1 Abstract: In coming to understand different theories concerning love, I argue towards an account on a theory of romantic love, to which I advocate five necessary conditions. First, I argue that romantic love acquires the condition of nurturing the spiritual growth of one’s beloved. Second, I adhere towards romantic love being associated with the characteristic of a robust concern for one’s beloved’s own sake. Third, a sexual desire for one another is necessary within a loving relationship, this is understood throughout a Platonic theory of eros love. Fourth, I argue that trust is essential and necessary throughout a loving relationship; and last, I argue for the importance of one unified narrative that establishes a union between lovers.
In sum, I argued that each of these conditions are mutually interdependent of one another.
Insomuch as, these five conditions are necessary and jointly sufficient of one another in order for a relationship to be labeled as loving. “This is not a love story...this is a story about love”
500 Days of Summer
A Theory on Romantic Love
Held within our modern society, love is all around us, whether love is being depicted throughout touchy pop songs, romantic novels and movies, or even at a coffee shop. However, some conceptions of love are portrayed as rather toxic towards the individual and set imaginary standards that we believe must be met in order to fully achieve happiness through love. For example, the quote in the epigraph is first introduced at the beginning of Marc Webb’s film 500
Days of Summer that positions the story to be understood as a story concerning love rather than be understood as a love story between two individuals. The toxic relationship depicted between
Summer and Tom throughout 500 Days of Summer establishes this murky unrealistic goal that individuals set out to achieve when dealing with their own happiness, while totally disregarding their beloved’s. In order to help individuals grasp a true understanding of what romantic love consists, I argue for a theory of what I take romantic love to be and how this sort of account 2 allows for individuals to better understand a permissible account for romantic love. In addition, I argue for a theory of romantic love that establishes five necessary conditions of love within relationships. In order to explain these five necessary conditions, I will provide examples for each one of the characteristics that are shown to be depicted throughout movies, television shows, and music. First, I argue for the characteristic that shows romantic love as a sort of love that nurtures the spiritual growth of one’s beloved (hooks, All About Love, 2000). Second, I adhere towards romantic love being established through a robust concern for the beloved individual’s own sake. Third, the sexual desire of romantic love is essential towards acquiring the characteristic of a Platonic theory of eros love. Fourth, I address the key understanding of trust within a romantic relationship; and last, I argue for the importance of one unified narrative that establishes a union between lovers. Given these five necessary conditions, I provide counterexamples against each of these particular conditions to show that each one is necessary but by itself or coupled with a few, is not sufficient to account as a lovingly romantic relationship.
I argue for the mutual dependence of each of these characteristics that are needed to work together as one core team in order to provide an understanding of what consist within romantic love that differs from a general conception of love. Additionally, I address some concerns against my account on romantic love that aim to undermine the conditions, to which I’m arguing for. In sum, I argue that each of these characteristics are necessary and jointly sufficient of one another, as well as provide a foundational working account for what I believe romantic love acquires that makes it more robust than other working theories on love.
I. Romantic Love as Spiritual Growth
In establishing a theory of romantic love, it’s important to classify the different characteristics or criteria for love by starting with a definition of what the concept of love is. From this, bell hooks offers throughout her book, All About Love, a working definition of what love is shown to be by quoting an inspirational novel that achieves at aiming towards a necessary 3 condition of love. In M. Scott Peck’s self-help book, The Road Less Traveled, he offers that love can be shown as, “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth” (hooks 4). Furthermore, this conception of love depicted as the spiritual growth of one’s own and one’s beloved helps illustrate the necessary conditions that consist within an account for romantic love. Also, this narrow understanding of romantic love throughout one’s spiritual growth combats against falsified and misconceptualized ideas of romantic love, such as the relationship described between Tom and Summer. Following this, hooks identifies the misconception of love and abuse being able to coexist with one another, and argues how a loving relationship is, in fact, mutually exclusive from the concept of an abusing relationship due to the lack of building the spiritual growth of oneself and the other.
