In front of love, is still men condemned to be free? Arguably, when in love, the infinite range of possible choices collapses in one, the loved one. Is this a form of mauvaise foi (we convince ourselves that we love that person not to take on the responsibility of possibly loving someone else) or instead we are in front of a real Lacanesque specificity of Desire (we cannot possibly choose anyone else). What was Sartre's view on love as it relates to this perspective? Should love be thought as an exception to mauvaise foi in light of its power of showing us, despite the always-existing range of choices, the specificity of our Desire?
3
-
1"Arguably, when in love, the infinite range of possible choices collapses in one, the loved one." Do you have any references to such an argument? This sentences seems very vague, I'm not sure its as self evident to everyone as it seems to you. Possible choices of what? There are times when someone loves someone else but needs to choose something over that person, such as work or their own mental health. Wouldn't that defeat the premise that they only have 'one choice,' that of the person they love?– Not_HereMay 30, 2017 at 10:24
-
@Not_Here: The statement, "...infinite range of possible choices..." refers to "partner" choices, not "all kinds" of choices. That's why "they collapse" to "the loved one."– GuillJun 7, 2017 at 4:50
-
@Guill People who are in love with someone end up with someone else all of the time, I don't see any sense in which that statement is "arguably" true. There are also many examples of people feeling love for more than one person, so, again, I don't see how "the infinite range of possible choices collapses in[to] one."– Not_HereJun 7, 2017 at 5:13
Add a comment
|