"I have a philosophical secret!"

apologies to anyone who’s come across this before, but it’s simply too funny to keep to myself:

philosophynow.org/archive/ar … ringer.htm

Karolina,

That was the funniest thing I have ever heard. Thank you dearly. You made my day.

Though I would like to defend Sartre in one respect. He was a wonderful companion to Simone and she “loved”(although as existentialists they had different terms for the word) him sincerely.

I know its just a joke, but I’d hate for readers who are unfamiliar with Sartre to get the wrong impression. Did you, upon reading it?

I have to admit that being unfamiliar with Sartre myself, I didn’t pay any attention to that comment so it went straight over my head.

I’m interested to know how their concept of love differed, care to elaborate?

Sure, Karolina.

Sartre, and many other phenomenologists roughly including Simone, believed that “love” was a transcendental “mode” of consciousness, that it wasn’t an actual neurologically “emotional” activity, so to speak. One doesn’t “fall” in love by some emotional invading force of passion and/or instinct…one “creates” an ideal in an orchestration of intentions, acts, and ends, and consciously pursues that ideal deliberately, not passively, autonomously, or automatically. Consequently, what is “loved” is insignificant, as we love beer, football, philosophy, and our wives, we see the ambiguity of the word. It should be obvious that it isn’t the objects that substantiate the theme of “love,” but rather the structures involved in the mode of “loving” something, the actual experience of the feeling itself.

I think what is most obvious as a necessary structure for “love” is the quality of possession. When we idealize an object, whether it be a virtous wife, a useful tool, a principled philosophy, whatever might be the object in mind, we first demand that it submit and conform to that ideal, that it not change and that one can have it. Sartre gave an excellent example in his Being and Nothingness about this quality in which he demonstrated the dilemma created between two lovers.

The one would demand that the other make a pledge, but could not simultaneously forfeit their freedom. He would ask that she love him, but would want this decision to be a choice instead of an obligation, yet she cannot commit without obligation. That is impossible.

“Why should I want to appropriate the Other if it were not precisely that the Other makes me be? But this implies precisely a certain mode of appropriation; it is the Other’s freedom as such that I want to get hold of.”- Sartre

“The man who wants to be loved does not desire the enslavement of the beloved. He is not bent on becomming the object of passion which flows forth mechanically. He does not want to possess an automaton, and if we want to humiliate him, we need only try to persuade him that the beloved’s passion is the result of a psychological determinism. The lover will then feel that both his love and his being are cheapened. If Tristan and Isolde fall madly in love because of a love potion, they are less interesting. The total enslavement of the beloved kills the love of the lover. The end is surpassed; if the beloved is transformed into an automaton, the lover finds himself alone. Thus the lover does not desire to possess the beloved as one possesses a thing; he demands a special type of appropriation. He wants to possess a freedom as freedom.
On the other hand, the lover can not be satisfied with that superior form of freedom which is a free and voluntary engagement. Who would be content with a love given as pure loyalty to a sworn oath? Who would be satisfied with the words, “I love you because I have freely engaged myself to love you and because I do not wish to go back on my word.” Thus the lover demands a pledge, yet is irritated by a pledge. He wants to be loved by a freedom but demands that this freedom as freedom should no longer be free.
He wishes that the Other’s freedom should determine itself to become love- and this not only at the beginning of the affair but at each instant- and at the same time he wants this freedom to be captured by itself.”- Sartre

ooh, I see

thanks for your response

De’Trop said

Is that similiar to what Nietzsche said, later to be picked up by Freud, that we don’t love what is desired, only our desires?

[size=150]Philosophical Enlightment[/size]
click above

Another philosophical tid-bit brought to you by the good fools at XXI.

Smooth, that rocked! My wife liked it too.

“I could only believe in a God who could dance.” Friedrich Nietzsche

LiquidGeneration.com has some really great one’s as well, that stuff cracks me up like nothing else.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: it makes me laugh all the time!!! I bumped this one up so that the new guys/gals can take a look at it!!! :laughing: :laughing: