Abstract
Born in 1938, Robert Nozick was a great philosopher whose philosophical works gave a new face to many aspects of life and even life itself. Among the many writings of Nozick was The Examined Life, where he presents thoughts on life’s aspects like love. According to him, with its different forms and facets, love is that feeling in individuals for wanting to form a ‘we’. That is a bond that exists between different individuals.
A keen study of The Examined Life reveals different forms of love as proposed by Nozick. These forms include romantic love, friendship and even sex. As a way of giving a brief preview into the dynamics of love as argued by this philosopher, it is worth mentioning that Nozick views romantic love as encompassing the ability to give up one’s autonomy and do everything for the sake of the other. This can be understood better within the premises of one lover living their life “because of the other” (Nozick, page 70).
While having no problem with this argument and the general presentation of love and its facets, there are several aspects about love about life and reality that seem to have been bypassed by this great philosopher. These aspects can be unveiled upon a critical study of life, love, and reality and the power vested within critical questioning.
For instance, in light of autonomy that has to be given up by lovers, does reality accommodate this argument? Further, if romantic love is indeed about shared identity, from whose side does this search or desire for identity depart? As a way of providing a counterargument against the thoughts of this great philosopher on the subject of love, this essay will seek to find answers to such and other similar critical questions on this subject. Moreover, it will present thoughts about the ideal features of a minimal love candidate.
Introduction
The subject of love encircles the stay of man in this life and it is thus inevitable. Many writings on it have shown that it is a feeling of “oneness” and where individuals derive their sense of belonging. Such many writings include The Explained Life by Robert Nozick. A keen and close follow-up of the chapter on Love’s Bond shows Nozick as being categorical that the well-being of an individual is dependent on that which he or she loves. Simply put, if the beloved is happy, then the lover is happy too. This is where this argument departs (Nozick, page 68).
Critical Evaluation
Shall it be of any good if this life is lived on the basis of another person’s well-being and dealings? What good will the sense of individuality that is passionately advocated for in the writings of John Stuart Mill be doing to us, then, if this turns out to be the case? Many philosophers have proved that life’s value is realized and appreciated most if the freedom of an individual is granted and appreciated by the world around them. Their arguments are hailed in this essay. The aspect of shared identity encompassed in love is without a want and well put by the author himself, but the question is: with the shared identity, should individuality cease to exist?
It should be noted that it is out of individuality that variety is created, and variety in this context refers to differences in individuals which make up a complete human environment. It can’t be argued that life’s true meaning is vested upon the idea that individuals are unique in their different ways. It is this uniqueness that has to be appreciated first for it to be of positive influence to the individual and those around him. This is not to imply that the couples who love with so little autonomy aren’t good enough, but they are loving couples in disguise. Realism and events in this life will unveil the truth in this.
The author himself notes the fact that even though there might be “oneness” between two individuals, where one person “loves the other”, this love stands the risk of failing to be reciprocated (Nozick, page 70-73). Thus, it can be argued that though the main purpose for this relationship between these individuals is the desire to “create a ‘we’”, it is very important that the process of creating the “we” be keenly understood. It is this entire processing of letting the other individual “possess” you and the eventual and complete “surrender of oneself to the other” that actually defines what love is. As always put in the cliché, the end justifies the means. In this sense, the act of “falling in love” in itself is a process whose final achievement is to be loved and feel love itself. However, if it is that the feeling in one individual is being wasted on another who doesn’t seem to appreciate; does this qualify to be love?
When arguing about this delicate but quite vital subject of love, any philosophical analyst ought to have deep insights into the different facets of love and how they apply in the life of a person. As Nozick classified it, friendship is also a form of love and this is what provides another “fertile” ground for this counterargument. There is no issue concerning friendship being a form of love, but the issue is that it is a form of love the totally puts Nozick’s definition of love in question. If indeed love is that passionate feeling of oneness, where individuals seek to find fulfillment in their mates, where exactly does this form fall on the rank of love? It should be understood that the feeling by an individual to identify themselves with someone on the basis of friendship comes typically below the strong desire to identify and share the identity with another individual. This is virtually friendship and it does not accommodate “strong feelings of love”, unlike it is in romantic love whose actualization is cupped by sex.
A critical study of the chapter on Love’s Bond does reveal some important features which must accompany an individual with a love candidature. As Nozick clearly puts it, love should be a feeling of wholeness, where both individuals feel utter satisfaction, but where their individualities are not lost. That is, as much as they love each other, they should not lose their identities. In this case, they only have to influence one another in a positive way but remain the real selves they were before “falling in love”.
Thus, that individual with a strong personality should not shadow the partner whose personality isn’t similarly strong. Instead, the weaker personality should be allowed to grow into a stronger personality without putting so much pressure on them. This statement, if well analyzed, carries undertones for perseverance. It means that a loving candidate should be selfless, as presented by Nozick, but be able to live a real life without any disguise. There should never be superficiality to the undertakings of a partner because this will be equal to living a lie. Love is not built on superficial beauty but the skin-deep feeling of true undertakings.
Conclusion
The argument presented by the great philosopher, Robert Nozick identifies love as not being simple attractions to extrinsic features of an individual, e.g. beauty, but instead the feeling of creating a shared identity. It is this pursuance of a shared identity that creates a partnership. However, considering the facets of love as identified by the author himself, love should be a true feeling, paying respect to reality, instead of curving to the desires of shared identity. Indeed, this identity should exist, but should call for a drop of one’s true personality so that they tend to do things “in order to please their beloved”.
As much as this is the quality that spices up love, it runs the danger of masquerading, where the said lover “does everything JUST for the sake of it”, because they are in love. Love must be heartfelt, true and with a touch of reality. Further, any love candidate must at least be able to live up to the callings of reality, without losing that passionate aspect that makes love what it needs to be. That is, it is that aspect of reality that should create that bond and cement it, even more, so that the relationship is strong and built on a concrete base of reality mixed with a true passion for the other individual.
Work Cited
Nozick, Robert. The Explained Life. New York: Touchstone Press, 1989.