The Virtue of Erotic Love

The Virtue of Erotic Love by Robert C. Solomon rejects much of the preeminent philosophical literature concerning romantic love and its nature, and redefines it as something virtuous, which exists outside of ethical concerns and is the reconciliation of Christian concepts of love as devotion and faith and the natural and “pagan” conception of love as sexuality. Solomon offers his definition of true romantic love as an emotion and desire of a shared identity with the object of one’s romantic desires. He also states that one of the key aspects of romantic love is that it defines, determines, and makes obvious one’s true “self,” and goes so far as to say that “Love is just this determining of selfhood.”

It would be foolish to deny that a romantic partner does not typically have a strong and mostly accurate conception of who their partner is, and that most people would strive to be the person that they present to their lover, and be the person their lover thinks they are. However, people have different “selves” that are presented to different people or in different situations. Solomon acknowledges this, and also acknowledges people’s typical position on these selves, that they are not “real,” and that their real self is the one they present to their romantic partner. I however take a different position, that there is no one “true” self, and that every self that one may present in different situations is in fact as true of a self as any other.

There are many reasons why people deny that many aspect of their self are not their “true” self. No one would like to believe that their true self is the one that they present to their co-workers, or the one they assume when dealing with disliked relatives. People would much rather assume that their true self is the one that exists when they are with their closest friends and especially with their romantic partners, the self that makes these people we care about care about us in turn. However, though we for these less than ideal selves not to be our true selves, this does not make these selves any less true. In my view, every one of our selves is our true self in the instance that it is being presented. Take, for example, a salesman. The salesman has a self, the self they presents to clients, a likely unsavory persona concerned with nothing but making a sale. While the salesman would not like to think that this persona is his true self, while he is working, it is. His mannerisms, ways of thinking and speaking, and personality are entirely different, and this self is his true self at the time. However, the moment they call their spouse or romantic partner instead of a potential sale, their true self changes. Neither of these selves are false, they simply exist separately and in different situations.
Regardless of whether or not there exists one true self, most people would consider the self they exude when they are with the ones they love as the most true. The question arises of what makes this self be perceived as more true than any other selves. I believe that the most important reason is that people care about why the people who love them love them for, and that they perceive that they are loved for the self that they present to their lovers. It would be unlikely for someone to fall in love with our salesman when they have assumed their business self, but they would be loved for the self they exist as with their romantic partner or someone they wish to enter into a relationship with. Therefore, since this self is the one considered best by their romantic interests, it is the one they consider best themselves and the one they would most like to consider their true self. Another major reason is the openness of self that accompanies a romantic relationship. The self that exists in a relationship is one that is more in tune with one’s deepest thoughts, desires, memories, etc. The salesman persona would never exist beyond the shallow and superficial aspects of a person's life, while the self that exists with a romantic partner is much more intimate. The romantic self being more linked with deeper elements of a person’s being leads to it being considered the true self, as it incorporates emotions and feeling that other selves do not.

In Defense of Promiscuity

Frederick Elliston’s In Defence of Promiscuity begins by challenging the typical definitions of promiscuity. In Elliston’s view, the dictionary definitions of promiscuity, which include being entirely indiscriminate in the selection of sexual partners, and having “many” sexual partners. Elliston’s perspective is that promiscuity can exist with discriminatory selection of partners, as a promiscuous person obviously will not have sex with any and every sexual partner available, and that the word “many” cannot apply as it is too vague and does not specify an actual number, and an un-promiscuous person can have sex with multiple partners in the case of remarrying after divorce or the death of a spouse. He then states his own interpretation the definition of promiscuity, which is that promiscuous people are only indiscriminate in the context of the dominant sexual norm of their society. He establishes the norm of our society as the “western norm,” however he also states that a simple violation of the western norm does not constitute promiscuity. Therefor, Elliston offers his own definition of promiscuity, “ sex with a series of other adults, not directly related through marriage, with no commitments.”

