To add another to my team, Thoreau was quoted questioning just how many partnerships would ever have taken place if common sense had been consulted. And I can wonder about a few instantly. Count how many immediately come to mind for you?
So before you go calling Hallmark to report me; it’s worth noting it is not just me anymore.
Consider Nobel Prize Laureate Bertrand Russel for example. (Plus Sartre turned his down). Both won the prize for romantic love (I figure most readers would accept that).
Russel also made the arguably astute observation that there was far more unwanted sex in married life then in the life of a prostitute.
Further, that closed relationships were especially destructive to creative people. Which they are.
That’s not opinion, he’s a Nobel Love Prize Laureate. And I am creative people. That’s science.
It can be argued fairly soundly that the more:
“duh I go to work; what’s a book; what time’s the game; question nothing; what would my parents think; what’s on TV; this is what you are suppose to do; its what everyone else does…”
Runs through one’s head, the less damaging being in a seething, loveless, self-deluded and dishonest relationship is going to be to your psyche. That’s just common sense.
I am not saying no wise man can ever fall in love (Diogenes) but I would be wiling to say until you can learn to be alone you can not love.
That being said, I am crustaceans to being alone forever. Yes by choice! Alright, I’ll save it for my therapist.
Philosophy of Love part IV
Simone and Sartre
Althusser “accidentally” strangled his wife, who he was cheating on anyway.
This is the kind of thing that happens when oppression is forced on a person from all sides (particularly the front of the throat, in this case).
But from infidelity to homicide; this is the reality.
People prefer to pretend rather than admit it. And there is no love as a result.
People can’t have love because they don’t ask for it. And frankly if you can’t even ask honestly for it, you really don’t deserve it. And you really won’t get it either. So, um, I guess that works out then.
The Famous Case of Simone and Sartre… well you may disagree…”
SARTRE, well you may disagree, said on beauty that there were indeed ugly, unattractive people in the world: he merely preferred the attractive ones.
Well fair enough I suppose, if a tad subjective.
But when you accidentally trip one too many times and crustaceans begin to follow you around even when sober, love isn’t just subjective anymore; you know. You know tha…whoa, actually scratch that. (*see Sartre gets crabs).
Back on track. Love. Yes, love.
His open (and delightfully shared) relationship with philosopher Simone de Beauvoir is the stuff of legend.
Often sleeping with the same boys and girls not just together but with shared knowledge apart (the target thinking themselves the cunning one for sleeping with both).
One doesn’t have to appreciate the cunning to appreciate the sharing.
That is closer to love.
The only thing is, when asked how he balanced all his relationships, Sartres answer: “I lie”.
Well fine, who are they, and you don’t have a choice. We’ve discussed that.
But when asked if he even lied to Simone he is claimed to have said “ESPECIALLY Simone!”.
This misaligns for me, slightly. When my premise is that love is based on open sharing that doesn’t come out of a cookie cutter mould.
In his defense, all I can say is he may have been joking, he did joke. Of the existentialists I consider him the showman.
If not, I suppose I can not follow him there when she was his primary. But perhaps she showed herself unworthy (ie went cookie cutter on him) and so left him no choice but to deceive. Or maybe he never trusted her in that regard. We’ll never know.
As a boy Friday of Simone’s, famous writer Nelson Algren once wrote “Pimps are more honest than philosophers!” regarding her relationship with Sartre.
But I would argue that is because he was not a philosopher, he could not love Simone: he had to OWN her. He had to cookie cut her. I think he proposed to her actually? You’ll have to check that (what I’m writing, I can’t do everything).
So in such a case, under our premise, he deserved nothing and justly got nothing.
Though by all accounts she did have love for him. The fact he could even approach arguably the world’s leading feminist with such an idea as marriage shows quite clearly that, despite what he thought he felt, he could not AND did not love her.
He couldn’t. I would argue he couldn’t even see her.
J.J.Raphael (2012). Philosophy of Love Series. The Journey Chronicle in Letters and Science, First published Issue 8 (11). 4th Edition (Current Ed 9th).