Philosophy. Study the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence.

What is the ‘nature and substance of love’ (Shakespeare)? Is erotic love only polite sexual instinct and romantic poetry sublimated lust, or are they very different emotions? How much of an impact do cultural practices make on, not only attitudes, but the experience of romantic attachments?

Both the historical and the contemporary literature on love encompass a broad diversity of philosophical theories, which we will explore in this course. We will consider many forms of love: erotic; romantic; familial; religious; the ‘love of humankind’ (political love); the love we have for our animal companions; and the love we have for ourselves. We will use up-to-date sources such as: The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy (2020), edited by Adrienne Martin.

Outcomes

By the end of this course, you should be able to:

• list the key concepts in the philosophy of love
• discuss your gained insight into the many approaches to love in: Ancient Greek philosophy, theology, literature, modern psychology, sociology, and contemporary philosophy
• relate ideas about love to the history of politics and contemporary humanism
• apply these ideas to your personal lives and choices.

Content

Erotic and romantic love

Love is usually understood to be a powerful emotion involving an intense attachment to an object and a high evaluation of it. However, theorist differ on where the value is placed. One explanation of the shift from lust to love is the degree to which we value the attributes of the loved person independent of their usefulness to our desires. While this seems reasonable and is often expressed as ‘true love is selfless’, the theory presents an intriguing dilemma. It would seem that the aim of love is to become detached from our need for it. This theory, along with other complex issues will be explored in the course.

Family: parents, children, siblings, tribe

From Sigmond Freud to the present, philosophers and psychologists have been exploring the significance of early childhood attachments to human development. We will take a range of theorists on this topic. Monique Wonderly argues in her article “Early Relationships, Pathologies of Attachment, and the Capacity to Love” (2018) that though infants lack the cognitive capacities to care about or value others in the way that love requires, adult love shares some similarities with this infant state. For example, interactions with our romantic partners often help regulate our emotions and continue to shape our internal working models of the self in relation to others. Studies suggest that the mere presence of one’s romantic partner can increase positive affect and assuage distress, as indicated by the attached party’s reduced blood pressure and heart rate. The suggestion here is that unlike mature friendships, romantic love is partly a return to infantile dependence attachments.

Politics and society: the love of humankind

We may rationally will the good of humanity as a philosophical proposition, without being emotionally invested in people’s individual welfare. Kant proposed that my right to social justice should not depend on some fuzzy changeable emotional state, which could turn to indifference or hate at a whim. On the other hand, Martin Luther King, Jr. preached that Black Americans must love even those who hate them, and the contemporary philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that forgiveness is fundamental to a good society and anger is backward-looking, status focused, and retributive. A central issue in the proposition that we should love others is that emotions are not necessarily under our will to command.

For love of God: faith and sacrifice

What both King and Nussbaum are describing is close to the Ancient Greek term ‘Agape’ which is considered to be the highest form of love. This ideal love is the basis of many religious ideologies and is a way of comprehending the divine source of all goodness and beauty. Buddhist monk and scholar, Śāntideva, argued that selfless love frees us from suffering. In Love and Responsibility (1981), Karol Woytila (Pope John Paul II) holds it up as a model of romantic love in marriage: “We love the person complete with all his or her virtues and faults, independently of those virtues and in spite of those faults”.

Love is unconditional on the agape model. Such perfect love may be attributed to a God but is it possible, or even desirable for humans? First, a model of love that exhorts us to ‘bear it all’ could become self-destructive. To protect ourselves from the serious faults of others we may need to extract ourselves from the relationship or risk mental health issues. Unconditional acceptance could also encourage co-dependency and even an abusive relationship.

Our animal friends

Pets, such as dogs and cats evolved slowly through selective breeding to the domesticated companions we have now. Dogs began as hunting partners and cats as farmers’ helpers to eradicate grain-loving mice. Selective breeding emphasised characteristics we find most appealing: controlled aggression, affectionate behavior, and a cooperative nature. Many studies show that pet ownership is good for physical and mental health, and we love what makes us feel good. We will look at a number of theories. The philosophers Simone Weil and Iris Murdoch warn against anthropomorphism. They suggest that morality requires understanding the reality of the animal’s otherness, to our projections and needs.

