A PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE

UNDERSTANDING LOVE IN OUR LIVES

LOVE IS AN ABSTRACT NOUN which means for some it is a word unattached to anything real or sensible, that is all, for others, it is a means by which our being—- our self and its world—- are irrevocably affected once we are “TOUCHED BY LOVE.” Some have sought to analyze it, others have preferred to leave it in the realm of ineffable. Yet it is undesirable that love plays an enormous and unavoidable role in our several cultures, it is a constant theme for youth. Philosophically, the nature of love has since the time been a mainstay in philosophy, producing theories that range from the materialistic conception of love as purely a physical phenomenon—- an animalistic or genetic urge that dictates our behavior—- to theories of love as an intensely spiritual affair that in its highest, permits us to touch divinity.

HISTORICALLY, IN OUR TRADITIONS love provides us an enormously influential and attractive notion that is characterized by a series of elevations, in which animalistic desires or base lust is superseded by a more intellectual conception, which is also supposed by what maybe construed by a theological vision that transcends sensual attraction and mutuality. The philosophical treatment of love transcends a variety of sub-diciplines, including epistemology, metaphysics, religion, politics, human nature, and ethics. Often statements or arguments concerning love, its nature and role in human life, connects to one or all central theories of philosophy, and is often compared with, or examined in the context of, the philosophies of sex and gender, as well as body and intentionality. The task of a philosophy of love is to present the appropriate issue on a cogent manner, drawing on relevant theories of human nature, desire, ethics, ETC.


CONCEPTUAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE NATURE OF LOVE

PRESUMING THAT LOVE HAS A NATURE, it should be to some extent, at least, describable within the concepts of language. But what it means by an appropriate language of description maybe as philosophically beguiling as love itself. Such considerations invokes the philosophy of language of the relevance and appropriateness of meanings, but they also provides the analysis of ” LOVE “ with its first principles. Does it exist and if so, is it knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in phrases: “I AM IN LOVE,” “I LOVE YOU,” but what ” LOVE ” means in these sentences may not be analyzed further: that is, the concept ” LOVE ” is irreducible—- an axiomatic, or self-evident, state of affairs that warrants no further intellectual intrusion, an apodictic category perhaps, that can be recognized.

THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF LOVE asks how we may know love, how we may understand it, whether it is possible or plausible to make statements about others or ourselves being in love. Again, the epistemology of love is intimately connected to the philosophy of language and theories of the emotions. If love is purely an emotional condition, it is plausible to argue that it remains a private phenomenon incapable of being accessed by others, except through an expression of language, and language maybe a poor indicator of an emotional state both for the listener and the subject.


CORRELATING PHILOSOPHICAL LOVE

IF LOVE DOES POSSESSES ” A NATURE “ which is identifiable by some means—- a personal expression, a discernable pattern of behavior or other activity, it can still be asked whether that nature can be properly understood by humanity. Love may have a nature, yet may not possess the proper intellectual capacity to understand it accordingly, we may gain glimpses, perhaps of the essence, but its true nature being forever beyond humanity’s intellectual grasp. Accordingly, love maybe partially described or hinted at in a dialectic or analytical exposition of the concept but never understood in itself. Love may therefore become an epiphenomenal entity, generated by human actions in loving, but never grasp by the mind or language.

LOVE MAYBE SO DESCRIBED AS A PLATONIC FORM, BELONGING TO THE HIGHER REALM OF TRANSCENDENTAL CONCEPTS THAT MORTALS CAN BARELY CONCEIVED OF IN THEIR PURITY, CATCHING ONLY GLIMPSES OF THE FORM’S CONCEPTUAL SHADOWS THAT LOGIC AND REASON UNVEILS OR DICTATES. THE UNINITIATED, THE INCAPABLE, OR THE YOUNG INEXPERIENCED—- THOSE WHO ARE NOT ROMANTIC TROBADOURS—- ARE DOOMED ONLY TO FEEL PHYSICAL DESIRE. THIS SEPARATION OF LOVE FROM PHYSICAL DESIRE HAS FURTHER IMPLICATION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF ROMANTIC LOVE.