Philosophical Discussion

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I've been trying to figure out how romantic love works. I've been studying the philosophy of the human person and there is a characteristic my professor mentioned which is taught by some philosophers, that there is something in the human person which is beyond traits.

The question is originally phrased: what is it that persons have communicably (all persons have it) which makes them incommunicable (unique unto themselves)? That is...it is a universal truth for humanity that each individual of the group [i]humanity[/i] is unique and independently discernible. Therefore, of course, they have a combination of communicable and incommunicable traits.

Yet, it seems, each and every person's individual traits is shared by at least one other; that is...one has brown hair, and we don't say that person is the only one to have brown hair. Nor is that the case for eye color, body size, body shape, or even non-genetic things, such as attitude, political affiliation, etc. The particular things specific to an individual seem to be beyond our noticing (fingerprints, iris patterns) or in a unique combination of individually common traits.

Yet, that's not it. There has to be something deeper. We all look for certain traits in people when we are searching out those we'd like to love and there are often more than a few people we know who have all of those traits. Besides that, many of us have experienced when romantic feelings just pop up out of the blue for someone who does not fit our general schema of what we're looking for. Something must explain this.

We know that God is Love and Truth. We know that mankind is an image of God. It follows that man was made in and with love and truth, however twisted these may be from the fall.

When we seek to know God, the two most common bits of advice given to us are to love Him and to know Him. A response, therefore, to His Love and to His Truth. It seems that the more we know Him, the more we love Him. Likewise, it seems that the more we love Him, the more we seek to know Him. Eternity, the beatific vision, will of course consist of knowing and loving God.

This beatific vision seems to me to be the true model of which our human relationships are an image. It is eternal, ours are temporal; it is perfect, ours are imperfect; etc.

Therefore, in continuing this parallel, it seems to me that what human romance must be based upon is knowing and loving another. Yet, I know many people, and I love them all, but it is not a romantic love.

Whenever I've felt myself getting a crush on a person, it has been when we've discussed something deeply personal (for those who've discussed things deeply personal with me, have no fear, I retain my platonic relationships well enough . At such point, there is an exchange of persons going on, in a sense. The more I would know, the more I would love. The more I would love, the more I would seek to know.

Reflecting on my own love and feelings, I believe that in this, we see something much deeper. Normally, we see some aspect of the external...a mask one wears, or better yet still, a skin (as a mask is intentionally worn and a skin is not). External features which may interest us, but are not significant enough to cause us to love another. Rather, I believe that it is the person we love, not just the traits of their personality (for even this, in a sense, is a skin), but the person as the person knows self...the person's consciousness, the person's spiritual insides, the person's thoughts and dreams and hopes that are particular to that person. In short, the very spark of divine image within that makes them a person (interestingly, also generally the very thing we feel most vulnerable about and desire to keep to ourselves)

These things, I think, can be revealed to an extent outwardly through the body or personality, but it is truly in giving oneself by communicating oneself to another...that is, letting another get a glimpse of what you see...letting them empathize with your person and unite with it, so that they look from the inside out at who you are...I think it is this that is the boundary line of romantic love.

This, of course, requires a committed act of communicating oneself in such a way. It requires an initial act of love and trust by desiring to give oneself. Likewise, it requires that trust to some extent has already been established, most likely through the external features of a person (the "skin"). Each party has to make the move first to take a leap of faith in order to establish this trust. Likewise, after love has been established and even well-founded, it requires a continual openness of persons. Thus, love is made an act and not a passion, although the act causes a passion, and the passion supports the act, but the act must still be free from the passion, ultimately.

Therefore, how a couple goes from strangers to romantically involved seems to go normally through the route of enjoying external factors which grab the attention, learning more and more about those external factors and finding oneself drawn in, meanwhile establishing this trust, and finally, once trust is established, testing the trust with little bits of the inside person...little bits of vulnerable truth to give a part of the person which one can empathize with and embrace and become able to see that person from the inside out. Once this is done, a floodgate is opened and more and more knowledge is given, increasing love, and more and more love grows, increasing knowledge.

Thus, as the general conclusion seems to be: the threshold of romantic love is the invitation to know a person from the inside; to know and love another as if one's self.