After defining promiscuity, Elliston offers up several common criticisms of promiscuity, and a defence to each. First, he brings up the increased danger of unwanted pregnancy that accompanies promiscuous behavior. Elliston’s defence is that modern contraceptive technology and the existence of abortion procedures reduces the risk of an unwanted child greatly, to within an level that makes promiscuous behavior acceptable. His next defence is against the Catholic concept of the Inseparability premise, the idea that sex has two and only entirely inseparable functions, reproduction, and to bring a married, heterosexual couple closer together. Elliston cites another philosopher in his defence, and states that the inseparability premise has no true basis in scripture or the bible. He also offers several reasons why the Catholic church should accept birth control and and sex for non reproductive purposes, including that prohibiting the use of birth control could lead to a rise in overpopulation, and that the Church allowing drugs for physical health means that they should also allow drugs to promote sexual health.

Elliston then addresses the concept of promiscuity as a threat to monogamy. Elliston counters by stating that promiscuity does not have an adverse affect on monogamy, and that this position makes the assumption that monogamy is superior to the alternatives. His belief is that the continuing existence and popularity of marriage proves that monogamy is alive and well, and that the value of monogamy has been overblown by the western norm, and that more promiscuous behavior can in fact increase the sexual compatibility of married couples. He then counters the somewhat related argument that promiscuity leads to lying and deception by stating that these behaviors are not inherent to promiscuous behavior, and the western norm is in fact responsible for the occurrence of this type of deception by placing a stigma on the promiscuous.

Elliston’s final defence against a specific attack is a counter to the idea that promiscuous behavior has a negative influence on one's personal growth. He cites philosopher Peter Bertocci, who believed that promiscuity threatens “personal emotional security,” it indicates a lack of respect for one’s other partner, and that promiscuous behavior indicates a lack of self discipline. Elliston responds by writing that promiscuity is in fact a conscious refusal to be governed by the western norm, indicating a high degree of self control, and that respecting the decisions and autonomy of one’s partner in being promiscuous is respecting that partner.

Elliston then moves on to defending promiscuity by stating its benefits through three philosophical modes of thought. First, he uses what he calls a “Classic Liberal Defence” and makes the claim that the ability to be promiscuous is an essential part of personal liberty, and that promiscuity enhances personal growth, the freedom and liberty to grow as a person is essential. Next, he defends “sex as body language,” and states that sexuality is a form of body language and expression, and that promiscuity has “instrumental value” in allowing one to become a master of their body language and expressions. Finally, he offers an “existential defence” of promiscuity and offers the viewpoint that “authentic sexuality” creates an openness to others, and an emotional, physical, and psychological nakedness which increases people's ability to realize and decide what commitments they desire.

Nozick "Love's Bond" Blog Entry

Robert Nozick’s Love’s Bond is a clear and almost detached summary of romantic love, its goals and components, and its limitations. He first specifies that romantic love, in his view, has three main components that must be present. The first feature, which he sees as being present in all love, not simply romantic, is a sense that one’s well being is “tied up” with another’s. By this he means that when good or bad things happen to your beloved, they also happen to you, indirectly. Secondly, Nozick believes that in order to have romantic love, both members of a couple must surrender some of their autonomy and decision making. However, both parties must remain independent and cannot be dominated by the other, but instead work together to make decisions about what is best for the couple as a whole. Finally, the third necessary component in Nozick’s definition is public acknowledgment. He claims that couples will want to be perceived publicly as a couple and assert a joint identity. The combination of all these factors forms romantic love and a we between two people. This combined identity of a we is the “end goal” of romantic love in Nozick’s view.

Another important aspect of love according to Nozick is a desire to be loved for “yourself” and not for characteristics such as wealth, looks, or disposition. I will discuss this more later, as I feel that Nozick’s perception of characteristics and being loved for one’s self is misguided.

Nozick then launches into a very economic and detached explanation of why members of a couple tend not to seek out a “better” partner, and instead chose to remain in their already established relationships. The basic explanation is that it is “economically” unwise to attempt an upgrade to another partner, due to the inherent risks involved in a new partner and the effort and time needed to raise a new relationship we to the level of the we that was abandoned. He also believes that there is an inherent desire for monogamy in a relationship, and that the intimate nature of a we relationship necessitates that only two people partake in the relationship. This is another reason why a couple might stay together and not try to find another mate.

The final main point of Nozick’s article delineates the separation of romantic love and the love between friends. He believes that the love between friends does not include the sharing of identity that characterizes romantic love. He states that while friends share experiences, the lack of a shared identity is infact essential to friendships because the shared experiences have value without a shared identity.