Many of us are shown throughout films, television shows, and romantic novels that love is depicted as a matter of feeling and how an individual just knows through their “gut feelings”. But even so, this idea is rather toxic towards our understanding of love, which enables us to acquire a difficulty in loving while we get older. In contrast, love is described as an action rather than just a mere feeling, to which we choose our actions to help shape our feelings. More importantly, this leads towards Peck’s working definition of love that asserts, “We do not have to love. We choose to love” (hooks 5). Also, this idea of love being depicted as an action helps individuals to be able to have higher accountability and responsibility (hooks 13).
By way of illustration, consider Marc Webb’s film 500 Days of Summer that illustrates the relationship between Tom Hansen and Summer Finn. This particular relationship lacks the criteria of romantic love being maintained throughout hooks’ account concerning love as the spiritual growth of one’s beloved by way of Summer’s portrayal in the film as a Manic Pixie
Dream Girl character. Nathan Rabin first coined this term of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl by defining this as a character who, “...exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries 4 and adventures” (Rabin, 2007). This particular dynamic of the MPDG is illustrated between the relationship of Tom and Summer, where Tom’s overall success and happiness in life is sustained upon the assistance of Summer. For example, after the breakup, Tom proclaims to another woman on a blind date that Summer is the only person in the entire universe who can make him happy. Tom’s need for Summer grounds this MPDG trope by way of understanding that his happiness lies solely in the responsibility of Summer. In order for the protagonist, Tom, to achieve his own spiritual growth and happiness in the relationship, he must acquire the assistance of Summer to help him achieve this spiritual pursuit without ever acquiring any of
Summer’s spiritual goals. Such as, throughout the film, Tom seems to be the one at fault for the demise of his relationship with Summer due to his inability to listen, his selfishness, as well as projecting his happiness to lie solely in the hands of Summer. As soon as Summer begins to open up and trust Tom, Tom’s voice over begins to suppress her insomuch as Summer’s goals and intentions are drowned out by Tom’s. That being the case, this particular relationship between Tom and Summer is shown to be inefficient in being able to be classified as a romantic relationship based on lacking the essential characteristic of acquiring the spiritual growth of both partners. Where it’s clearly shown that Summer is needed in the relationship to advance the spiritual growth of Tom without Tom ever having to help Summer acquire her own independent goals towards the spiritual growth of herself. As a final point, hooks offers a definition in trying to understand the ideology of love by citing Peck’s conception of love being, “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth” (hooks 4).
However, hooks’ definition of love is insufficient for a theory concerning romantic love. It is too wide, apply to some cases that do not qualify as romantic love. Coupled with this, there seems to be examples of relationships that are attributed with this working definition of love but lack the ability to be classified as romantic love. For instance, an example of the relationship 5 between a teacher and her students, by which the teacher nurtures the spiritual growth of her students in order to help them achieve their own growth through academic excellences.
This example clarifies the love between the student and teacher to be necessary for nurturing her student’s spiritual growth, but is shown to be insufficient for being categorized as a romantic relationship. Concerning this counterexample, hooks’ definition of love is shown to be lacking in helping us identify the key features of trying to distinguish between an account on general love and romantic love.
Along with this, hooks’ concept of love seems to be similar towards Immanuel Kant’s idea of our duty towards others, to which he classifies our imperfect duty to help others in need
(McCarty 2014). Throughout Kant’s ethics, he seems to be arguing for just the overall imperfect duty of individuals to help promote the happiness of others, which isn’t necessarily tackling the concept of romantic love (SEP 5). This duty attempts to provide a general understanding of what love is, such like hooks’ account that argues more towards a general conception of love. In addition, hooks and Kant seem to be arguing for topics that are concerned with the necessary and sufficient conditions for a general account of love rather than supporting a more narrowed version of romantic love. Under those circumstances, hooks’ idea of love being depicted throughout one nurturing the spiritual growth of one’s beloved is shown to be a necessary condition for love but insufficient to being attributed as a lovingly romantic relationship. In order to better understand the concept of romantic love, there is a need for another necessary condition that helps narrow in on this account for romantic love.
II. Romantic Love as Robust Concern
In order to help better formulate a theory of romantic love, the concept of love being demonstrated through a robust concern for an individual seems to better assist in an articulation on the topic of romantic love. Insomuch as, we find that caring for an individual for their own sake to be a key characteristic in providing a necessary condition for romantic love. 6 Furthermore, Gabriele Taylor puts forth her own concerns on the matter of robust concern illustrated in her chapter on “Integrity”, to which she defends the idea of love being the subject of someone caring for their beloved on his/her’s sake and how this provides the foundation of love.
