UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
Soble's Definitions Soble
• Reconciling Eros and Agape
Soble distinguishes himself from Singer in separating love into two different kinds: eros and agape
•
According to Soble,
•
Eros-style loves are property-based
• •
Agape-style loves are not property-based
•
Stephen E. Schmid
1
UW-Rock County
Stephen E. Schmid
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
"The point is that Singer's metaphilosophical principle rules out the eros tradition in advance as an adequate theory of personal love. How could erosic love ever be defined if the conditions of love must be kept distinct from love itself?" (227) 1. Singer’s account of love (as an account of personal love) attempts to reconcile erosic and agapic love. 2. If one is to reconcile erosic and agapic love, then one’s account of love must consistently incorporate both erosic and agapic love into one’s account. 3. Singer fails to consistently incorporate both erosic and agapic love into his account of love (as bestowal). 4. Therefore, Singer’s account of love fails to reconcile erosic and agapic love.
agapic love does not depend on the merits of the object
2
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
Soble's Concern with Singer
•
erosic love depends on the merits of the object
Singer
•
Singer thinks that a necessary condition of love is the bestowal of value
• •
Bestowing value is over and above the appraisal of an object's objective or individual value
Soble thinks that Singer's notion of love as bestowal of value sounds like agapic love
•
"x bestows value on y even if y is not meritorious, or x bestows value on a meritorious y but not in virtue of that merit" (227)
•Singer can deny that he is trying to do what premise 1 says he is doing. Stephen E. Schmid
3
Stephen E. Schmid
4
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
Soble's Main Concern
Is Singer Reconciling Personal Love as Agapic and Erosic?
•
Soble thinks that when Singer talks about the role of appraisal in bestowing value, then he is trying to make personal love consistent with erosic and agapic love
•
Singer writes: "Love is related to both [bestowal and appraisal]....Unless we appraised we could not bestow a value that goes beyond appraisal...." (227)
5
Stephen E. Schmid
UW-Rock County
•
If appraisal is necessary for bestowal and bestowal is necessary for love, then how can bestowal be about valuing an object regardless of its merit when appraising its merit is part of bestowing value?
•
"The issue is, in what way is appraisal, for Singer, operative in love?"
Stephen E. Schmid
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
6
UW-Rock County
Three Interpretations
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
1. Appraisal is Essential for Personal Love
• 1. Appraisal is essential for personal love
Soble interprets Singer's remarks about Blossom's poem to imply that the features of the woman in the poem are relevant to her being loved
2. Appraisal facilitates bestowal
•
3. Bestowal is independent of appraisal
Stephen E. Schmid
7
•
Love without appraisal is not possible
But, Soble thinks that Singer has committed himself to erosic love and not agapic love by making such a claim because agapic love is about love without appeal to properties of the object loved
Stephen E. Schmid
8
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
2. Appraisal Facilitates Bestowal
First Interpretation Is Not About Both Agapic and Erosic Love
•
Singer comments that for most men it is easier to bestow value on a pretty woman rather than an ugly one
•
2. But, appraisal is necessary for love and appraisal values the beloved's attractiveness.
Soble offers that Singer is implying that bestowal does not require positive appraisal but that positive appraisal makes it "psychologically 'easier'"
3. Therefore, Singer's bestowal is not about agapic love.
•
1. If Singer's bestowal was about agapic love, then love would not be grounded in the attractiveness of the beloved.
Stephen E. Schmid
9
UW-Rock County
Bestowing value on an unattractive person is "unlikely,” Singer says
Stephen E. Schmid
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
10
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
3. Bestowal is Independent of Appraisal
Second Interpretation is Not About Both Agapic and Erosic Love
1. If appraisal plays a facilitating role in bestowing value in some cases, then some cases of personal love are not agapic.
•
2. The second interpretation implies that appraisal facilitates personal love which means that it is erosic.
Soble interprets Singer's use of "whenever" to mean that the new value created in the act of bestowal is independent of appraisal
•
Singer seems to endorse this interpretation when he writes: "Nothing can elicit bestowals." (228)
3. Therefore, personal love is not both erosic and agapic.
Stephen E. Schmid
11
Stephen E. Schmid
12
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
Soble's Fourth Interpretation
Third Interpretation Not About Both Agapic and Erosic Love 1. If love is "sheer gratuity" and "spontaneous," then nothing about the beloved is responsible for the bestowal of love.
•
2. If nothing about the beloved is responsible for the bestowal of love, then bestowal is agapic in nature. 3. But, if bestowal is agapic in nature, then personal love is not a reconciliation of eros and agape.
• • •
4. Love is gratuitous and spontaneous.
13
UW-Rock County
appraisal is not a "constituent" of love, ideally but, in human/personal love, appraisal is a constituent
""all love involves, as a necessary common denominator, the bestowal of value (and not necessarily anything more than this)."
•
5. Thus, love is not a reconciliation of eros and agape.
Stephen E. Schmid
"it is logically possible for love to bestow itself on an object that has no other worth" (229)
God's love is the prototype for Singer's conception of love
14
Stephen E. Schmid
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
Umbrella Love
•
Soble acknowledges that this account of love becomes an umbrella account of love
Soble's Solution
•
Soble's solution
•
all other loves are evaluated with reference to the ideal bestowal of value
•
what distinguishes these different bestowals of love is the causal conditions that give rise to the love
1. but when x bestows value on y, it is not the bestowal of love
•
Problem: if all love is bestowal of value, then love of god is the human bestowal of value on god
2. when x bestows value on y, it is on y's properties
•
Stephen E. Schmid
Soble also has a problem with how this bestowal works--he thinks Singer should say that one appraises God's goodness, not bestows value because of it 15
•
•
Ungrounded bestowal of value does occur in love
Soble ultimately will reject the agapic account of personal love
•
He will attempt to defend the erosic account of personal love
Stephen E. Schmid
16
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
UW-Rock County
Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship
Problems with Soble
•
At the beginning of this excerpt, Soble mentions that he is "metaphilosophically at odds" with Singer
• •
Problems with Soble
•
Singer is clear that emotion plays a role in bestowal
Soble thinks one must distinguish different kinds of love based on their "grounds" -- property-based or not
•
But, Soble fails to address the role of emotion in acts of bestowal
So, his distinction between eros and agape is one that depends on whether love is property-based or not property-based
•
Might some of the interpretations differ if emotions were part of the equation?
•
But, this account is not necessarily consistent with traditional definitions of eros and agape, both of which are propertybased
• • Stephen E. Schmid
Eros: sexual love
•
One of Soble's concerns is with the coherence ("disastrous") of saying humans bestow value on God
• •
Why is this incoherent? What exactly is the problem?
Agape: parental love 17
Stephen E. Schmid
18