The major issue I had with Nozick’s article is the idea that proper romantic love must be a love of someone “for themselves” rather than for their characteristics. On the surface this makes sense, however when one stops to consider what Nozick considers a characteristic, the argument breaks down. According to Nozick, a characteristic includes kindness and intelligence, and presumably other personal qualities. While it is obviously wrong to love someone for characteristics such as wealth or looks, loving someone for intrinsic characteristics and personality traits such as kindness and intelligence is not. In my view, these characteristics make up the person that is loved. When one is loved “for themselves,” the “themselves” that is loved is made up of these characteristics. Nozick argues that this makes love conditional, however he also recognizes that an abundance of newly appearing negative characteristics can end a loving relationship. This is a fallacy, as it indicates that conditional love is inferior or not fully romantic love under his definition, however it also indicates that a change in conditions is an acceptable reason to end a relationship. This means that, under Nozick's definition, love must be conditional, and can reasonably be based on personal characteristics such as kindness or intelligence.

The other issue I have with Nozick’s view on love for characteristics is that it leaves nothing to love someone for. Nozick states that love for characteristics is a precursor to romantic love, and must be put aside to experience true romantic love. If we ignore my previous point and accept that conditional love is not true romantic love, there is still a major issue with Nozick’s argument. Simply put, if one is not loved for their characteristics, they are loved for nothing. Under Nozick’s definition, true romantic love includes loving someone simply for existing or being. Nozick’s counterargument would likely be that the new shared identity of a true romantic couple would be the reason the relationship would continue to exist. However, I see no reason why a relationship would continue to exist under these conditions. Under this definition, a true romantic relationship would be a we relationship formed by an initial, non romantic love for characteristics that must become a relationship that exists simply for the relationships sake and is entirely self perpetuating, existing only for its continued existence.

Man and Woman Analysis

Man and Woman by the now Senator and Presidential candidate Bernard Sanders certainly has an attention grabbing opening. The description of male fantasies of raping and of female fantasies of being raped has become somewhat of a controversy now that Sanders is a player on the national stage. However, while the graphic and rather extreme description of these fantasies may offend some, they certainly accomplish their task of drawing the reader in and ensuring that they are likely to continue reading. I feel like they serve a secondary purpose as well, which is to state Sanders point about traditional gender roles and the unconscious conditioning we have about them. The female fantasy is one of submission to males, while the male’s is one of domination over women. I believe that what Sanders real purpose with these passages was was to underline how deeply ingrained traditional gender roles were and to a degree still are in our unconscious mind by showing how they creep into our most intimate, personal, and private thoughts.

Sanders’ view on gender roles as causing a state of “slavishness” and “pigness” show an interesting perspective on gender politics. The “slavishness” of the traditional position of women is a very standard, though by no means incorrect, viewpoint. What is less standard and more interesting is the idea of gender stereotypes and roles creating the slavishness v. pigness dichotomy. While women are certainly the greater victims of gender inequality, it is rare and refreshing to see the perspective that men are made worse people by gender roles. Once one considers this position however, it seems obvious. Men who benefit from gender roles and inequality are obviously doing something morally wrong and “backwards” if gender equality is considered the ideal. Gender roles impose a “pigness” on men which, though at times it has been socially acceptable, is not ideal.

The way in which gender roles force men to be pig-like and women to be slavish in Sanders’ view shows a deeper and even more interesting concept of gender inequality. The implication is that, in many cases, men and women do not try to enforce gender roles or be sexist, but have the pre-existing roles forced on them. He argues that most men are not trying to be oppressive to women and most women are not trying to be submissive to men, but rather that traditional roles that may have made sense hundreds or even thousands of years ago have been needlessly maintained and changed and that they exist in a self perpetuating manner. I believe that this is true in many cases, as most men would not want to think of themselves as oppressors and do not wish to be oppressive, while women do not wish to be oppressed. It would be exceedingly strange to find an individual who acknowledges gender inequality as negative but still wishes to enforce gender roles and stereotypes. However, traditional gender roles have, in a way, forced their hands by permeating their society and influencing them towards specific behaviors their whole lives. Someone who is sexist or does believe that people should abide by set gender roles is most likely ignorant or has not recognized the negative role of their conditioned unconscious mind.