Following this concept of robust concern, Taylor argues for the uniqueness of this concept to help provide a central understanding of the quality of love, in which Taylor argues,
“..if x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y, etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks its worth while to benefit and be with y. He regards [the] satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a mean[s] towards some other end.” (Taylor, 157)
In other words, Taylor shows how romantic love aims toward the benefit of someone else’s situation due to the acquisition of a key characteristic that this individual possesses, which causes this concern to be of benefit towards them. With this intention, Taylor constitutes this concept of love to be providing an overall image of one’s love for another being rooted throughout his/her concern for the individual for their own sake. In contrast, others may view this characteristic to be similar toward a subjective understanding of love being shown through the nurturing of one’s spiritual growth. Although, slightly similar, both of these characteristics differ from one another. Insomuch as a robust concern does not deal with the intention of uplifting lovers spiritually. Rather it seems as though a robust concern deals with less growth and more with concern for the individual’s own sake. Additionally, a robust concern for an individual is considered to be a selfless act, insomuch as one does not love the other because of a particular trait that benefits us. More importantly, we acquire no feelings or opinions concerning the love for an individual throughout this view. Instead we acquire the will, which allows us to have a robust concern for someone due to the alignment of a set of core values that we endorse.
Following Taylor’s concept of love shown through a robust concern, this characteristic is illustrated throughout Spike Jonzes’ film Her, which depicts the romantic love story between 7 Samantha and Theodore Twombly. Throughout Her , the relationship between Theodore and Samantha is depicted to acquire this particular characteristic of a robust concern that illuminates the caring for one's beloved’s own sake as well as their own. For example, Samantha acquires this sort of robust concern for improving the life of the lonely, introverted, and depressed
Theodore Twombly, insomuch as she attempts to improve the course of his life throughout the entirety of the film for his own sake. This robust concern between Samantha and Theodore is depicted throughout their discussions of love and life, as well as Samantha encouraging
Theodore to take on his own desires and goals more seriously. Similarly, Theodore also acquires this idea of a robust concern for Samantha throughout the film by pushing her to be more open-minded towards things in the world, ask questions about the way things seem to be, and most importantly, how to love someone. Altogether, the idea of robust concern leads us toward providing a more structuralized understanding of the foundation for love being centralized for the sake of the individual as a primary characteristic throughout romantic love.
In light of these factors, this idea of robust concern can be demonstrated as insufficient in meeting the criterion for romantic love. Such concerns can attempt to show how this idea of love may not simply require this characteristic of robust concern for the sake of one’s beloved.
Following such concerns, there seems to be many couples that have a robust concern for one another but do not seem to love each other, which offers as a counterexample. In addition,
David Velleman in Love as a Moral Emotion, Velleman argues against this idea of robust concern by presenting a counterexample that contains the key characteristic of robust concern but shows within the relationship that one simply can not stand to be with their beloved. For better clarification, Velleman attempts to show how this issue can be present within a divorced couple who tell their children that they love each other, to which they both have a robust concern for one another, but simply can not live together anymore. This robust concern for one's ex-beloved is demonstrated throughout their relationship with their children, by which clarifies 8 the care and concern each of them both acquired for their children. To illustrate, this distinct relationship is shown to be present throughout Nancy Meyers film The Parent Trap, which portray this specific case example that Velleman is articulating between a divorce couple who share children. The relationship of Nick (Dennis Quad) and Elizabeth (Natasha Richardson) throughout The Parent Trap is shown to acquire this idea of a robust concern for one another, to which they tell their children, but simply can no longer stand to live with one another anymore, based on their inability to maintain a loving romantic relationship. That is to say, Velleman believes this criterion of robust concern within a romantic relationship gives a thin conception of love. In short, it seems as though the characteristic of robust concern, along with the nurturing of one’s spiritual growth, are both necessary but insufficient for accounting as romantic love.
Following this concern, a proposal of another characteristic is needed to suffice towards our understanding of a more robust theory on romantic love.
