Words Best Describing Love Philosophical and Cinematic Approach Lately, I have been thinking about how people would remember me regarding my intellectual endeavors. I have never had similar thoughts before but it really got me thinking – it is important in the sense what my innovative contribution to the notions of love is. I have always thought that it is easier to criticize than to offer an affirmative notion thus I never criticized but instead talked and wrote about solutions and alternatives. For instance, I never shared thoughts on psychoanalysis, instead of criticizing it, I have encouraged readers about my 'simple' concept of a happy peaceful love, and before I invented my concept of love I presented notions of Martha C. Nussbaum's according to her book Upheavals of Thought (2001) and George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's notions of love by their book Philosophy in the Flesh (1999). Part of this article is inspired by Lakoff-Johnsons' notions of love which I overgrown. One of the things I started noticing is that we can change our notions of love by naming it differently, reframing it by using different words as would Lakoff say. I call love a relation instead relationship because love it is not about vehicles and it is not about generating traffic – relations are not ships (cars, airplanes, boats) and incomes, we don't travel and we don't earn salaries, every day we exchange and communicate our thoughts, emotions, attractions and are intimate with the person we share our intimate space, we have common goals and aims we achieve and update them with the person we love. I call love sharing as like-minded people share their world-views (values, opinions, aims) because love is not about competition and hunting, love is not about catching weak prey by a strong hunter to tame and dominate it and getting all for her/himself but it is about equality and sharing. I call love cognitive/intellectual because it is not about chemistry or reproductive chemicals spread through pheromones – relation is not upfront determined as catching upon certain radicals in some formation (even in nature we can't count on that, examples are pandas, penguins, some monkeys, like bonobos and others). The the main point of the 'I' is, as would philosopher Rene Descartes in his Meditations say, our cogito (mind). Regardless of what we think and even if we doubt our existence the proof that we even think of or doubt our existence in our mind is enough that we are (cogito ergo sum). That Archimedes' point of our certainty is quite sufficient – even we are nothing more than a point/dot that has absolutely no dimension, neither physical nor metaphysical; cogito suffices, Descartes taught. In 20th century, in another's philosopher's Cartesian meditations, Edmund Husserl's transcendental phenomenology cogito is no longer a 'point' but a 'field' of certainty into which the world as an intentional correlate of consciousness is drawn. I call love communication and notions because it is not about civil engineering – the relation is not about building(s), bridges, and walls, it is about communication (of the concepts and values), mutual trust, responsibilities, sexuality, and the ability to perform it good and effectively every day. It is also not about bulldozing because true love never works as bringing down a wall or barrier. I believe that courtly/troubadour love missed the real point of love. On some level or at least several times in our lives we probably all experienced that our desire and lust for someone increased while we couldn't attain her/him but after a while, we also realized how irrational that desire was or to desire someone based on the notion to desire (more) just because someone is unattainable is futile (I mean who wants to die because we can't be together with the person we thought we loved? Who really wants to be like Romeo and Juliet or Tristan and Iseult?). Therefore the point is not to desire someone who is on the other side of the wall and we could attain her/him only if we could bring down her/his wall of unattainability. Love is about proximity and creativity where you use your intelligence, cognition, communication, and emotional skills and not about lust and desire. I am going to demonstrate the futility of desire with the Russian film Stalker (1972) by Tarkovsky. Film is about getting to the room in the zone where your wishes and desires are granted but to get there you should go through the zone which is not an ordinary zone – hidden dangers lie everywhere, only an experienced guide ('stalker') can take you safely to the granting wish room. But the main point is that neither the poet nor the scientist who are the main protagonists and argue throughout the film about the 'importance' of their professions don't want their wishes to be granted when they arrive at the room. It is a simple demonstration of what desire is: once your desire is fulfilled there is no more desire, your desire is gone, and with that your noble goals, inspiration, and other self-indulgent things (ideas, motives) are gone too. It took me over a decade to finally realize that you should go for what your heart desires, you should fulfill your desire, not avoiding it because it is the only way to grow as a person, professional and personal upgrade yourself. If someone wishes to grant your desire: go for it. You would never know if someone has been the right choice before you have had an intimate relation with – the only way is that your desire is granted, all other options are deluding yourself. If your choice has been right you would be a happy fulfilled person, if not, well your desire is gone, maybe your inspiration is gone too but at least you live with knowing what you don't desire but you are still happy and fulfilled in a way. Love is about the partner's character and not about the physical beauty per se. I would like to make a statement regarding desire and beauty with another film – I used to fume over Wong Kar-wai's film In the Mood for Love (2001). While I didn't like the story itself from the very beginning (it is an old cliche story of unrequited love we have had seen for centuries and really don't know what the director meant by it other than dragging the story for almost two hours long), however, what I loved was aesthetics, music, and a montage of the film (time frame and pace of the film). The main actress and her numerous outfits are really beautiful and also the music goes really well with the film. What I know today is that while our appearance is the first contact and/or attraction, desire with it, beauty is not the main criteria for loving someone in the long run. Beauty is not a value in moral, intellectual, or creative matters, beauty has nothing to do with the character and morality of a person. Beauty is your actions with whom you prove your worth and morality! Also, beauty doesn't prove your intellectual and creative abilities only your intellectual-art products prove that. Therefore love is about everyday good news by being with the person you love, talk to, cherish, do and give many things for her and enjoy sex with!
0 Comments
Katarina Majerholdphilsopher, lesbian, editor Archives
May 2023
Categories |