Just curious what others think about this...thought it was most appropriate here.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

No one?

[hierochloe]

Very nice post , although I think it's length is going to require a little time for replies to arrive.

I would agree with your idea on how romantic love comes about. The only comment I have is that I think many types of love are arrived at from sharing one's inner-most thoughts and feelings. My best friends in life, guys who know me and I them inside-out, sharing a level of comradery in which one can easily guess correctly what the other is thinking or what the other would do in a situation, dudes I would die for in an instant without even questioning it, are examples of love resulting from opening up to another person over time. Yet I don't feel a romantic attraction to them in the least! I think the romantic attraction is contingent upon both a physical and spiritual attraction, which I think you did imply eventually in your post.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 14 2005, 03:57 PM']Very nice post , although I think it's length is going to require a little time for replies to arrive.

I would agree with your idea on how romantic love comes about. The only comment I have is that I think many types of love are arrived at from sharing one's inner-most thoughts and feelings. My best friends in life, guys who know me and I them inside-out, sharing a level of comradery in which one can easily guess correctly what the other is thinking or what the other would do in a situation, dudes I would die for in an instant without even questioning it, are examples of love resulting from opening up to another person over time. Yet I don't feel a romantic attraction to them in the least! I think the romantic attraction is contingent upon both a physical and spiritual attraction, which I think you did imply eventually in your post.
[right][snapback]723327[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well...I suppose I don't really mean just things we don't tell others as much as I mean sharing our struggles in a deeply personal way...like we go to that one person to help us, over and over, letting them share our lives in a way we don't share it with any others. You know, like there are things I tell my friends, and then there are things I tell my best friend, my romantic interest.

I think there are some parts of us which get externalized in a way, and we share them...but there are others where we invite a special person into our lives, rather than give our lives over to them.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 14 2005, 03:06 PM']Well...I suppose I don't really mean just things we don't tell others as much as I mean sharing our struggles in a deeply personal way...like we go to that one person to help us, over and over, letting them share our lives in a way we don't share it with any others.  You know, like there are things I tell my friends, and then there are things I tell my best friend, my romantic interest.

I think there are some parts of us which get externalized in a way, and we share them...but there are others where we invite a special person into our lives, rather than give our lives over to them.
[right][snapback]723339[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Indeed, I have a number of close personal friends with whom deepest and most intimate personal struggles are shared - yep all of them. Yet they are not romantic interests. Of course, it's reasonable that this would not be the case for everyone, as some people do have a private side that is never exposed except perhaps in a romantic relationship.

From personal observation, it seems the commincable part of romantic relationships amounts to some requisite combination of physical and mental/spiritual attraction.

I suppose perhaps it is an incommunicable trait exactly [i]how[/i] we develop a romantic interest/relationship? It would make sense, as one episode of Jerry Springer will deomnstrate, that there are varying qualities of romantic relationships out there. When unhealthy romance becomes a chronic, recurring problem, it seems it would be safe to say a person has isssues with how they develop their romantic relationships? The balance of physical/spiritual attraction they need is off? But I think I'm digressing now.

The whole matter leads me to another question. Is a romantic relationship to be considered the apex of relationships, as it were? Is this to represent the fullest manifestation of a parallel between human interpersonal relationship and that of the beautific vision? Or can other, platonic relationships also achieve an equal representation?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 14 2005, 04:33 PM']Indeed, I have a number of close personal friends with whom deepest and most intimate personal struggles are shared - yep all of them. Yet they are not romantic interests. Of course, it's reasonable that this would not be the case for everyone, as some people do have a private side that is never exposed except perhaps in a romantic relationship.

From personal observation, it seems the commincable part of romantic relationships amounts to some requisite combination of physical and mental/spiritual attraction.

I suppose perhaps it is an incommunicable trait exactly [i]how[/i] we develop a romantic interest/relationship? It would make sense, as one episode of Jerry Springer will deomnstrate, that there are varying qualities of romantic relationships out there. When unhealthy romance becomes a chronic, recurring problem, it seems it would be safe to say a person has isssues with how they develop their romantic relationships? The balance of physical/spiritual attraction they need is off? But I think I'm digressing now.