III. Romantic Love as Eros Love
Following the recent characteristics for building a theory of romantic love, Plato seems to offer an idea that highlights a key characteristic that is found throughout all romantic relationships, which he identifies as “eros” or sexual desire. In understanding love, Plato offers, throughout his Symposium, this idea of eros love to be classified as a sexual desire for an individual based on their possession of true ideal beauty. Be that as it may, I believe Plato’s account of eros love concerning the possession of beauty is too reductive and oversimplified when discussing sexual desire. Beauty as a tool for love is too subjective and specific.
Insomuch as, many people are attracted to a variety of different characteristics, such as people many find attraction in one’s height, smile, hair, music, political identity, etc. That being said, it seems absurd to condemn sexual desire to be reliant upon beauty, to which I’d argue that a sexual desire for an individual, within my theory of romantic love, ought not be reduced to this individual possessing the characteristic of beauty. Following this, the concept of eros plays a 9 key role within our understanding of romantic love that seems to help better articulate the differences between friendships and relationships by ascending towards the idea of what makes these two relationships distinct. This distinction between both friendships and relationships are shown to be through the sexual relation that occurs between both partners in the relationship.
Friendships, on the other hand, are regarded more towards a friendly feeling between one another, to which this friendliness can be extended to family, friends, dogs, work colleagues, etc., as well as be identified as more of an affectionate and friendly sort of relationships between the individual that acquires no sense of sexual desire.
Following sexual desire throughout the characteristic of an eros love, the relationship between Phyllis and Bob Vance depicted throughout the NBC television series The Office is a prime example of this particular characteristic describing an account for romantic love. That is to say, Phyllis and Bob Vance are both married to one another in an extremely loving relationship where their sexual impulses for each other are displayed throughout the show. For example, in
The Office Season 5 Episode 18, Phyllis and Bob Vance accompany Jim and Pam for a two-hour Valentine's Day lunch. During the time of this lunch, Bob and Phyllis slip away for a while, to which Jim and Pam thought they might have dined and dashed. However, this was not the case at all, in search of them, Jim and Pam head over towards the bathrooms to find out that both Phyllis and Bob are having sex together in a handicapped bathroom. Shortly after,
Phyllis and Bob return to their dinner table, both clearly out of breath from making love, and pick up right from where they left off in the conversation with Jim and Pam. Also, as they are all eating, Bob offers a piece of his steak to Phyliss, to which he seductively feeds her. That being the case, this specific relationship between Phyllis and Bob Vance acquires this particular eros characteristic that enables them to be in a loving relationship. In sum, this Platonic theory of love being situated within an individual through the sexual desire of their beloved helps amplify 10 an ideal characteristic to better build the foundation of forming a theory of romantic love with focusing in on this difference between friendships and relationships.
As was previously stated, viewing love through the lens of a sexual desire that one has for their beloved seems to offer a way of thinking about the concept of romantic love. However, there seems to be many relationships that depict this type of love shown through sexual desires but seems to lack the characteristic that would classify this relationship as love. That being the case, Mikayla Hughes and her colleagues articulate a view that offers a counterexample against the view of a Platonic theory of romantic love, which is identified as a ‘friends with benefits’ relationship. Following this, Hughes defines this relationship as being, “...between cross [or same]-sex friends in which the friends engage in sexual activity but do not define their relationship as romantic” (Hughes, p.49-50). With this in mind, it seems as though this relationship between friends is shown to acquire the characteristic of a sexual desire for one another, but yet, this relationship between partners seems to lack the responsibilities and commitments that are more consistent with ideas of romantic love. It’s this lack of responsibility and commitment that undermine this relationship to be determined as a relationship of romance, by coming to know that individuals come forth to this relationship with nothing to lose and bear no burden of romantic emotions, these individuals engage in these relationships just for sexual desire alone. Following Hughes definition of a ‘friends with benefits’ concept, this particular relationship is depicted throughout Mike Nichols’ film The Graduate, which portrays the sexual relationship between an older seductive woman named Mrs. Robinson (Anna Bancroft) and a young college graduate Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman). This is a prime example of a relationship between two individuals that acquire the characteristic of sexual desire within their relationship, but lack the essential qualities to be classified as a lovingly romantic relationship.
