Кратко въведение в любовта

Very Short Introductions #415

by Ronald de Sousa, Роналд де Суза, Паулина Мичева (Translator)

Любовта е безкористна; любовта е егоистична. Любовта е нежна; любовта е жестока. Любовта е преходна; любовта е вечна. Любовта е рай; любовта е ад. Любовта е война. Любовта граничи с божественото; любовта оправдава най-лошите престъпления. Някои казват, че Бог е любов – и със сигурност и Бог, и любовта са отговорни за доста неща. Общуването с божественото може да бъде опасно, дори за случайните наблюдатели.

Когато искаме да узнаем какво е чувството да си влюбен, се обръщаме към поетите. Когато искаме да разберем колко нелепа е всъщност представата ни за любовта, се обръщаме към философите.

В книгата си „Кратко въведение в любовта” професор Роналд де Суза застава на този кръстопът и ни повежда из лабиринта на най-естественото и най-загадъчното чувство. Защо обичаме, как избираме кого да обичаме, егоистични или алтруистични са желанията на любовта, защо най-прекрасното чувство на света ни кара да вършим ужасни неща... Отговорите на тези и на много други въпроси ще ни помогнат да открием своята любовна история и да разберем как да разгадаем любовните сценарии на другите.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, Love, Audiobook, Romance, Relationships

200 pages, Paperback

Published October 11, 2019

About the author

Ronald Bon de Sousa Pernes is a Canadian philosopher and academic. Wikipedia

Reviews

[Heba]

لطالما راودني الاحساس بالقلق إزاء عنوان كتاب يتضمن " مقدمة قصيرة جداً أو مقدمة وجيزة " عندئذٍ أعلم أن بانتظاري مادة مركبة شديدة التعقيد...
ومع ذلك عند الانتهاء من الكتاب ، استشعر لذة الانتصار الصغير لأنني استطعت الوصول رغم مشقة الرحلة...
تناول الكاتب الحب من منظور فلسفي مستعيناً بالأدب ، الفن والعلم ليكشف أن الحب اكثر تعقيداً مما نظن ..وبالرغم من انني كنت مستمتعة جدا برفقة الكتاب فى البداية إلا أن الفصول الأخيرة جاءت مخيبة للآمال وتتعارض كثيراً مع قناعاتي ..
الحب لغز وأحجية ، بتباين مواصفاته وتناقضاته والتى مهما حاولت التوفيق بينها تراك توصلت للتنازع فيما بينها
حيث الانانية والايثارية، الاستسلام والسيادة ، الفناء والخلود، الحياة والموت ...
لا تبحث عن سبباً للحب فهو مُكتفياً بذاته غنياً عن التوصيف ..
اعتقد ان اشد اللحظات إرباكاً في حياة المرء ليس لحظة الوقوع في شرك الحب بل عندما يسأله محبوبه " لماذا احببتني ؟" ..
لحظة ممتدة من الزمن وكأنها لانهائية ، كما لو انك تتلمس الدرب فى حقل الغام ، تأتي الاجابة " لأنك انت ذاتك"
اجل لكل منا جوهر خاص يُدعى " الروح" لها عبق متفرد يعلن عن صاحبه ، واذا ماسألتك كيف يبدو؟
جاءت الاجابة على وجه المقاربة ولن يمكنك القبض على الحقيقة..
يبقى سؤالاً لدي عالقاً لا يترقب اجابة ..
هل الافتتان ذو طابع مؤقت ، يتلاشى بالعادة والرتابة ، والأهم هل الحب يصمد امام الموت الصغير ، الذي ينخر روحه تاركاً وراءه ثقوب الجروح والمشاحنات التي لا تخلو منها الحياة اليومية ؟؟...

[Kamal · Rating 2 out of 5]

يقرر صديقك المنحرف مطاردة ما قيل عن الحب في الفلسفة والأدب والعلم ليسرد لك خلاصة ما قرأه ولكنه يضيف له أفكاره هو، فتجد أن في ما يقول بعض ما يعجبك، وما يبدو كحقيقة فعلا، ولكن إن تدقق لن تجد إلا منحرفا يريد تطبيع انحرافاته.