The whole matter leads me to another question. Is a romantic relationship to be considered the apex of relationships, as it were? Is this to represent the fullest manifestation of a parallel between human interpersonal relationship and that of the beautific vision? Or can other, platonic relationships also achieve an equal representation?
[right][snapback]723376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Now we have two issues. I will address them individually and ask you to follow suit.

1. I would like to phrase it this way and see if it makes a difference...part of my problem with philosophy is that I'm not great at articulating, so what I'm thinking and the impression I've given may be off. Perhaps a part of the internal person is shared, but that seems to be taking a piece of oneself and giving it to another. Of course, a person cannot remove a piece of his personhood in the true sense and hand it on to another, but you know what I mean. It seems that this kind of interpersonal communion is one which takes place outside of the person...one person tells another about the issues and they discuss them, even deeply, and they help one another bear their crosses. But what seems to be the case in romantic relationships is that instead of discussing these things outside of the person, sharing them between the two, one person is actually invited to enter into the life and person of another. That person, likewise, enters into the person of another and begins to know and love the person as if it was himself (this being the summit of romantic interpersonal relationships, and not always the case with the average situation). What hurts one hurts the other, not because, "oh, well, they're hurt, so I'll share in that and help them," which is a more indirect sense, sympathy, but in the sense of empathy, which is more direct, where you are so linked to another that their person is so close to you that you quite literally share their joys and sorrows as if they were your own. Instead of "good job, here's a pat on the back" it's, "wow...this is so wonderful for us." A person becomes joined to another in the sense that "we" comes to describe almost a single life experience (of course, this isn't a literal sense, saying that they actually become one person, but that they are so close, that it's no longer "I" but "we"...and yet, in a way, still respecting the "I"...perhaps we can elaborate on that in another point).

2. Well, if we define (good) relationships as bonds of love, then there are four types: storge, philia, eros, and agape. They are in that order, least to greatest. Agape is the love of God which binds the Church. It is the greatest. Eros is romantic, philia is brotherly, and storge is love of things. Of course, I would say that the greatest romance was a combination of all four...completely all four, at once. The love of God shared in the sacrament of Marriage through the Church, romantic love shared in the marital embrace, caring for one another in a much less sexual way, and loving the parts and traits of one another.

[hierochloe]

Don't feel bad if you're not communicating accurately with this stuff - I'm awful at that myself.

On 1):

To verify, I believe what you mean in 1) can be summed up in the phrase, "... and the two will become one flesh", except that you are not referring to anything physical.

Based on personal experience, I do think I experience the type of emapthy you decribe as "quite literally share their joys and sorrows as if they were your own" without a romantic connection. However, there [i]are[/i] things large and small which are not inexorably tied to them such as decisions regarding everyday choices and things that hold potential for significantly affecting my [i]future[/i]. I think this is namely because these are not "we" relationships, as you so aptly put it. Now in a romantic context, these things would become key focal points for the "we" instead of the "I". A romantic relationship is doomed to fail without "we".

Nevertheless, I still think that it's possible for two people to have such an empathy without the need for a romantic component. Without a romantic connection, there is a level of intimacy that is lacking, but I still think this is a product of the physical component of romance.

On 2):
I completely agree with your account of the greatest romance. Let me go one step further with my last line of questioning regarding parallels to beautific vision though. Would it be accurate to say that celibate clergy, by abstaining from romantic relationships, are missing out on an earthly beautific vision? Or am I misinterpreting your definition of romance?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 14 2005, 07:31 PM']Don't feel bad if you're not communicating accurately with this stuff - I'm awful at that myself.

On 1):

To verify, I believe what you mean in 1) can be summed up in the phrase, "... and the two will become one flesh", except that you are not referring to anything physical.

Based on personal experience, I do think I experience the type of emapthy you decribe as "quite literally share their joys and sorrows as if they were your own" without a romantic connection. However, there [i]are[/i] things large and small which are not inexorably tied to them such as decisions regarding everyday choices and things that hold potential for significantly affecting my [i]future[/i]. I think this is namely because these are not "we" relationships, as you so aptly put it. Now in a romantic context, these things would become key focal points for the "we" instead of the "I". A romantic relationship is doomed to fail without "we".