Rather, this relationship portrayed throughout The Graduate is built upon sex instead of love, insomuch as this relationship between Mrs. Robinson and Benjamin is unable to be classified as 11 a romantic relationship based on love being absent throughout their relationship. As well as it seems as though this relationship between Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson also lack other necessary conditions for romantic love, such as neither one of them seem to pursue the spiritual growth of one another and being unable to acquire a robust concern for each other. By way of understanding, this characteristic of romantic love seems to be rather lacking in support for helping classify a case for our theory of romantic love. Insomuch as, this condition is necessary for love but insufficient to account towards a theory of romantic love. Even coupled with one or a few of these recent conditions on romantic love, a Platonic theory of eros love is still insufficient to attribute a relationship as loving. As a result of this, there seems to be a need for another key characteristic in formulating a much more narrow foundation for a theory of romantic love.
IV. Romantic Love as Trust
Following these recent characteristics toward building a structural foundation of a theory of romantic love, an idea around the notion of trusting one’s beloved seems to be another key characteristic that is necessary within this theory of romantic love. Coupled with this key aspect, hooks offers another sort of unique concept between her idea of love, by claiming that, “Trust is the foundation of intimacy” (hooks, p.41); and resolves this new understanding of love that affirms this crucial aspect of romantic love by virtue of an individual must be trustworthy towards their beloved partner. This idea of acquiring trust throughout a romantic relationship does not allow for there to be room for lying, in which hooks argues that lying is a harmful way of acquiring power in relationships by dominating the individual. In order to better address romantic love within our relationships, this sense of trust must be necessary in a loving relationship for the sake of our beloved, as well as ourselves. This key feature of trust allows for love to flourish within our lives, and hooks argues that this characteristic of being trustworthy allows for individuals to better promote the spiritual growth of their beloved. Furthermore, in order to achieve the foundation of genuine love, there needs to be a sense of trust that is established 12 within the structure to better support the overall account of romantic love that is being articulated.
However, essential as trust may be within romantic relationships, hooks’ characteristic of trust within her conception of love does not quite get us toward a more narrowed in account for romantic love. This overall image of trust seems to be leaning more towards a general understanding of love, as in love for our friends, family, neighbors, dogs, work colleagues, etc.
The love between friends and family members acquires this trusting characteristic, but does not seem to attribute the true meaning of romantic love. By way of illustration, when individuals participate in a trust fall activity, all participants are necessarily acquired to trust one another in order to catch the participant falling. This sort of trust between one another during the trust fall activity is unable to suffice as an account for romantic love, based on the lack of love throughout each others relationship. Important as it may seem, this key characteristic seems to barely scratch the surface of an account for romantic love. Although this characteristic of trusting one another is necessary for love, it’s also shown to be insufficient to account towards a lovingly romantic relationship based on the counterexample that I proposed. Yes, this characteristic of trust is, in fact, needed to help better articulate the views for which I advocate for, but also needs to be supported by further more key characteristics in order to weigh in more on a theory of romantic love. That being said, my account for romantic love is in need of another essential characteristic that may help better improve/narrow in on my objective that demands more stable and unique features for building up my overall theory of romantic love.