The issue I have with this viewpoint is that, while I do believe that gender roles are 

often unconsciously reinforced, it feels almost like a cop-out. It removes all blame and 

responsibility from anyone concerning the perpetuation of gender roles, instead assigning 

blame to society as a whole and the gender roles themselves. I believe that we as people, 

especially men, as women cannot simply decide to stop being oppressed, have a 

responsibility to consciously consider our gender politics and to overcome our unconscious 

impulses or ingrained beliefs. Stating that gender roles are entirely unconscious and 

ingrained is a somewhat defeatist viewpoint, and resigning to what one may perceive as 

uncontrollable gender inequalities and differences is counterproductive. However, though 

he never states it explicitly in Man and Woman, I believe that Sanders does not adopt this 

defeatist viewpoint, and instead believes that the way forward is a conscious effort from all 

genders and affected groups to dismantle leftover gender roles and stereotypes that have 

no place in the modern world.

Socrates and Diotema in the Symposium

Socrates’ questioning of Agathon and his recollection and retelling of his being questioned by Diotima is easily my favorite piece of Plato’s work that I have read so far. I found Socrates to be much more humble and relatable, though he still behaves in the classic Socratic way when questioning Agathon, in that he seemingly leads him down logical avenues just to force him to contradict himself. However, it was still much easier to stomach the Socratic dialogue when it was presented as more of an actual dialogue rather than simply Socrates explaining to his friends why they are all wrong and he is right. I also found the views on love which he conveys through his recounting of the words of Diotima to be much more mature and reasonable than his opinions in Lysis and Phaedrus, and less idealized or romanticized.

One of the parts of Socrates speech that I most appreciated was near the end of his questioning of Agathon, where he states that “Whenever you say I desire what I already have, ask yourself whether you don’t mean this: I want the things I have now to be mine in the future as well.” This is a rather important distinction, as one of my major complaints with Socrates in Lysis and Phaedrus was that he believed that one could only desire, and by extension, love what one does not possess. While on the surface this seems logical, as it would seem illogical to continue to desire to possess something once it has been possessed, it also implies that all love between two people would disappear if they entered a relationship or that one would immediately cease to value something once that thing was obtained. What Socrates does with this statement is mend the hole in his logic in a simple but entirely reasonable way. This also enables the philosophical perception of love in the Socratic dialogues to be better related to real life love, which most people can know from experience continues even after a relationship is established or a desired thing is obtained. .

I found myself very intrigued by Diotema and Socrates’ that the goal of love is to “possess the good forever,” and the way lovers accomplish this goal is “giving birth to beauty.” Diotema believes that all people are pregnant, not in a literal sense, but figuratively, meaning that all human beings wish to create something beautiful from themselves as an expression and extension of their love. While this includes children, it could also include literature, artwork, or honor. According to Diotema, this quest for reproduction is also a quest for immortality through the things one leaves behind. This desire for immortality stems from a desire to be godlike, and the immortal reproduction of person or thing through love is what makes them most godlike and therefore most good, in Diotema’s eyes.

While I have a more secular viewpoint and cannot agree that the purpose of reproduction through love is to become the most godlike as possible, I do agree with the idea of reproduction through love itself. The idea of preserving love through the production or creation of something seems strange at first, especially when referring to something other than children, but becomes more reasonable the more one thinks about it. Whenever someone loves someone or something, they seek to have concrete proof of this. A couple may have a child, or one may create something for the other. However, this concept also applies to other kinds of love, for example, a music lover might try to compose new music, an art lover tries to create new art, and a book lover may write new material. It is even common for a long creative project to be called a “labor of love,” colloquially. This concept of a manifestation of love also applies to other, non-romantic kinds of love in a way that many of Socrates’ other ideas do not. I find this very satisfying for the same reasons I liked Diotema’s explanation of how love can persist once the object of love has been “obtained,” essentially because it grounds Socrates’ theories more in reality and makes them applicable to more kinds of love that might be encountered more frequently in the real world.

In what is surely one of the most confusingly written paragraphs ever put to paper in any language, Socrates in Phaedrus states “Since the nature of speech is in fact to direct the soul, whoever intends to be a rhetorician must know how many kinds of soul there are. Their number is so-and-so many; each is of such-and-such a sort; hence some people have such-and-such a character and others have such-and-such. Those distinctions established, there are, in turn, so-and-so many kinds of speech, each of such-and-such a sort. People of such-and-such a character are easy to persuade by speeches of such-and-such a sort in connection with such-and-such an issue for this particular reason, while people of such-and-such another sort are difficult to persuade for those particular reasons.” While reading that paragraph in it’s entirety ranks somewhere between climbing Everest and giving birth to triplets on a scale of difficulty, the meaning is actually quite simple, namely, know your audience.