Nevertheless, I still think that it's possible for two people to have such an empathy without the need for a romantic component. Without a romantic connection, there is a level of intimacy that is lacking, but I still think this is a product of the physical component of romance.

On 2):
I completely agree with your account of the greatest romance. Let me go one step further with my last line of questioning regarding parallels to beautific vision though. Would it be accurate to say that celibate clergy, by abstaining from romantic relationships, are missing out on an earthly beautific vision? Or am I misinterpreting your definition of romance?
[right][snapback]723665[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Yes, I see what you mean. I think the sense I meant of "inviting a person into your own personhood" was of making [i]my life[/i] into [i]our life[/i]. That is, I define "inviting a person into your personhood" as a much deeper thing that can simply be in a non-romantic friendship. I define it similarly to how God invites us into His own divine life (an image of this, not a sameness). Using my understanding, one might compare the relationship of God and man in the Old Testament to a sort of friendship you're describing...where we were called into a sort of communion with God, but as allies...sharing deeply in His mystery and what He told us of Himself and helping to accomplish His work, etc., but it was still we and Him. Whereas the romantic relationship as I understand it seems to be more like in the New Testament (after the New Covenant), where we are called into God's own life...it's no longer we and Him, but We (God and man). Both share a deep connection and there is a communication of persons, but not a communion of persons. That is...persons in friendship are communicated to one another, they show themselves outwardly to one another; whereas I think in romance they are in communion, that is, they truly reside in one another. In either case, they may share deep personal truths about themselves...but in the former, it is by communication, hearing of and internalizing what we know about another, and in the latter, it is by communion, experiencing from the inside (and therefore having no need to take and internalize, because it's already there). This, of course, is in the ideal romance, I believe, and not in all, as I've stated.

2. I would say that celibate clergy are open to experience an image of the beatific vision in a different (and very possibly, higher) way.

[hierochloe]

I think the stumbling block I have is with the physical aspect of a romantic relationship. In comparing a platonic and romantic relationship, the only major differences I can identify stem mainly from the lack of physical intimacy and the ability to pro-create in one. So based on this and personal experience in both, I find it difficult to agree that a romantic relationship can achieve a significantly better analogy of beautific vision. Then again, I admit it could very well be that this shortfall is merely a result of a shallow and somewhat jaded perspective (and therefore biased/incorrect) on my part!

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Raph,

do you have Prof Miller? I had him for Philosophy of the Human Person (GREAT class.. one of my favs)... he's an interesting prof, although he can be pretty funny--unintentionally. He used a lot of "hand motions" to get his points across... everytime I see or (rarely) hear the word "incommunicable" used, I immediately picture him standing in front of the chalkboard, one hand open by his heart, and the other opened as far as he can stretch it from his body... it's one of those "you had to be there" things, so if you have him, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Sep 14 2005, 11:35 PM']Raph,

do you have Prof Miller? I had him for Philosophy of the Human Person (GREAT class.. one of my favs)... he's an interesting prof, although he can be pretty funny--unintentionally. He used a lot of  "hand motions" to get his points across... everytime I see or (rarely) hear the word "incommunicable" used, I immediately picture him standing in front of the chalkboard, one hand open by his heart, and the other opened as far as he can stretch it from his body... it's one of those "you had to be there" things, so if you have him, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about!
[right][snapback]723924[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, I have Crosby. He's definitely my favorite prof.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 14 2005, 10:57 PM']I think the stumbling block I have is with the physical aspect of a romantic relationship. In comparing a platonic and romantic relationship, the only major differences I can identify stem mainly from the lack of physical intimacy and the ability to pro-create in one. So based on this and personal experience in both, I find it difficult to agree that a romantic relationship can achieve a significantly better analogy of beautific vision. Then again, I admit  it could very well be that this shortfall is merely a result of a shallow and somewhat jaded perspective (and therefore biased/incorrect) on my part! 
[right][snapback]723874[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well then, there's no real way to get around it, here.

[scardella]

Based on that crazy teacher, life... and a little bit of CS Lewis.

