Last night, I heard David Brooks talk about Allan Bloom's last book Love and Friendship. I googled the book for about half hour (which in eternity in the virtual world) in vain - I could hardly find any reviews or summary of this book. This should have been no surprise in this world of perpetual adolescence flourishing in cognitive fluency. It's no accident that Allan Bloom's last book was on love and friendship - the most pivotal factor which makes who we are. I am looking forward to read this one soon. In the mean time, found this one great article by Alexander John Kritikos - When Love Blooms:
"Why would very intelligent people be apt to disregard their integrity and succumb to one- night-stands or friends-with-benefits relation- ships this frequently? The obvious answer is that it is a simple calculation: students desire pleasure, and so they find someone to provide it. Another plausible answer is that Hoyas are too busy with studying and extracurricular activi- ties to allot adequate time for a boyfriend or girl- friend. The other answer, though generally not expressed, comes from Allan Bloom’s under- standing of love, as described. Namely, the reward of love is not worth the risk of express- ing one’s soul to another with the possibility to be left embarrassed and more alone than before. After all, when presenting a gift, as a view to one’s soul is, it is unlikely that upon rejection the lover can simply close the view to one’s soul as if it were a window shutter. The nearly inevitable result that love will end is a known risk. This increases a desire to avoid love, because the termination of love might be more unbearable than its joys.
However, none of the stated reasons seem to be sufficient to stand idly by when love seems available to so many. To argue that one should deny love in order to engage in casual sexual relations seems as foolish as it is base. Relationships in which love is reciprocated will tend to be more physically pleasing because once the moment of physical pleasure is over, the two still have the pleasure of their love. The argument of a lack of time to commit to a rela- tionship also seems ridiculous in light of the immensity of time students waste procrastinat- ing (see Facebook for one example). To trivialize love by making it something to be undertaken only when one has time is to acknowledge a dis- ordered soul. Love must not be reduced to a blot on the bottom of a list of things to do. It must not even be a priority, but it must be a mandate when presented as a possibility. When looking at love in particular, logical terms, it does seem that it is actually smart to avoid it, especially at pivotal times in life, such as college. However, the very risk of pain and weakness adds to the grandeur and happiness of love. Seeking potentially fruitless love may not lead to happiness, but reducing ourselves to risk-assess- ing automatons will surely lead to unhappiness."
“Love, according to the classical analysis, means imperfection, need. The motion of one being toward another, the recognition of something admirable in another, implies the lack of something in the one admiring...[the lover’s] value as a human being is called into question, but he has no right to complain, for love is not a question of duty.” - Allan Bloom
"Why would very intelligent people be apt to disregard their integrity and succumb to one- night-stands or friends-with-benefits relation- ships this frequently? The obvious answer is that it is a simple calculation: students desire pleasure, and so they find someone to provide it. Another plausible answer is that Hoyas are too busy with studying and extracurricular activi- ties to allot adequate time for a boyfriend or girl- friend. The other answer, though generally not expressed, comes from Allan Bloom’s under- standing of love, as described. Namely, the reward of love is not worth the risk of express- ing one’s soul to another with the possibility to be left embarrassed and more alone than before. After all, when presenting a gift, as a view to one’s soul is, it is unlikely that upon rejection the lover can simply close the view to one’s soul as if it were a window shutter. The nearly inevitable result that love will end is a known risk. This increases a desire to avoid love, because the termination of love might be more unbearable than its joys.
However, none of the stated reasons seem to be sufficient to stand idly by when love seems available to so many. To argue that one should deny love in order to engage in casual sexual relations seems as foolish as it is base. Relationships in which love is reciprocated will tend to be more physically pleasing because once the moment of physical pleasure is over, the two still have the pleasure of their love. The argument of a lack of time to commit to a rela- tionship also seems ridiculous in light of the immensity of time students waste procrastinat- ing (see Facebook for one example). To trivialize love by making it something to be undertaken only when one has time is to acknowledge a dis- ordered soul. Love must not be reduced to a blot on the bottom of a list of things to do. It must not even be a priority, but it must be a mandate when presented as a possibility. When looking at love in particular, logical terms, it does seem that it is actually smart to avoid it, especially at pivotal times in life, such as college. However, the very risk of pain and weakness adds to the grandeur and happiness of love. Seeking potentially fruitless love may not lead to happiness, but reducing ourselves to risk-assess- ing automatons will surely lead to unhappiness."
“Love, according to the classical analysis, means imperfection, need. The motion of one being toward another, the recognition of something admirable in another, implies the lack of something in the one admiring...[the lover’s] value as a human being is called into question, but he has no right to complain, for love is not a question of duty.” - Allan Bloom
No comments:
Post a Comment