Once the meaning of the paragraph is extracted from the veritable sea of such-and-suchs and so-and-sos, it can be seen that Socrates is actually making a decent point. He is simply stating that certain people respond best to certain types of speeches, and that a necessary skill for an adept speaker is to be able to identify the best type of speech for convincing or affecting their audience. Socrates’ brings this up for several reasons, the first being that he and Phaedrus are discussing the nature of rhetoric and trying to define what makes a good or skilled rhetorician. Secondly, Socrates will reference the tendency of a speaker to speak differently to different audiences later in Phaedrus, when he states his complaints with speaking and speakers. He states that speakers often deceive their audiences and that a skilled speaker can convince an audience of anything they wish for them to believe.

On Socrates’ point that knowing one’s audience is essential to the art of public speaking I concur wholeheartedly. Being able to identify and speak to specific aspects of an audience member’s sympathies or beliefs is essential when stating an opinion. This can commonly be seen in everyday, especially in politics, where, for example, politicians may speak to an audience about their fears, be it immigrants, other religions, gun violence or control, abortion, or any other controversial issue. Using an audience’s pre-held notions as a jumping off point for garnering support is par for the course in modern political speeches and debates. Another example, one that I have more personal experience with, is in debating. Debaters would often identify types of judges and change their speeches accordingly, even advising their teammates about specific judges. For example, “lay judges” were amature judges with less understanding about debates, and we would “dumb down” our speeches accordingly. On the other hand, judges from the UAA debate team would make us try harder and concentrate more on our wording and the complexity of our arguments. I even heard stories of the dreaded “Hippie Judge” from other debaters. Identifying the audience to which one is speaking and altering one’s speech accordingly is an essential skill for any aspiring speaker, exactly as Socrates asserts.

While I do feel that Socrates is correct in saying that knowing and speaking to one’s audience is an important skill and one that is frequently used by speakers, I would also argue that a true master speaker and speechwriter would be able to deliver an effective and convincing speech to any audience. Being able to adapt a speech to fit multiple audiences on the fly would be the mark of a real expert public speaker, even more so than knowing how to identify and speak to your audience beforehand. Additionally, being able to construct a speech that is effective to any audience, without prior knowledge, is an indication of brilliant speech writing.

I also find myself agreeing with Socrates’ eventual assertion that speeches can be used to deceive and trick people, and sway the public opinion in whichever way the speaker wants it to go, especially when the speaker knows how to properly speak to his or her audience. This is another phenomenon that is very common in politics, and is frequently coupled with the speaking tactic of speaking to a specific audience, as covered earlier. Manipulating the public’s fears and wants and associating them with one’s particular beliefs or agenda is a common and effective political strategy. This technique is used very often in American politics, over issues such as immigration and foreign policy, and is most commonly seen during election seasons, as candidates try to skew public perception of issues in their favor using speeches and debates. It seem as though politicians and their methods may not have changed much since the times of the ancient greeks.

While speakers certainly can deceive and outright lie to listeners, to the listener’s credit, anyone who thinks critically, considers other perspectives, and researches information on their own, a listener can see through a politician’s deception. The speaker must count on the listeners to trust him or her in order for their trick to work, and when that trust is eroded, their speaking career can be over. While this was no easy feat in the 
time of Socrates, modern day listeners can protect themselves from these kinds of manipulations easily, especially since the advent of the internet age. Any major speech made today is analyzed and fact checked and picked apart as soon as the words are uttered, often before the speech is even over. These findings are spread around the world and made available to the public in a way that was never possible before. For the first time in history, it may be possible to overcome the efforts of speakers and put the power firmly back into the hands of the listeners, and could make Socrates’ fears unfounded. It would be interesting to see what his opinion on the state of public speaking and rhetoric in this age where we are inundated in information at all times.

