God as we believe him
is living in each one and all?
Erich Fromm did say that human being are born lonely, and that love is
the only means to be complete, thus at peace with the world, this is kind
of too spiritual for me, but I agree

【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】

: I would put forth two arguments:
: 1 This love is an image of "love of God", which gives it spiritual and
: transcendental meaning. It is therefore exclusive.
: 2 Extra-relationship love introduces instability and disrupts the union of the
: two people. Unless the foundation is safe, the union cannot be deep and
: complete. This is more an argument from convenience.
: But what I personally find most interesting is to give a phenomenological
: characterisation of romantic love in terms of "why the experience o

p*r2002-11-21 08:11

6 楼

I am really starting to doubt that saying. It might be a noble lie.
Now I think, the virtue and joy in giving is really because you mentally
construct an union between you and him/her. Would it give joy if he/she
doesn't like you gift?
I increasingly think that this virtue is a derived virtue from the fact that
we all like to receive. Therefore, the virtue of romantic love lies not in
giving but in forming unions.
In a sense, romantic love is an isolating experience. Daiyu said
孤标傲世携谁隐，一样花开为底迟。

【在 D****N 的大作中提到】

: The love of God is what Erich Fromm proposed in "the art of love", the
: book is very touching as a whole, but to say love is exclusive because
: God prohibits other idols (or otherwise), is that a little harsh? :) Why
: are we not allowed to love the whole world because God as we believe him
: is living in each one and all?
: Erich Fromm did say that human being are born lonely, and that love is
: the only means to be complete, thus at peace with the world, this is kind
: of too spiritual for me, but I agree

p*r2002-11-21 08:11

7 楼

Here, we have to spell out what this love means. Does this love mean desire,
"eros" or love without desire, "agape"?
I would say this is wrong, partly from personal experience. In the later form,
the stability of union of assumed and not always center of attention, but it's
very different from without an union. When you are forming an union, things
have to change, so more intense. Why do you call it transcendental?
Transcendental is not the same as intense. You should give an justification.
Lik

【在 D****N 的大作中提到】

o*e2002-11-21 08:11

8 楼

Sorry that I replied your email without reflection. Now I have thought about
your question. The follows are my ideas on your question "Why does love have
to be exclusive?", one of which is from the point of view of a civilized
morden human being, the other is from the point of view of an animal (a
hominid).
Self-conscious awareness distinguishes human beings from other animals. We
live in the modern world, in which people are equal and man and women are
equal. As a child, we may not care too muc

【在 D****N 的大作中提到】

D*N2002-11-21 08:11

9 楼

多谢解答, 很同意你说的情爱其实是一种UNION, 并无付出和占有之解,
昨天晚上去看了Symposium的前半部分, 不过Plato的文字有点儿枯燥,
看到揉着眼睛去睡觉, 还不太明白, 你的爱情哲学呢? 什么时候出炉? :)
Roland Barthes的A Lover's Discourse一开篇就讲到
..."the lover's discourse is today of an extreme solitude"...
不过他没有说为什么, 爱上无缘的人, 或者同时爱上两个人, 这些问题
就更复杂啦, 书里面没有提到.. :)
既然你提起林黛玉的诗, 突然想起世间最最痴心的人, 如贾宝玉, 少年
维特, 都是朋友众多难以称作孤僻的人, 反过来却给爱人孤独. 于是想
凡人情爱的capacity是否可以衡量, 用什么尺度, 比较多爱的人是否能
心安理得地爱比较多的人. 不过情爱若真的是天命中的UNION, 再多一个
总觉拥挤.
跑题一点点儿, Erich Fromm说爱心更多是一种决定而非天命, 而苦恼纠
缠的痴心人, 大部分会相信情爱是缘份, 我也相信缘份, 却觉得如果爱
其

【在 p*******r 的大作中提到】

:
: Here, we have to spell out what this love means. Does this love mean desire,
: "eros" or love without desire, "agape"?
: I would say this is wrong, partly from personal experience. In the later form,
: the stability of union of assumed and not always center of attention, but it's
: very different from without an union. When you are forming an union, things
: have to change, so more intense. Why do you call it transcendental?
: Transcendental is not the same as intense. You should give an justification.
: Lik