هذا بالضبط ما يحدث هنا، فالكاتب لا يحاول شرح الحُب أو حتى محاولة فهمه، بل هو "يستهبل" ينتقل من محاولة شرح شعور طبيعي إلى تبرير انحراف مُقرف بلا أي منطق!

كتاب مفيد في مواضع كثيرة وذلك يرجع لبحث جيد من المؤلف ولكنه أيضا مليء بالخراء وذلك بسبب أفكار المؤلف النجسة.

ذلك إلى جانب تفكك مُزعج في النصف الأول من الكتاب سببه السخاء المفرط في وضع النقاط كأن المدقق اللغوي -إن وُجد- لا يعرف بوجود الفواصل.

[J. Nic Fisk · Rating 5 out of 5]

I saw some other reviews posted here and felt the need to defend the last chapter of this book that others claim focused too much on (and in too positive a light) polyamory and having multiple sexual partners. I am by no means a practitioner of these lifestyles, but if people found the last chapter distasteful, I think it is because they didn't read the previous ones close enough. Sousa is always careful to qualify his statements as morally and socially neutral, but that what is outlined is experienced by at least a few--and likely more than most would think. If anything, the book really focuses on familiar love-styles when talking about the concrete and only delves into the other topics in hypothetical scenarios and thought experiments.

As for the reasons I liked it, the introduction was short indeed--but not too easy a read. When I first bought this book, I worried it would be banal and frivolous. But it ended up being insightful. I can't claim to get behind all the points made in the book, but it did something I think all good books that aim to inform should do--make you think, reflect, and question. And the way this book was laid out gave me a framework to consider my own thoughts and beliefs on the subject matter in a structured way that would have been otherwise very difficult to do. That is, the book poised questions that, even if unanswered, were worth stopping and considering.

So, I highly recommend this book. Unlike most books, though, I don't recommend blowing through this one if you are having a great time with it. Take time to pause and reflect every few pages. It'll slow you down (which adds to the longevity of an admittedly short book), sure, but I think that is the best way to experience this brief compendium of love thought.

[معاذ · Rating 3 out of 5]

هل الحب يحتاج إلى مقدمات وجيزة لكي يتم تقديمه؟
أو لكي يتم شرحه من وجهة نظرة فلسفية مليئة بالأحجيات ؟
أم أن الحب هو نفسه أحجية ؟

[Mahdieh Ebrahimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

خیلی خیلی لذت بردم از جنبه های مختلف مسئله رو بررسی کرده بود و واقعا جامع بود! :)

[Random · Rating 4 out of 5]

بقدر ما نظنّ أن الحب بسيطٌ، وهو شعور كأيّ شعور آخر، بقدر ما تشعر فجأةً بأن هذا الإحساس معقّد للغاية.
من المؤسف أن أول ما يرد لأذهاننا بعد قولنا "حُب" هو ذاك النوع الرومانسي من الحُب، والذي صُدمت أنه لا يرتقي لنوع "الحب المتكامل" لافتقاده عنصر الالتزام وفقًا لعالم النفس الأمريكي Robert Sternberg في نموذجه المثلّث؛
للحب ٣ عوامل: الحميمية، الشغف، الالتزام.
يضم كل بُعد مجموعة من المشاعر والرغبات والسلوكيات.

الحميمية: مشاعر القرب.
الشغف: التوق للاتصال الذهني والبدني. كعدم قدرتك على تخيل أي شخص آخر يجعلك بهذه السعادة سوى محبوبك.
الالتزام: المسؤولية القوية التي تُشعرك بقرار البقاء مع المحبوب في أصعب الأوقات.

بهذا ينتج لدينا:
-حب فارغ: مسؤولية فقط دون شغف / حميمية. (الامتثال لتوقعات الزواج التقليدي الذي اعتبرته كونتيسة شامبانيا غير متوافق مع الحب)
-استهواء: حميمية فقط دون شغف/ التزام.
-الوَلَه: شغف دون التزام/ حميمية.


🍁حب أخرق: يجمع بين الالتزام والشغف فقط
🍁 حب شراكة: يجمع بين الحميمية والالتزام فقط
🍁حب رومانسي: يجمع بين الشغف والحميمية فقط


تحية كبيرة للمترجمة.

