Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:22:30.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Romantic Love and Knowledge: Refuting the Claim of Egoism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Gary Foster
Gary Foster
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Romantic love and its predecessor eros have both been characterized as forms of egoistic love. Part of this claim is concerned specifically with the relation between love and knowledge. Real love, it is claimed, is prior to knowledge and is not motivated by it. Romantic love and eros according to this view are egoistic in that they are motivated by a desire for knowledge. Agapic love characterized by bestowal represents a true form of love unmotivated by selfish desires. I argue that such an emphasis on bestowal at the expense of knowledge or appraisal of the beloved is problematic. The knowledge dimension of romantic love, rather than contributing to selfishness, can be a means of freeing us from egoism when we understand identity in its relational or social form.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , Spring 2008 , pp. 235 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books, 1968), p. 119.Google Scholar

2 Singer, Irving, The Nature of Love, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), Vol. 1, p. 315.Google Scholar

3 Ibid., Vols. 1–3.

4 Ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 283–302.

5 Scheler, Max, On Feeling, Knowing, and Valuing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), pp. 152–55.Google Scholar

6 Sartre, Jean-Paul, Being and Nothingness, translated by Barnes, Hazel E. (New York: Washington Square Press, 1956), p. 380.Google Scholar

7 For a discussion of the Romantic version of the “Fall,” see, for instance, Abrams, M. H., Natural Supernaturalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971).Google Scholar

8 Scheler, , On Feeling, Knowing, and Valuing, p. 156.Google Scholar

9 Nygren, Anders, Agapé and Eros (London: S.P.C.K., 1953), pp. 80–81, 176–77.Google Scholar

10 Scheler, , On Feeling, Knowing, and Valuing, p. 155.Google Scholar

11 Kierkegaard, Søren, Works of Love, edited and translated by Hong, Howard V. and Hong, Edna H. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 44.Google Scholar

12 Nygren, , Agapé and Eros, pp. 209–10.Google Scholar

13 Kolodny, Niko, “Love as Valuing a Relationship,” The Philosophical Review, 112, 2 (04 2003): 135–89, esp. p. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Frankfurt, Harry, The Reasons of Love (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 42.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 40.

16 Jan Bransen presents us with the notion of an “alternative of oneself” that potentially saves Frankfurt's notion of self-love from internal incoherence. See Bransen, Jan, “Selfless Self-Love,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 9 (2006): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See Levinas, Emmanuel, “Is Ontology Fundamental?” and “Transcendence and Height,” in Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings, edited by Peperzak, A. T., Critchley, S., and Bernasconi, R. (Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996), pp. 1–10 and 11–31, respectively.Google Scholar

18 Sartre, Jean-Paul, Notebook for an Ethics, translated by Pellauer, David (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).Google Scholar

19 Sartre, , Being and Nothingness, pp. 474–93.Google Scholar

20 Singer, , The Nature of Love, p. 10.Google Scholar

21 The reciprocal aim of romantic love is best represented by an image in which neither the position of the lover nor the beloved is privileged. Both participants occupy the position of lover and beloved in a reciprocal manner similar to the agent-patient relationship of ethical philosophy.

22 Solomon, Robert C., About Love: Reinventing Romance for Our Time (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), pp. 23–26.Google Scholar

23 Levinas, , “Transcendence and Height,” pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

24 Scheler, , On Feeling, Knowing, and Valuing, p. 155.Google Scholar

25 Dilman, Ilham, Love and Human Separateness (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), pp. 121–28.Google Scholar

26 Wilson, Colin, “From Anti-Sartre,” in Existentialism, edited by Solomon, Robert C., 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 343–52, esp. pp. 344–48.Google Scholar