I have to agree w/ that "I" becoming "we" as one of the primary aspects of a maturing romantic relationship. It signals a fundamental shift in how you regard the relationship in relation to your "self". When the "I" becomes "we", you're saying that the relationship between you and that lucky lady/gentleman has become more important to you than your self as an individual. The two are fundamentally taking on life as one. The primary ends are [b]union[/b] and procreation. (Take Dr. Asci's [i]Christian Marriage[/i] class in Austria, if he's still there. It's like a broken record. Union and procreation, union and procreation, union and procreation!)

In a friendship, however, the union is not the primary end. It happens inadvertantly, almost. Friendship is most directly about a subject or common interest... Friendships almost always start because of a shared interest, circumstance, etc. Hence, people have their "Catholic friends", their
"gaming friends", their "car friends", their "war buddies", their "drinking buddies", etc.

Perhaps I have not had as tightly knit a "best friend" as others have had, but in all my friendships, there was never the same sort of "I" becoming "we" as in that one dating/engaged relationship. I would have to, then, side w/ Raphael, that it more closely resembles the beatific vision.

Furthermore, heirocloe, I think that the procreation and physical intimacy is worth more than you credit it, though I don't have any experience with procreation, yet hopefully...

Also, these might be helpful if you haven't looked into them yet:
The Four Loves, by CS Lewis
Love and Responsibility by Karol Wotyla
Theology of the Body by JPII
Theology of the Body Explained by Christopher West
I'd read them in that order... the last two tandemly, perhaps.

Edited September 15, 2005 by scardella

[hierochloe]

[quote name='scardella' date='Sep 15 2005, 05:56 PM']In a friendship, however, the union is not the primary end.  It happens inadvertantly, almost. 
...
Perhaps I have not had as tightly knit a "best friend" as others have had, but in all my friendships, there was never the same sort of "I" becoming "we" as in that one dating/engaged relationship.
[/quote]
I've never had the "we" as strong as that of a romantic relationship either. Yet I do believe I enjoy the type of empathic features Raph outlined in some intimate friendships, most notably with my two brothers.

[quote name='scardella' date='Sep 15 2005, 05:56 PM']I would have to, then, side w/ Raphael, that it more closely resembles the beatific vision.
[/quote]
I'm beginning to slide on my conviction a bit here. I still struggle with the idea that it might be the [i]ultimate[/i] representation of earthly beautific vision, which is why I brought up the example of celibate clergy. I understand it could be reasoned quite well that they enjoy an even higher parallel, and so perhaps also a celibate non-clerical person might similarily?

[quote name='scardella' date='Sep 15 2005, 05:56 PM']Furthermore, heirocloe, I think that the procreation and physical intimacy is worth more than you credit it, though I don't have any experience with procreation, yet hopefully...[/quote]
I readily admit that this assertion is highly likely and my provision of credit in this regard is very subject to change eventually.

Those books are all added to my reading list. Thanks for the reference.

Edited September 15, 2005 by hierochloe

[Mary's Knight, La]

when talking about relationships you classify romantic as a type of relationship and justify this by some relationships involving romantic feelings and perhaps later physical union, and others not.

the thing about romantic feelings is they are largely physical i think it was CS Lewis who said feeling 'in love' could be a result of 'good digestion' it was some comment on this line in the screwtape letters

rather than classifying relationship according to the four loves let's look at 2 types of relationships: like and dislike. Now to further simply i'm going to drop the second type and focus only on the "likes" or positive relationships

in all of these from the occasional drinking buddy to the wife of 100+ years the relationship is based on knowing the other and finding joy in the (seemingly) positive traits of the other. (if your friend is having a rough time they are finding joy in your comforting) this then is analagous to the beatific vision where all things have the positive trait of having been created by a loving God and having been created perfectly so the closer any relationship comes to that vision the closer to the apex it is.

now let us return to the chaos of that set of feelings called being in love and how it changes a relationship. Properly ordered this set of feelings is designed to orient a relationship into a husband wife relationship. This new relationship loses nothing from the original "like" relationship but does open new means of communicating to each other. does this addition make it a better relationship? Not necessarily; while there is an increased potential for communication there is an increased potential for it to be abused. It all comes down to the people in the relationship as to how closely it imitates the beatific vision and therefore how perfect of a relationship it is.

just one thing i disagree with
1) in friendship union is the point not physical union but still a celebrating of the other which leads to a sharing of both selves