[Maryam · Rating 2 out of 5]

قراءة هذا الكتاب شبيهة بالمشي في غرفة فوضوية مليانة كراكيب ولكنك وسط هذه الكراكيب تكتشف اشياء جميلة ، الترجمة معقدة وليست متمكنة من إيصال الفكرة بشكل سلس، ويشعر الإنسان أنه يُقرأ مجموعة من الأفكار والمصطلحات في صفحة واحدة .
يتحدث حول الحُب العاطفي ، ركائزه ، أنواعه ، ولعل أكثر فكرة كانت جديدة ومشوقة لدي كانت ارتباط الحُب يالايديولوجيا ، وأثر هذا الارتباط ، واعترف في صفحات معينة كنت " مادري عن شنو أقرأ " من كثر ما كانت المصطلحات والافكار. مكتوبة بشكل غير منظم على الورق .

[Ebtihal Salman · Rating 2 out of 5]

نظرة فاحصة للحب ، ماهيته، أسبابه، مؤثراته، بجانب فلسفي وعلمي.
لم يكن العرض سلسا بالنسبة لي، لكنه قدم أفكارا جديدة.

[gadabout · Rating 2 out of 5]

Weirdly contrarian, roundabout, and less of an introduction so much as a thinkpiece with an anti-monogamy twist. Its 'Science' chapter was where its potential came through, but it was short lived in a sea of poorly constructed philosophy.

[شمس]

It can help to think of love as a particularly intense form of aesthetic appreciation. When approaching a work of art, you cannot escape classifying it first in terms of a certain genre, period, and style. After that, you hope to be drawn into the endless intricacies of the particular; these are what make the work unique, and they can be appreciated even when they cannot be readily named. That attitude is no less appropriate to love.
__________
In 1176, a Court of Love presided on by the Countess of Champagne considered the question: Is love possible between people united by marriage? This was the verdict:

We state and affirm by this judgement that love cannot extend its power to a married couple, for lovers give one another everything freely, without obligation or any necessity; conjugal partners, by contrast, are committed to doing one another’s will and not to deny anything to one another.

In this judgement, giving something freely is given three constraints: obligation, necessity, and commitment. All three provide reasons to act. The Countess of Champagne’s verdict implies that love moves us to act either without reasons or from reasons entirely different from those three.
__________
More tellingly, both forms of love deactivated regions of the temporal cortex and prefrontal lobe associated with rational thought and critical judgement.

__________
Worth reading, mainly for the inclusion of the above consideration of whether love is possible between married people (this has me now inclined to say no), and for the scientific aspects discussed near the end of the book.

I decided to include some quotes from authors touching on love from works I have read at the bottom and continued in a comment below.
__________
You yourself, Dear Reader, may have gone a little crazy once or twice, and felt the thrill of shared love, or the secretly self-important anguish of love unrequited. Poets, musicians, artists, and philosophers have drawn inspiration from that feeling and, spurred on by love, done their best and worst. They have vied to convey the life-changing intensity of it; and yet when most of us try to describe it, love sinks lifelessly into banality.

Love stories seldom have happy endings. The greatest love stories usually end in death. The lighter ones, known as romantic comedies, end in marriage: but the convention that marriage is a happy ending also hints that marriage is indeed an ending, which is a kind of death. Not death of the lovers, or even of their love, but death of the love story. Fortunately, many a marriage bears witness to the fact that both love and story can survive a wedding; but then there’s death again, the real kind that comes to part us.
In the end, then, all love stories are sad. And yet, what a ride is to be had while it lasts!

Eros in its most extreme, obsessive, anxious, and passionate romantic form . . . what George Bernard Shaw called ’that most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions.’

Contrary to what is assumed, love is not an emotion . . . Rather, think of love as a condition that shapes and governs thoughts, desires, emotions, and behaviours around the focal person who is the ‘beloved’. Like a kind of prism, it affects all sorts of experiences—even ones that don’t directly involve the beloved. I will call that a syndrome: not a kind of feeling, but an intricate pattern of potential thoughts, behaviours, and emotions that tend to ‘run together’. And if it also evokes a disturbance the might call for medical attention, that connotation is not always inappropriate. A person in love, especially if they are limerent, is often said to be crazy with love.