Blog Entry Number One, Lysis

One of Plato’s major postulations about the nature of friendship and love in the Socratic dialogue Lysis is that one can only be truly loved by someone if that someone imposes no limits on the individual in question and allows him or her to be entirely free in their actions. According to Plato, this is because he believes that it is impossible to be happy without total freedom, and that in order for someone to truly love or care for another, they must want them to be happy. This in turn means they must allow them total freedom. Plato explains this to Lysis by saying that his parents cannot love him, because they place him in the charge of a tutor, who is a slave, and will not let him do certain things that were entrusted to slaves or hired hands. Plato asserts that because of this, Lysis’ parents are preventing him from happiness and must not love him. In the dialogue, Plato uses this as a jumping off point for his discussion on the nature of friendship with Lysis and Menexenus. Plato’s assertions on this are never significantly challenged as the conversation moves on, but I feel that the assumptions have a weak foundation and merit further examination.

The first problem I have with Plato’s view is with his opinion that happiness comes from total freedom. While limitations on freedom can certainly be limitations on happiness, I disagree that one must be permitted to do whatever they desire to be happy. No person can ever be truly entirely free from obligations and limitations, but it is certainly true that people are capable of being happy. Happiness depends on many other factors than just freedom, including outlook and attitude, the meeting of basic needs, and having satisfying social connections. For example, someone may work at a job under a manager or boss, and not be free to leave or to spend their time as they wish, but may still be happy with the work they do, or be satisfied with their life overall. A restriction on freedom does not necessarily cause a lack of happiness in the way that Plato asserts it does.

I also find myself disagreeing with Plato’s views that in order to care about and love someone, one must always strive to make them happy. There are many situations where what would make someone happy and what would be in their best interests are in conflict. For example, a friend might have a problem with addiction or be an a toxic relationship, and may feel a sense of happiness with their situation. I believe that a true friend would try to help the other out of a bad situation, even if it may be painful or difficult. Additionally, a friendship may be dynamic and frequently changing. At some points, one friend may be in a vulnerable position and need help and attention from the other, without reciprocating at that time. In a situation such as this, one one friend is being made happy while the other is providing somewhat altruistically and not receiving any happiness. As long as this situation is not permanent, a friendship may remain intact despite a happiness imbalance. While it is necessary for both parties in a friendship to find happiness in that friendship, it is not necessary that both parties find happiness at every moment in a friendship or that both parties constantly strive to please each other.

There are also many situations where a friend or someone who loves another could want to deny another’s freedom for their sake. The aforementioned examples of an addiction or an abusive relationship are embodiments of this concept, as it may be necessary to put a friend in a rehabilitation facility or try to remove them from a bad situation. Parents limiting their children’s behaviors and freedoms is another example, one used specifically in the dialogue as an example by Plato as to why Lysis’ parents do not truly love him. However, I see this behavior as a sign of love rather than a sign of a lack of love. Parents acting out of concern for their child’s safety may prohibit them from engaging in dangerous activities, and may place their child under the authority of another such as a teacher for their benefit. They do this not to deny their child of freedom and happiness but for their child’s benefit and safety, even if the child feels limited or oppressed and a sense of unhappiness.

My final issue with Plato’s position is that he seems to define all friendships as utility friendships, wherein friendship is based solely on the usefulness of the two friends to each other. Plato tells Lysis “...your father does not love you, nor does anyone love anyone else, so far as that person is useless.” While I do agree that all friendships must have some sort of usefulness or benefit to both parties, I do not believe that it is impossible to love or be friends with someone who does not benefit you. As i stated earlier, sometimes friendships are dynamic and one friend may temporarily reap all the benefit while the other gets nothing, but the two are still friends. Additionally, I believe that parents often love their children unconditionally, even though they may not have a use for them. This is especially true of younger children. For example, the vast majority of mothers and fathers would say they love their new baby, but they do not get any real use from a baby, especially not usefulness due to the baby’s actions or purposeful contribution to the relationship.

In summary, I believe that Plato’s views on the nature of love in terms of usefulness and freedom are false. This is because I find that it is illogical to assume that total freedom is necessary for happiness and that it is required for a friend to constantly try to make the object of their friendship happy at all times. Additionally, I feel that there are multiple ways that the opposite of Plato’s believes can be true and that a denial of happiness and freedom can sometimes be an indication of greater love than just pleasing a friend, and that it is possible for a friend and especially a parent to love and feel for someone even when that someone serves no immediate use to them.