V. Romantic Love as Unified Narrative
In the hopes of efficiently providing a theory for romantic love, I find this next key characteristic to be the most fundamental aspect of helping establish a more narrowed in theory of love that is present throughout all romantic relationships; the essential feature of coming towards one unified narrative. From here, this narrative is discussed throughout Aristophanes’ 13 argument as an account for love within Plato’s Symposium. This account addresses a humorous story between individuals being sought as originating from three types of human being (male, female, and androgynous (a mixture between the two sexes)), and creates the story of how Zeus disables these individuals by splitting them each in half, which leads these individuals on a search for their other halfs. This expedition of one’s other half leaves a few issues that I must confront within Aristophanes’ account for love that I do not relate towards within my theory of romantic love. Insomuch as, this understanding of individuals being incomplete without their other half is illustrated to be problematic by leaving the assumption that we are never fully complete being unless we set out to find our other half. However, humorous as it may seem, this story implies a key characteristic that is depicted throughout many romantic relationships that essentially draws down towards individuals being united together as a whole, to which they share one unified narrative together, no longer two separate stories. Coupled with this, Aristophanes articulates the desire for individuals to be united together as one, such as,
“...to be always together, as close as possible, and never [wanting to be] parted from each other...to join together and fuse you until...you become one” (Plato, p.25). By this understanding, Aristophanes establishes the desire for individuals to melt into one another as a united whole, to which these individuals are no longer separate but a part of one sole narrative throughout the rest of their lives. This being addressed, I find this key characteristic to be a necessary condition throughout romantic relationships, such as that individuals are united to be considered one whole entity, by which there is no longer a “me” but rather a “we”. In addition, this key feature, within my account for romantic love, is shown to be absent within relationships that involve friends, families, and work colleagues. This essential characteristic of uniting towards one sole narrative allows for the unique distinction between relationships and friendships based on the desire to be unified together as one, and no longer being split apart from one another. 14 To illustrate this type of romantic love as uniting towards one unified narrative, a prime case study to look towards as an example is the relationship between Marshall and Lily throughout CBS television series, How I Met Your Mother. With regards to this, Marshall and Lily are shown to be united together as one entity, to which Ted tells Lily that she and Marshall have morphed into, “...one giant, hermaphroditic blob…” (HIMYM, S5:E5). From this, the love between Marshall and Lily convey the connection to one another together as one unified narrative, insomuch as these individuals are no longer classified as me but rather identified as a we. Essentially, this feature of being together through one unified narrative, along with the four other main characteristics, show the requirement that each of these conditions be necessary and jointly sufficient between one another in order to account towards a theory of romantic love.
Although the characteristic of coming towards one unified narrative is necessary in providing a foundational account for romantic love, there still seems to be lingering issues that counteract the sufficiency of this condition. For example, a relationship that expresses this specific characteristic of uniting towards one unified narrative but lacks an association with love is depicted throughout Christopher Nolan’s film The Dark Knight between Batman and the Joker. This relationship depicted throughout the film acquires this characteristic as both of these individuals exist solely throughout one unified narrative that is not sufficiently considered a romantic relationship. For example, while in the interrogation room, Batman questions the Joker by asking why he would want to kill him, and the Joker replies with a sudden hysterical laugh and says, “I don’t want to kill you. What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No. You complete me” (Batman, 2008). The Joker seems to be hinting towards the understanding that his world would collapse or be nonexistent if Batman were to be dead or just simply be Bruce Wayne; to better clarify, The Joker only exists in the world if Batman continues to exist. Following this counterexample, the relationship between Batman and the Joker concludes that a relationship who acquires the characteristic of one unified narrative is 15 necessary for love, but insufficient to be accounted towards as a lovingly romantic relationship.
Insomuch as, the acquisition of this characteristic alone does not sufficiently attributed towards a theory of romantic love, even if this condition is coupled with one or two more of the recent characteristics I’ve been arguing for.
VI. Is Love All or Nothing?
Throughout the demonstration on my theory of romantic love, one may pose an objection towards the criterion of conditions that I argue in favor of; such as each of these conditions are necessary and jointly sufficient to account as a lovingly romantic relationship. This objection explores the possibility that each of these characteristics determine the legitimacy of a relationship between lovers. Insomuch as, it seems under my theory of romantic love, if someone does not meet all five conditions of romantic love or even acquires two or three conditions, then this individual is said to not be in a loving relationship. That being the case, one may argue that it leaves individuals to be in a certain situation where one is either in a loving relationship or not in a loving relationship based on meeting five conditions for romantic love.
Following this understanding, opponents may argue against my view by claiming that there still is love within that relationship, but maybe these individuals are just loving one another poorly. In addition, it's plausible that this poorly loving relationship can be lacking in a specific condition, opposed to other relationships where their love can be identified as loving well. In other words, the main concern targeted against my theory on romantic love is whether or not the account I’m arguing for is attempting to say either there is no love within that relationship or the love is present within that relationship, but lacking in some degree. That is to say, are the conditions, to which I’m arguing for that are necessary and jointly sufficient for romantic love, either have to be all or nothing or vary in certain degrees to be determined as a lovingly romantic relationship?
In response to these concerns, I argue against this objection that my account presents a more normative understanding of romantic love. Insomuch as, I believe my account does not 16 allow for varying degrees to determine whether a relationship is loving poorly or loving well.