Rightly understood, then, the blindness of love may be a matter not of failing sight but of failing judgement.

But reciprocal attention can also feed doubts and anxiety. Some lovers live in constant fear of disappointing their beloved’s expectations. From that point of view, love unrequited might be better off: it has no expectations, and so has nothing to be anxious about. In one of the novels of Goethe, a character exclaims: ‘And if I love you, what business is that of yours?’ Indeed, if selflessness is the mark of true love, unrequited love might even claim—however implausibly—to be the best kind: since it receives nothing in return, its manifestations are not exchanged for any favours.

The common dogma that love is purest when not contaminated by sex has an equally plausible converse: we can be sure that sexual desire is pure only when it remains uncontaminated by love. In desire as in love, freedom requires purity of focus. Just as you might get that someone who loves you for the sake of sex does not really love you, so you might suspect that someone who has sex out of love (without being limerent) does not really desire you.

Your love for Mary will seem to you objectively necessary, just as it appears objectively necessary to the average follower of Islam or Catholicism that theirs is the only true religion. And yet we can be virtually certain that each one, had they been switched at birth, would now with equal devotion hold the other view. It's a part of the grip of limerence that we cannot imagine our devotion ever changing.

. . . to be honest, you probably feel much the same about some of the couples you know: ‘What does she see in him?”

But are these really reasons? If they are, they should move anyone to love. For it is the very essence of reason to be universally applicable: a reason for you is a reason for anyone. Anyone in the same circumstances, that is. The qualifier is essential, but it weakens the force of the universality requirement: for circumstances are never the same.

The lesson of these cases is that the target of love is a particular individual, not just whoever happens to have the right qualities. Even lacking the right qualities altogether may not matter. Once the target is picked, only that casual individual counts as relevantly similar.

Mere acquaintance in itself tends to induce liking. Other things being equal, familiarity should make the heart grow fonder (when it fails, blame all the other things that are not equal).

Some writers on love have settled for a more benign version of that hypothesis. Your beloved is indeed unique, it has been said, because you have bestowed on him the characteristics that make him lovable.

From exhaustive observation of the interaction between infants and their caretakers, researched distilled a three-fold typology of attachment styles: ’secure’, ‘anxious/ambivalent’, and ‘avoidant’. Secure children are confident of their caretaker’s reliability; they do not feat to explore, returning only occasionally to ‘refuel’ in the caretaker’s close contact. Anxious children have learned that their caretaker is not altogether reliable: as a result, they exhibit ambivalence both about leaving and returning to their side. And avoidant children, who have been more consistently rebuffed or rejected, learn a sort of stoical independence which masks their insecurity and neediness, or perhaps altogether supersedes it . . .

More tellingly, both forms of love deactivated regions of the temporal cortex and prefrontal lobe associated with rational thought and critical judgement.

Men were asked to wear the same T-shirt for two nights, while refraining from soap, deodorant, and garlic. The T-shirts were then sniffed by female subjects. Providing that the women were not on the pill, they preferred the odour of the men whose genes coded for a type of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) different from their own.

Psychologist Helen Fisher:
2. Limerence. . . ’intense, obsessive, romantic love’ . . . Intense forms of it are most likely to strike those who have preserved in adulthood the anxious/ambivalent attachment style. It involves obsessive and exclusive preoccupation with the lover, longing for their constant presence, and highs and lows triggered by over interpreted signs or reciprocation or rejection. Although often condemned because of its disruptive effects, limerence has been observed in most societies. It exhibits no gender differences, and can be regarded as a gender equaliser in that men who experience it are commonly described as being ‘conquered’, ‘defeated’, or ‘brought low’ by their love . . . its typical duration is measured in weeks or months—up to a maximum of three to four years. Its is no coincidence that the third and fourth anniversary of a marriage or love partnership is when it is most likely to break up.