How to love yourself and not be a narcissist

Aristotle described appropriate self-love as an emotion based on the realistic knowledge of our actual merits. On this theory low self-esteem is the understatement of one’s actual qualities, whereas narcissism is an unrealistic belief in one’s superiority to others. Narcissism can also be connected to perfectionism. At the core of perfectionism lies fear and insecurity; perfectionists often dread letting go of their continual self-absorption as they think it would harm their high performance and reputation. We will also look at some recent work from social psychology and studies from contemporary neuroscience.

Intended audience

Anyone with a general interest in the course themes.

Prerequisites

None

Delivery style

Lecture/seminar

Materials

Course notes are distributed electronically

Reference list

• Aaltola, E. 2020 “Love and animals Simone Weil, Iris Murdoch and Attention as Love”
• Annas, J., 1977, “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism”, Mind, 86: 532–54.
• Badhwar, N. K. 2003, “Love”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), Practical Ethics, Oxford University Press, 42–69.
• Bagley, B., 2015, “Loving Someone in Particular”, Ethics, 125: 477–507.
• –––, 2018. “(The Varieties of) Love in Contemporary Anglophone Philosophy”, in Adrienne M. Martin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy, New York, NY: Routledge, 453–64.
• Bransen, J., 2006, “Selfless Self-Love”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 9: 3–25.
• Brink, D. O., 1999, “Eudaimonism, Love and Friendship, and Political Community”, Social Philosophy & Policy, 16: 252–289.
• Brown, R., 1987, Analyzing Love, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clausen, G., 2019, “Love of Whole Persons”, The Journal of Ethics, 23 (4): 347–67.
• Ebels-Duggan, K., 2008, “Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love”, Ethics, 119: 142–70.
• Fisher, M., 1990, Personal Love, London: Duckworth.
• –––, 2000, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Grau, C. & Smuts, A., 2017, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Love, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Han, Y., 2021, “Do We Love for Reasons?”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, 102: 106–126.
• Howard, C., 2019, “Fitting Love and Reasons for Loving” in M. Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198846253.001.0001
• Jaworska, A. & Wonderly, M., 2017, “Love and Caring”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2020). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.15
• Jollimore, T, 2011, Love’s Vision, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kolodny, N., 2003, “Love as Valuing a Relationship”, The Philosophical Review, 112: 135–89.
• Martin, A. 2020, The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy, first published by Routledge.
• Martin, A., 2015, “Love, Incorporated”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18: 691–702.
• Montaigne, M., [E], Essays, in The Complete Essays of Montaigne, Donald Frame (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.
• Naar, H., 2013, “A Dispositional Theory of Love”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94(3): 342–357.
• Nussbaum, M., 1990, “Love and the Individual: Romantic Rightness and Platonic Aspiration”, in Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 314–34.
• Ortiz-Millán, G., 2007, “Love and Rationality: On Some Possible Rational Effects of Love”, Kriterion, 48: 127–44.
• Pismenny, A. & Prinz, J., 2017, “Is Love an Emotion?”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2017). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.10
• Setiya, K., 2014, “Love and the Value of a Life”, Philosophical Review, 123: 251–80.
• Singer, I, 1994, The Pursuit of Love, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• –––, 2009, Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-up, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Stump, E., 2006, “Love by All Accounts”, Presidential Address to the Central APA, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 80: 25–43.
• –––, 1989, “Friends and Lovers”, in G. Graham & H. La Follette (eds.), Person to Person, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 182–98.
• –––, 1991, “Reasons for Loving”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 467–476.
• –––, 1993, “Friendship and Other Loves”, in Badhwar (1993), 48–64.
• White, R. J., 2001, Love’s Philosophy, Rowman & Littlefield.
• Whiting, J. E., 1991, “Impersonal Friends”, Monist, 74: 3–29.
• –––, 2013, “Love: Self-Propagation, Self-Preservation, or Ekstasis?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43: 403–29.
• Willigenburg, T. Van, 2005, “Reason and Love: A Non-Reductive Analysis of the Normativity of Agent-Relative Reasons”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8: 45–62.
• Wonderly, M., 2016, “On Being Attached”, Philosophical Studies, 173: 223–42.
• –––, 2017, “Love and Attachment”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 54: 235–50.