Search results
In the philosophical literature, there are three grand models of love: the eros model, the agape (pronounce: ah-gah-pahy) model, and the fusion model. On the eros model love is based on finding attractive features in the other. On the agape model love is self-forgetful.
- Love and Morality
- Love Is Blind
- Love and Reason
- Vision View of Love
- The Beloved’S Perspective
- Morality in Love
He first looks at the concept of love and morality. Jollimore argues that reason guides love but, at the same time, not entirely. To illuminate this point, he asks if love is moral. He points to the idealistic notion that lovers want each other to flourish. Thus they treat them better than anyone else in their lives. In contrast, he points out that...
He then looks to the concept “love is blind” and believes this is flawed. Two notions of love guide Jollimore’s vision view of love. First, to love another person is to place them at the center of your world, such as the earth that revolves around the sun. Second, love illuminates things that we were blind to before, and we perceive the world in th...
Finally, he looks to the idea that reason does not guide love. Jollimore thinks that the (hyper) rationalistviewpoint of the philosophy of love is flawed. The rationalist view being that love is not a condition or matter of reason or rationality in any sense; any list of properties in the beloved will not obligate the lover to love them. But he doe...
Love as a vision means love is largely attention directed towards the positive qualities of the beloved. Because of this, the lover is often blind to negative attributes. Love leads us to create and hold false beliefs about the beloved; the lover finds value in the beloved’s subjective qualities and has true in their heart that these are objective ...
Love is a response to the beloved’s universal properties and a response to non-universal properties in the beloved. Human natureallows and forces us to value things from a non-neutral standpoint, a place where detachment and objective standards are forbidden. The lover doesn’t assess these non-universal properties of the beloved but instead identif...
For the philosopher Jollimore, love is moral because it in nature causes the lover to overcome “the partiality to self,” and the partiality to self is a powerful and often destructive motivator of human behavior. The love and recognition for the individual cause the lover to provide a generous amount of attention to the beloved, which involves trus...
Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-Up (it's a condensed summary of "The Nature of Love") by Irving Singer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Love. "Philosophy of Love" is a great introductory book. Of all the list it's the one I recommend the most.
With that, here are five philosophers’ takes on love: 1. Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard grappled with love most prominently in Works of Love, writing about agape, or unconditional love. For Kierkegaard, the Christian conception of agape is the only true love, for Christian love reveals “that it has within itself the truth of the eternal.”
- Jake Goldman
Dec 27, 2023 · In his book “The Art of Loving” (1956) the psychoanalyst and philosopher Erich Fromm (1900-1980) discusses how love is often wrongly perceived as the passive “falling in love.” For Fromm, love is mainly a decision to love, to become a loving person.
- Andreas Matthias
Feb 6, 2017 · I focus on three key themes in that text: the relationship between Kjerlighed (Kierkegaard’s main term for love) and its preferential varieties such as “erotic love” (Elskov) and friendship; how Kierkegaard’s is a “vision” view of love, requiring—contrary to what is often assumed—attention to the particular individual; and ...
People also ask
What is the philosophy of Love?
What is Plato's philosophy of Love?
Should Love be defined in a philosophical way?
What is romantic love according to Plato?
What is love based on?
What is the importance of self-love in a relationship?
The philosophical discussion regarding love logically begins with questions concerning its nature. This implies that love has a “nature,” a proposition that some may oppose arguing that love is conceptually irrational, in the sense that it cannot be described in rational or meaningful propositions.
