Claire Kirwin - World's Collided: Love as Seeing and Seeing-With

What is Kirwin's main thesis?

Mutual love has two parts, seeing each other (love-as-seeing) and seeing the world together (love-as-seeing-with), and good love keeps them in balance

What two common assumptions does Kirwin reject?

That loving people is basically like loving things, and that mutual love is just one-way love going in both directions

What types of love does Kirwin focus on?

Romantic love and close friendship

What does Kirwin assume about value?

Value is really out there in the world to be discovered (value realism)

What is value expertise?

A person's special ability to see certain kinds of value, like in jazz, art, or soccer

What does the tree example show?

Different expertise lets people see different true things in the same tree: a tree, an oak, or "my mom's favorite oak."

What dilemma does value expertise help solve?

Other people love partners who seem boring to us. So either they're wrong about their partner, or love doesn't find value but creates it

Love seems to discover real value in someone, but people love very different people. How does Kirwin explain this?

Each person has different "value expertise," so we can each see real value in different people

According to Kirwin, when you love someone, are you an expert in their general qualities (like "a good sense of humor") or in the specific person?

No. It is the expertise of that particular person. You can love their humor and find humor annoying in someone else

Why can't a person be reduced to a list of qualities?

Qualities mix and change each other inside a whole person. Bluntness in a selfish person differs from bluntness in a kind person

How is loving a person like appreciating art?

You value a quality as it appears in that specific whole, not in general

What is Montaigne’s point about love? (Kirwin)

We can't fully explain why we love someone: "because it was he, because it was I.”

How does Kirwin explain why love is hard to put into words?

Love is like seeing, it notices details too specific for rules

What do expert chicken-sexers show?

Experts can know something reliably without being able to explain how

What makes love for a person different from love for things?

A person is also a subject who sees, values, and loves, just like the lover

What is Velleman's view of love? (Kirwin)

Love responds to a person's rational nature, their ability to value and love: "a heart responds to a heart."

According to Kirwin, what does Velleman’s view of love get wrong?

It loves what everyone has in common, not the whole, messy, one-of-a-kind person

What two things must love for a person capture?

Loving them as a person and as that particular person, which are really the same thing

What is a person’s character, for Kirwin?

Their unique mix of value expertise: their own way of seeing the world

Why does love take time?

A person keeps changing, so love appreciates their ongoing story, not a snapshot

In Kirwin's eye example, what's the difference between seeing an eye as a jewel and seeing it as an eye?

A jewel is just something to look at. An eye looks back. Loving a person means seeing them as someone who can see the world too

What is love-as-seeing?

One-way love where the lover looks at and appreciates the beloved. It can be unrequited

What is the "two-lane highway" model?

The idea that mutual love is just two people loving each other one way at the same time

What does the two-lane highway model miss?

That mutual love changes love’s structure by adding seeing the world together

Why is the beloved partly mysterious?

Because they can sometimes see value that you cannot

Why does loving someone lead to caring about what they value?

To fully love someone, you have to take their values seriously, not just see them as cute quirks

Must you value everything your beloved values?

No, and it's important that you don't (kirwin believes that otherness is also a part of love)

How is Kirwin's view like and unlike Plato's ladder of love?

Like Plato, love leads you to other values. Unlike Plato, you don’t leave the beloved behind

What is love-as-seeing-with?

Partners turning together toward the world as "co-perceivers."

How does love-as-seeing-with happen?

Partners introduce each other to the values they can see. Kirwin calls this initiation

What does initiation do to the lovers?

It changes who they are and creates a shared history and shared world

Why isn't taking a wine class alone the same as learning from your partner?

Alone, you learn the value, but you don't build a shared world

What does the "teacher" miss if only one partner teaches the other?

Being changed by love themselves

Does love as seeing-with stop at sharing what you already know?

No. Couples can learn new things together, like mountain biking or visiting a new country

What's the difference between "my love for P" and "our shared love"?

"My love for P" is love-as-seeing. "Our shared love" is love-as-seeing-with, the shared activity of building a life

Why are both words in "another subjectivity" important?

The beloved is a subject like you, but also not you

How does each part of love show the beloved is "another subjectivity"?

In seeing, they're separate from you and see differently. In seeing-with, you're subjects together but still two people

Is a "we" just a bigger "I"? (Kirwin)

No. Looking at the world with someone changes how you see it, and you can't be "together" with yourself

What causes love's typical struggles?

The difficulty of balancing seeing and seeing-with

What happens when lovers are stuck in love-as-seeing?

They're lost in infatuation, just gazing at each other, and the gaze becomes empty

What is "long-term relationship syndrome"?

A couple works so smoothly as a unit that they stop seeing each other as separate, mysterious people. Love "goes stale."

Is either extreme (infatuation or seamless routine) "true" love?

Neither. Both are fine sometimes, but love goes wrong when one takes over

What worry does Kirwin end with?

Philosophers of love might just be turning their own relationship problems into theories (pathologies)

Can love-as-seeing be unrequited?

Yes, but love-as-seeing-with requires both people