As for the belief in a weaker sex drive in women, it is worth noting that this is only about 200 years old. Earlier in Western culture, women’s sexuality tended to be viewed as rampantly insatiable. Alexander Pope summed it up in two lines:

Men, some to Bus’ness, some to Pleasure take;
But every Woman is at heart a Rake.

Studies of the frequency of ‘extra-pair copulation’ have indicated that women are more likely to have sexual contact with men who are not their regular partner during the fertile period of their cycle.
__________
From my personal Notes:
True love—or rather, the truest—is always obsessive and unrequited. —J. D. McClatchy, Preface to Petrarch’s Poems

There is only one kind of love; but it has thousands of different imitations. —Rochefoucauld

We never love anyone. We love only our idea of what someone is like. We love an idea of our own; in short, it is ourselves that we love. —Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet, 258

A brief summary of the various paths to object-choice may serve to bring these adumbrations to a close.
We love one or other of the following:
1) Narcissistic Type:
a) What we ourselves are
b) What we ourselves were
c) What we would like to become
d) A person who was once part of our own self
2) Imitative Type:
a) The woman who feeds us
b) The man who protects us
And the many surrogates who take their place. —Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle

. . . true love, this storm-tossed passion is the source of the greatest pleasures that man can experience. —Leopardi, Zibaldone, Z1018

[Akbar Madan · Rating 4 out of 5]

يبقى الحب المفهوم الزئبقي الذي تلبس كل انسان في الحياة ، وفي الوقت نفسه لا يمكن ان تحصره بتحديد مفاهيمي معين ، فهو كالشمس تشرق على الحياة ، تمنحنا الدفء والضياء ، تضيع جميع محددات الحب عندما تتراقص نبضات القلب عند أول لقاء مع الجمال ، وتفقد المشاعر بوصلتها حينما تسيطر القوة المغناطيسية حيّز وفضاء قلب انسان غرق في بحر الاحاسيس ، هناك يفقد البصر بصره ويضيع السمع سمعه ، ويمشي القلب على نوره يجره شعوره ، خطوات تلو خطوات يتيه عن سوره .
ليس الحب ان تمتلك الجمال ولكن الحب قد يكون ان لا يمتلكك الجمال ، فالجمال والحب صديقان حميمان لا يفترقان كما ان للحب علاقة غير مفهومة مع اللاعقل ، من لم يذق طعم حرارة الحب في عنفوان شبابه وهيجان مشاعره الاولى حينها لم يكن العقل قد اكتمل ولكن الحب فاق الاكتمال بغليانه الفائق والتي تفتر حدته كلما أخذ العقل في النضوج شيئا فشيئا .

بينما يشتعل القلب بالحب يعمل الجنس على ايصاله الى نهايته ، ويساعد على اطفاء تلك الشعلة المتوقدة حينما يوصلها الى لذتها الخاتمية ، من يريد ان يبقى وقاد الشعلة عليه ان لا يسمع ما قاله ابن عربي بأن أجمل تجليات العرفان القلبي في لحظات التقارب الجنسي ، قد تكون هذه النصيحة بمثابة الاستعاضة عن الجنس بجمال فن الانتظار وابقاء شعلة الشوق متوقدة وان تكون في قبضة الافتتان دائما وأبدا كما المح فرويد لذلك .
الحب عندما يتعلق بالغير سوف يشك في نفسه ، فكل علاقة حب بين طرفين لن يكون الحب نقي نقاء الحب حينما يكون من طرف واحد ، حتى القلب يخفي عن نفسه انه وقع في حب انسان لا يعرف عن نبضاته اي شي ، كم هو جمال الحب الذي يمتلكك ولا تملك به غير قلبك ، وحتى انك تكون رهين ملاحقات العين مع نفسها يرتد طرفك بنظرة من المحبوب .

