Philosophy of Love - Nozick's The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love

According to Nozick, what is common to ALL kinds of love (romantic, parental, patriotic)?

Your own well-being is tied up with the well-being of the one you love

How does Nozick distinguish love from caring about strangers, such as famine victims?

With strangers we may be moved to help them but if it happens to our loved ones, bad things happening to them feels like it is happening to us

Does every wish of a loved one being fulfilled make you better off?

No, only things that affect their actual well-being affect yours not just their preferences

What metaphor does Nozick use for the people we love?

They are inside our boundaries, their well-being becomes our own

Which sign that someone’s well-being is part of yours is “especially diagnostic”?

Your mood changes when their well-being changes, and the change lasts for a while

What are some signs of infatuation ("being in love")?

Constantly thinking of the person, wanting to be together, losing sleep, finding their flaws cute, and even finding everyone else charming

What happens when infatuation isn't returned?

Sadness, obsessing over what went wrong, fantasizing about fixing it, and everything else feeling flat.

What happens to infatuation over time?

Either turns into lasting romantic love OR fades away

How does Nozick define romantic love?

Wanting to form a "we" with a particular person, and wanting them to want the same.

Is the desire to form a we just a side effect of love?

No, it is built into what romantic love is

What makes a couple a "we" if they aren't physically joined?

A new web of relationships that makes them less separate.

What is the first feature of a we?

Partners pool their well-being. This puts you at risk, but also acts like insurance, since your partner helps you through hard times.

What is the second feature of a we?

Partners pool their autonomy. Some decisions (where to live, having kids, even ending the relationship) are no longer made alone.

Why does the word "couple" matter to Nozick?

Couples see themselves as a unit and want to be seen that way publicly. Couples who can't do this, such as homosexual couples in his time, face a serious obstacle.

Does being in a “we” erase your individual identity?

No. It adds a new, shared identity, though your individual identity changes.

How does Nozick explain what it means for something to be part of your identity?

It's one of your few areas of special alertness. For example, you worry more about plane crashes when your partner flies alone.

What are other signs that a we has formed?

Leaving articles for your partner to read instead of reading them yourself, and talking to them in your head when they're away.

How does Nozick picture the we, and what role does sex play?

Two shapes with the boundary between them erased (maybe a heart shape). Sex, as a merging of two people, helps form the we.

What are the two ways a person can relate to the we?

Seeing the we as part of yourself (Nozick guesses more common in men), or seeing yourself as part of the we (more common in women).

How can lovers want to possess each other completely yet need each other to be independent?

Wanting to possess the other is really wanting to share an identity. Unlike Hegel's master and slave, the we lets both independence and possession exist together.

What does “adult love” give us that childhood didn’t?

Being the main object of someone’s most intense love, which we weren’t in the childhood oedipal triangle

Why must we be loved as we really are?

Love from someone who doesn't know our flaws isn't reassuring. Real intimacy means being fully known, accepted, and healed.

When are you not loved "for yourself"?

When you're loved for something unimportant to your identity, like money.

When do we love the person instead of their traits?

When "being with Eve" becomes part of who we are, rather than "being with someone who has X trait."

What is the duck-imprinting analogy?

Traits may start love, like a duckling attaching to what it first sees, but afterward love no longer depends on those traits.

How is human love different from duck imprinting?

Human love is more than instinct, it involves knowing, accepting, and valuing a specific person, including their flaws, rather than simply being attached to someone because of certain traits

What is the "trading up" problem?

If you love someone for their good traits, it seems you should switch to someone with better ones. But love doesn’t work that way.

Why is Plato's view especially open to the trading-up problem?

For Plato, we really love the Form of Beauty, so any person could be swapped for someone who reflects it better.

What is the economic reason people don’t trade up?

Switching partners costs too much. Getting to know someone new takes a lot of time, you can't be sure they're trustworthy, and you might lose the relationship you already have. It's smarter to put that energy into your current relationship.

What is the problem with the economic reason?

It says we stay only because leaving is costly, not because we love that specific person. Nozick thinks love itself should explain why we don't want to switch.

How does economics come close to the idea of a "we"?

Think of two businesses that trade only with each other. Over time, they adjust to fit each other so well that they eventually merge into one company. Two partners who build their lives around each other are like that merged company, which is similar to a shared identity.

What is Nozick's own reason why love rules out trading up?

The we is part of your self. Trading up would mean destroying your own extended self.

What purpose does infatuation serve?

It gives people the excitement they need to get past their fears about losing independence. Constantly thinking about the other person and the two of you together also gets you used to thinking as a "we." A more cynical person might say infatuation is just temporary glue that holds a couple together until they're stuck with each other

What does "Aristotelian rather than Newtonian" mean?

A relationship is an ongoing, shared activity that develops through the people in it, rather than something that simply keeps going on its own after it begins

Is it rational to commit to a we?

Yes, because a we offers many goods. But asking "What's in it for me?" distorts love.

How does "one right person" become true?

It's unlikely beforehand, but once a “we” forms, your identity is tied to that person, so they become the only right one.

Why does Nozick say Plato got love backwards?

Love grows more particular over time: that person's humor, that mind. So a "better" partner would just be your partner changed.

Why can’t you have multiple wes?

You cannot have multiple identities at once

What is the key feature of friendship?

Sharing things together for their own sake. Friends' selves overlap, like two overlapping circles.

What did Aristotle see as friendship's main benefit?

A friend is a "second self" who helps you know yourself.

Why does Nozick think we read newspapers?

To share common information with others, not because we act on the news.

Why don't friends share an identity?

Friendships differ fundamentally from romantic unions. Friendship should preserve the distinctness and autonomy of each individual.

What kind of shared activity builds a sense of togetherness, even when it isn't done just for the fun of sharing?

Working with others toward a common goal, like a political cause, a sports team, or a science project. Being part of something bigger than yourself makes your life feel less private and more connected. Nozick thinks young adults especially need this

What does marriage do for the we?

It marks full commitment to the we continuing. Two life stories become one.

How can a “we” take physical form?

Through a home and, even more, through children, though children are loved for themselves.

How do religions change the self, and why don’t people usually combine this with romantic love?

To commit to religious change is already a lot for the self to go through, hence people rarely do this and build a “we” at the same time (e.g., big life changes)

What does the sperm-and-egg example show?

A sperm or egg benefits from joining into a new life, but we judge that new life on its own terms. In the same way, a "we" should be judged as its own thing, not only by what it does for each individual

What is the instability objection?

If you love someone for their traits, what happens when those traits change (e.g., your partner loses or gains new/old traits)? Should you fall out of love with them?

What is Nozick’s response to the instability objection?

You should continue to love your partner because real love doesn’t depend on that person’s traits but on who they are. You also come to love a trait that is tied to them (e.g., Sam’s humor instead of general humor), so love becomes tied to the individual.

What are Nozick’s three responses to the trading up objection?

Switching partners can be costly, you and your partner have been specialized for one another, and you also destroy part of your identity as the “we” becomes an extended self.