Friday, May 15, 2009

ProposingTeam - Final

Well, Xavier and Guillaume, we are really happy to have helped you to define clearly what "romantic love" is, but you have to admit it is not very fair to admit this definition and then wrote in the middle of your speech that you introduced romantic love as "the gap between sex and love". Once and for all: romantic love isn't that!

Romantic love is the second level of the process of love, a level in which we must not stay for eternity. As we said (and we may have been misunderstood on that point), romantic love is characterized by idealization of the beloved and eagerness to see admiration in his/her eyes. And as Alan Soble, member of the Society for Philosophy of Sex and Love wrote in Sex, love and frienship (chapter Romantic Love: A Patchwork) :
Without prima facie concern for the other's welfare that grows out of admiration and idealization of the other, there is no romantic love.

We are not, as our poor friends of the opposition seems to think it, starving animals seeking for sex. We are just realistic about what a true relationship should be : a trust-based and strong bond, as in the conjugal love described by Dr. Murstein.

Xavier and Guillaume, you suggest that we list all the qualities and shortcomings of your partner. First, let me tell you this is a bad idea : Ross did it in Friends, and I do not recall that Rachel thought it was funny when she found that list - but I think it's quite good that someone reminds you that, since you don't seem to be very mature about what a true relationship is. Second of all, you're not lost! The very fact that you suggest to write down a list shows that you don't idealize the beloved one, and thus, that you are not in the stage of romantic love. Congratulations! If your Facebook status shows "in a relationship", you're just in for sex or because you're deeply in love, conjugal love but not romantic love.

You just fail to see that there is something between "sex" and "love" - the gap you wrote about. There is no direct path to love, no effortless way. True love is about commitment (from both sides!), and even if you are very cute when you are talking about altruism (which is, in fact, disinterested love for someone), it shows you are not very familiar about what conjugal love should be. There is no love when you are not loved in return (and that's why there is a word for love and a word for altruism: it's not quite the same!) : this is called a sacrifice, and even if it is beautiful and very noble, this is not the loving relationship you want to talk about.

We do believe in love. We do believe in committed relationships. We do believe that a strong love, a forever love needs work and does not happen like that. We do believe also, that people that last in the stage of romantic love are not mature because their motives are selfish, and that no good can come for this.

That's why romantic love is an illusion, because an illusion is in philosophy a perception self-maintained by humans so that they continue to think in a choice that a rational exam would reject. That's being said, you can choose to live in the illusion the love you built or you will be building someday is a romantic love. That's not the choice we made, and we hope you won't either. Vote for us!

David and Thomas

No comments:

Post a Comment