Topics Love. Collectionopensource. The Art of loving. IdentifierTheArtOfLoving. Identifier-arkark://t8x93d OcrABBYY FineReader The landmark bestseller that changed the way we think about love: “Every line is packed with common sense, compassion, and realism” (Fortune). The Art of. I. Is LOVE AN ART? II. THE THEORY OF LOVE. 7. 1. Love, the Answer to the Problem of. Human Existence. 2. Love Between Parent and Child. 3. The Objects of.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Read "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm available from Rakuten Kobo. Sign up today and get $5 off your first download. The landmark bestseller that changed. Editorial Reviews. Review. “Erich Fromm is both a psychologist of penetration and a writer of Kindle Store · Kindle eBooks · Politics & Social Sciences. Independent Lodge of Theosophists medical-site.info - www. medical-site.info Page 2. Independent Lodge of Theosophists www.
Obviously, this is non-fiction. This is written by Erich Fromm, a prominent German social psychologist who happens to belong to the Frankfurt School, also k My goodness, what is this dude smoking? This is written by Erich Fromm, a prominent German social psychologist who happens to belong to the Frankfurt School, also known as the proponents of Critical Theory.
And in this book, Fromm outlines his theory of love, and how it is an art. As with other arts, such as painting and sculpture, he claims that love has two parts: theory and practice. The book is divided accordingly. In the theory section, he goes over five different types of love: brotherly love, motherly love, erotic love, self-love, and love of God.
He explains the different functions of these different types, and its various characteristics. And in the practice section, he basically gives various factors that affect and influence the practice of love.
So, where do I begin criticizing this work? First of all, I deeply hated the fact that his arguments are all along the lines of speculation. I am all for empiricism, and he has all these grandiose claims that were never proven with evidence, all throughout the book.
He has claims for example about the difference between motherly and fatherly love, about the importance of the male-female divide, about mothers and instinct, but all of his arguments are conjecture, and not actually supported by empirical evidence. I being a scientist have big problems with that. I also think that he suffers from a cultural bias, in that in Eurocentric cultures, at least, love as a concept actually refers to various different things, which roughly corresponds to the different "types" of love.
However, I think that it is just an accident of language that English has one word to refer to all of those, which gives the illusion that all of these concepts are inter-related and compose a superset of human emotions. However, one simply has to look to other cultures, and one will realize that there are actually different words that refer to these "types" of love.
Greek for example has four different words for what the English language refers to as "love". Lewis actually has a book discussing the Four Loves as seen in Christianity. Thus, I fear that this book, which is in a way a typology of "love" may actually be resting on the false premise that there is something in common will all manifestations of love, and that Fromm is just undergoing an endeavor that is ontologically faulty.
This can be seen by the various differing assumptions that he makes regarding the different types of love. Speaking of assumptions, this is another part in which I have problems with. He makes all these assumptions about the various characteristics of various "loves" but I can think of so many counter-examples to prove him wrong.
One assumption he has is the instinct of the mother to her offspring, and how that is the defining factor in motherly love. He claims that mothers by virtue of giving birth of her child, are predisposed to love her child unconditionally.
I believe the contrary. I think I can re-explain every phenomenon he tackles with a simpler rule, without resorting to various other assumptions, and that is by claiming that "love" as we know it is simply a matter of constraint satisfaction and selfishness. We show love to a target because we need something from the target: whether it be one's child, one's brother, one's sexual partner, or one's God.
If the need goes away, then we stop showing love. Thus, in the case of motherly love, when there is another need that is present in the mother, that runs counter to the need pertaining to the infant, then the mother will sooner or later give up the child for adoption, abandoning the infant in one way or another.
If motherly love were instinctive, then we won't actually be witness to the grave number of orphanages around the world. Another assumption he makes is the centrality of the male-female opposition.
He claims that these two poles are necessary for real erotic love to happen. By implication, he explicitly claims that homosexuals are incapable of love. I tend to disagree. Personally, I believe that humans can be post-gendered and has the ability to be attracted to another person, regardless of the other person's gender, if one's constraints are set up that way. Thus, gender variation for me is just a matter of constraint setting.
I do not like the fact that Fromm categorically eliminates the ability to love from non-heterosexual people. Balancing on Blue. The Organic Country Home Handbook. Natalie Wise. The Ostrich Paradox. Robert Meyer. The Last Englishman. High and Low. Pickett's Charge. Phillip Thomas Tucker. What Regency Women Did for Us. Rachel Knowles. Shakespeare's Ear. Tim Rayborn.
Carol Ann Rinzler. On Spice. Caitlin PenzeyMoog. Idea Hacks. You're Saying It Wrong. Ross Petras. Master Plants Cookbook. Margarita Restrepo. Jennifer Olvera. Erica Jong.
Murder in the Garden of God. Eleanor Herman. Cindy Bokma.
Heads Up Philosophy. Kristene A. The Famished Road. Ben Okri. The Sherlock Holmes Book. Leslie S. In a Manner of Speaking. Colin McNairn. The Secret Lives of Introverts. Jenn Granneman. Lori Zanini RD. The Politics Book. Ice Cream Social. Anthony Tassinello. How Churchill Saved Civilization.
John Harte. Alan Bell. Oscar Wilde's Last Stand. Philip Hoare. A Thyme and Place. Lisa Graves. The Statesman and the Storyteller. Mark Zwonitzer. The Kingdom of Zydeco.
Michael Tisserand. Katharina Luther. Anne Boileau. Prisoner of the Samurai. James Gee. Writing to Be Understood. Anne Janzer.
The Simple Secrets of Mental Training: Raza Imam. Footprints in the Dust: Roberta Gately. Jam Session. Joyce Goldstein.
The Barbary Corsairs. Jacques Heers. Britain and Victory in the Great War. Peter Liddle. The Shakespeare Book. The Bowery. Stephen Paul DeVillo. Pirate Women. Laura Sook Duncombe. A Pint of Plain.
Anne Sexton. Marlene Dietrich. Maria Riva. The Latin Table. Isabel Cruz. How Carriers Fought. Lars Celander. An American Legacy. David J. The Golden Age of Piracy. Benerson Little. The Ultimate Grain-Free Cookbook. Annabelle Lee. Chris Hedges. Alexander Werth. Intrepid's Last Case. William Stevenson. Walter Lord. Home Cooked. Anya Fernald. Go Find. Susan Purvis. Make Space. Regina Wong.
White House Confidential. Gregg Stebben. A Rift in the Earth. James Reston Jr. Outlaws and Peace Officers. Stephen Brennan.
After Henry. Lies, Half-Truths, and More Lies. Herb W. Bringing Columbia Home. Michael D. The Modern Jewish Table. Tracey Fine. Fromm Essays: From Individual to Social Psychoanalysis. Erich Fromm. To Have or To Be?
The Art of Being. The Sane Society.