Wojciech Jerzy Borowiecki

Love and Friendship

What problems does Solomon identify in attempts to separate different “kinds
of love”? Solomon, ‘In the Beginning the Word’, p.7)

According to Solomon, there are multiple problems with the meaning of the
word “love” itself. The author suggests that troubles start with a question as to one
talks about love or “love”. More precisely: whether they are representatives of
diverse disciplines like psycho analytics, feminists, philosophers or linguists who are
conducting the analysis. Furthermore, the word “love” has different connotations in
different circumstances. One can love a person, a trip around the world or cakes.
Solomon suggests that both words: “love” and “friendship” have lost their meaning
for they are used too often sometimes in “inappropriate” circumstances.
The author gives multiple examples of what people call love. Socrates sought
love for wisdom as the only true love, Stendhal considered love as a stormy process
filled with emotional disturbances and Camus rejected the existence of love
whatsoever. All the same we are able to distinguish true romantic love from
friendship; motherly love from love between a father and a son, friendship from love
of humanity or God. Eventually the author goes as far as putting forward a
suggestion that while attempting to understand the phenomenon of love one should
give up seeking for distinctions between different kinds of love at all.
To me Solomon appears to be all over the place. Nevertheless, the core of
this paper seems to be critique of Rollo May’s proposition of separation of different
kinds of love based on traditional Greek’s division: sex, eros, philia and agape.1
Firstly, according to the author the wording is ancient and even Greeks confused
etymology of these words. Secondly, he questions the reason behind the distinction
between eros and philia for Greeks used these words interchangeably. Finally, there
is no valued reason behind division between romantic love and friendship focusing
on the sexual side of partnership. Solomon also points out that Rollo May did not
even include motherly love in his discussion. Eventually the author separates
different kinds of love based on Aristotle’s discussion of friendship.

How does Diotima (as reported by Socrates, according to Plato) explain her
claim that ‘love is …for begetting and birth in the beautiful’? (Symposium
207A)

Plato via alleged dialog between Socrates and Diotima delivers revolutionary
concept of love2. He rejects love as the pursuit of the other half (Aristophanes) and
introduces love as love of beauty. According to Diotima it is only because of good in
the other individual, we love that particular individual. People want a good.
1
Latter in this paper Solomon states “Greeks did not separate sex, love and friendship as we do”.
2
I have also read two Polish translations of the Plato’s Symposium. They differ from English version
sometimes quite significantly. Moreover, there are some differences between them too. I tried to find
the interpretation of Plato’s theory of love which suits me best..

2
Moreover, they want to possess this good forever. To Socrates question, what one
should do to achieve a good and what actions one can call love, Diotima answers
that love is giving birth in both beautiful body and soul. In every man, there is some
kind of sexual urge both bodily and spiritual. Therefore, in a certain age everybody
desires whether to procreate or create (or both). For man cannot fertilize repulsive
things, he pursues the beautiful. This is a God’s thing and in every mortal being,
there are two immortal elements: this sexual arousal and fertilizing.

Two people can bind together only through true beauty and only when there
is harmony between them. A man desires immortality. Because love is love of
possessing good always, hence love is immortality. Through begetting and birth,
somehow we can assure immortality. A man changes through life both physically
and spiritually, nonetheless stays the some person. By his offspring, a man achieves
immortality in a different body. Therefore, everybody might be immortal thanks to
his own children.

Further more, Plato hypothesizes that immortality could be reached by means

of great heroic acts, works of art or even handcraft. According to Diotima, begetting
in a soul is on a higher value than begetting in a body. A man goes through
consecutive grades of love aiming at the highest grade – love of the beautiful. Young
man at first loves one body because he sees beauty only in this one body, then
begins to see beauty in all other bodies. After that, he values more the beauty hidden
in a soul and finally discovers beauty hidden in human actions and laws of nature.
The beauty is always the same, but a man discovers it in different forms and shapes.
At the end of the road, a man finds beauty in beauty unchangeable and everlasting –
immortal.

Briefly explain Freud’s reasoning for his claim that ‘the behaviour in love of
man in the civilized world today bears the stamp of psychical impotency’.
(Freud, ‘On the universal Tendency to Debasement…’, p 185)

Freud puts forward a thesis that every man in his early childhood is prone to
incestuous fixation. That is erotic interest in his mother or sister. It is my
understanding that Freud based his thesis on the following assumption: either
parents or carers who nurture a baby are more engaged in activities with child of
opposite sex. Hence, a father would show more affection towards a daughter and a
mother towards a son. Otherwise, a sexual interest a son could direct towards a
father instead of a mother or a sister.

The bond between a mother and a son in early childhood Freud called
affection. During puberty, however, appears another, a sensual current that is
responsible for sexual behaviour. The sensual current originates from a preservation
instinct and is responsible for an urge to procreation. Happy and successful sexual
life and normal attitude in love depends on a combination of those two currents.
Failure in this combination results in psychical impotence.

3
 Freud suggests that a great number of men have failed to combine affection
and sensual currents. Furthermore, he says that those men develop perverse fantasies
and unless they are not entirely devoted to achieve complete satisfaction during a
sexual act they fail to do so whatsoever. For a man who respect a women cannot
realize his fantasies he will never have a full satisfaction in sexual life unless he will
do it with a women he does not have respect like for example a prostitute.

Incestuous fixation and responsibilities impounded by adulthood are

responsible for psychical impotence of civilized man. For men to preserve respect
towards women and have a happy, successful sexual life they must accept existence
of sexual fantasies about a mother or a sister. Further, he asserts this impotence has a
bearing on culture.

What reasons does Delaney give for his view that unconditional love should not
be a part of the ideal of romantic love of loving commitment?

Delaney points out a paradox embedded within romantic love: we want to

our lover to love us unconditionally while at the same time we hope that our lover
has a sense of taste for he/she chose us as an object of affection. The author’s thesis I
would capture as follow: people confuse love ‘no matter what’ with love for ‘who I
am’.

Delaney states that Scrutons’ theory of ideal romantic love does not stand up
for at least two reasons. Firstly, Scruton assumes a human being as unchangeable.
On the contrary, Delaney represents philosophy that of Hraclitus that one would
recapitulate in a phrase: panta rei - literally, everything flows, everything is
constantly changing and that includes every human being. Delaney is taking as an
example a former football player who became a minister for the ill. The author
shows dramatic changes in the values of the individual that could endanger entire
relationship. Secondly, according to the author Scrutons’ thesis does not hold water
because what we want in our relationship is an acceptance or maybe even more – an
appreciation of changes in ourselves. That leads to the conclusion that what we
really want is for our lover to be with us along the track. Literally, we expect from
our partner to be flexible in love or as Delaney put it, plastic. Yet that unconditional
love does not come into play in romantic love.

Delaney gives another, in my opinion very unfortunate, example concerning

a partner in a relationship who fell in Alzheimer’s disease. Apparently, this
individual would wish to be cared for and loved by his/her partner. I believe that
what Delaney really wanted to say was that in extreme circumstances that do not
depend on us we might expect from our partner to be caring, understanding and
loyal. The author calls it loving commitment.

4
 The question is whether unconditional love should be a part of the latter.
Delaney suggests that in particular circumstances we do not expect from our lover
continuous love but a ‘sentimental attachment’. Therefore, unconditional love
should not be a part of ‘loving commitment either.