Rather, I argue more towards a metaphysical understanding of romantic love. In that, I argue for each of these five conditions to be necessary and jointly sufficient to account as romantic love.
A relationship with one, two, or a few of these conditions does not attribute the label of a “loving relationship” under my account concerning romantic love. For example, a relationship that acquires the spiritual growth of one another, as well as obtaining a robust concern for each other is not sufficient in becoming identified as a romantic relationship, although necessary to have. For the reasons being that both of these conditions, by themselves, do not quite get us more toward a narrowed-in identification of romantic love. In contrast, these aspects of love by themselves provide more of a general understanding of love that differs from my account. That being said, I do not necessarily agree with opponents who view these characteristics as varying in a certain degree. As a matter of fact, I’d argue that a relationship, regardless of the different variations of degrees in conditions, must meet these five interdependent necessary conditions to be attributed as a loving relationship. That being said, under this theory of romantic love, I argue that each of these conditions are to be met by either putting all your eggs into one basket or putting none at all. In other words, the conditions of romantic love are either all or nothing.
Such as, individuals that acquire the condition of one unified narrative put all their eggs into one basket between each other, to which these lovers are no longer a me but instead a we. The same comprehension could be applied towards trusting one another, by which individuals either trust (all in) or don’t (nothing). Someone who claims that she trusts her partner to some degree, under my account, should not be labeled as a loving relationship. Inasmuch as, a romantic relationship should acquire no room for lying to one another.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I’ve established five conditions that are essential towards a working understanding on the concept of romantic love, and argued intensively to work through each of 17 these characteristics by addressing some flaws that are held against them, as well as provide essential features that are needed to back up each of these characteristics. Following this, each of these necessary conditions within my theory of romantic love are jointly sufficient of one another. As well as these features are required to be mutually dependent on one another in order to work together as one which allows them to function efficiently and effectively towards providing a well-structured account. Also, I responded towards an objection posed against my account, by arguing that this theory of romantic love deals with more of a metaphysical understanding of what determines the presence of love within relationships. Instead of comprehending romantic love to be acquired throughout some degree between conditions.
In sum, I’ve argued for a way of understanding love through the lens of a romantic point of view, by which I’ve ascended towards understanding romantic love to be 1) a love that guides the spiritual growth of one’s beloved; 2) love shown through the idea of acquiring a robust concern for the individual’s own sake; 3) highlight that the key feature of romantic love is shown through sexual desire within the relationship as it’s regard towards Plato’s concept of eros; 4) providing an understanding of trustworthiness within a relationship; and 5) thoroughly discussing romantic love in terms of uniting together towards one unified narrative.
Works Cited
Helm, Bennett, "Love", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/love/>. hooks, bell. All about love: New visions. New York: William Morrow, 2000. 18 “How I Met Your Mother S5e05 Episode Script: SS.” Springfield! Springfield!, https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=how-i-met-your-mot her&episode=s05e05.
Hughes, Mikayla, Kelly Morrison, and Kelli Jean K. Asada. "What's love got to do with it?
Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships." Western Journal of Communication 69.1 (2005): 49-66. Johnson, Robert and Cureton, Adam, "Kant’s Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
McCarty, Richard. “Perfect and Imperfect Duties.” Perfect and Imperfect Duties, East Carolina University, 6 Sept. 2014, http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/PerfectandImperfectDuties.asp#targetText
Neustadter, Scott H., and Michael H. Weber. “500 Days of Summer Transcript.” Cinefile, 2006, http://www.cinefile.biz/script/500daysofsummer.pdf.
Nolan, Jonathan, and Christopher Nolan. The Dark Knight Transcript. http://www.nolanfans.com/library/pdf/thedarkknight-screenplay.pdf.
Plato. The Symposium. Vol. 23. Penguin UK, 2005. Schwyzer, Hugo. “The Real-World Consequences of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Cliché.” The
Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 9 July 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/the-real-world-consequences-of-the-manic-p ixie-dream-girl-clich-233/277645/.
Taylor, Gabriele. “Love.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 76, 1975, pp. 147–164. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4544885 . Velleman, J. David. “Love as a Moral Emotion.” Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, 1999, pp. 338–374. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233898 . 19