في العادة ننسج حبنا من خلال المصادفات الغير محسوبة ، ونقع في قبضة الافتتان عندها يكون حبنا الاول والاخير وبعده هو حب المثيرات الشهوانية لكنه لا يخلو من لحظات أعجاب حقيقية لانك إنسان متحول فكلما نسخت نفسك نسخة غيرك أخذ الحب من قلبك ثلمة مع انسان يماثل النسخة الجديدة منك .
الحب خصيم الاسباب ، الزواج تراكم اسباب لذلك يفقد الزوجين الحب ويبقيان على اسباب بقاء العلاقة من واجبات والتزامات ومشاريع قد لا تنتهي ، لا عقلانية في الحب لذلك لا أسباب له ، الاسباب الوجه الآخر من العقلانية فحينما تريد أن تعقلن الحب سوف تفقده من أول كلمة تعليل ، لا يمكن أن تسأل لماذا أحببت هذه أو تلك ، سوف يقال لك الحب من الله مسبب ما لا سبب له ، وحين لا سببية في الافتتان فهل يكون الرغبة وتركيز بؤرتها في شخص ما رغبة وهمية ؟ كمن يخلق له إله يخافه ويحبه في ذات الوقت .

الحب غير قابل للاستبدال ، قد تحب مرة ومرتين وثلاث مرات في الآن عينه أو بصورة متعاقبة لكن كل واحد منهم غير قابل للاستبدال ، كل حب يمثل نفسه ، مختلف في تكوينه ونشأته ، له رونقه وجماله الخاص ، له مبرراته وظروفه . التعدد في الحب يفتح باب على الحب الداخلي للمحب وإن هذا التعدد ما هو الا صورة الذات التي تريد ان تكثر من المرايا العاكسة عليها ، لترى نفسها بعدد انفاس الخلائق

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some valuable insights mixed with some oversimplifications of human emotional and social experience... but a worthwhile quick read if you're thinking about how love works in the space between philosophy and practice.

[منال الندابي · Rating 2 out of 5]

لا أعلم ما إذا كان سبب سعادتي بالغة فور انتهائي من هذا الكتاب والتخلّص من عبء قراءته تكمن في الترجمة غير الموفّقة أم أن المحتوى المُقدّم فعليًّا لم يرقني..
مُختصر القول: كان عكس توقعاتي..

[Jassmine · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short philosophical introduction into the phenomenon of love and as far as introduction goes, I think it's a good one. However, I listened to it on audio and I have to say that around third chapter it began to be a bit too heavy for the format and I just wasn't able to... absorb most of it.
The whole book starts easily enough (I already knew a lot of the introduced concepts) and continues with the roast of Plato's The Symposium, especially Diotima's philosophy. Which was kind of amusing, but also... I guess I just felt that it was a bit too harsh considering the tight space it got. I also think that some cross-referencing with Phaedrus would be neat since there are some parts that can light the concepts from another angle (I think especially, there is a part about beauty being the... shine of the ideas?). Nevermind, it's just that I think that reading Diotima's part as something that's supposed to be about love is... a bit problematic, the focus is clearly on different aspects. That said, I won't pretend that Sousa's point of view on the issue isn't interesting and I definitely need to think it over more.

However much you invest in pretending otherwise, your child isn’t you. The
good news is that even if you never have children at all, you will still contribute to future life. You will just do so in a more roundabout way, through the maggots and bacteria that will return your flesh to the immortal circle of life.

Sousa's way of delivering some conclusions, however, is absolutely precious and funny in a very specific way, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't find amusing.
The last chapter gets a lot of hate - for defending polyamory and other non-monogamous arrangements. But I absolutely agree with J. Nick Fisk's review that really those people didn't read the whole book properly and didn't understand the whole... thing. This isn't moral philosophy, this book doesn't tell you what you should or shouldn't do. It looks at things open-mindedly and considers all possible factors it could. It simply says that there is no reason why we should consider monogamy inherently better or better for our mental health or whatever. I for one thought it was really interesting, but I don't really want to spend more time on that.

If we are to infer anything from these findings, it can only be, as so often happens, something we probably knew already: love of infants and erotic love are different in some ways, but alike in others, including the property, shared by a number of drugs, of impairing judgment and making us just a little bit more stupid.

No, my issues with the book were of entirely different nature. Sousa consciously really tries to be inclusive. Even though this book is mostly Eurocentric, he sometimes gives us examples from different cultures, is completely supportive of LGBTQ+ community etc. But... and this was a big annoying but for me, his language is extremely gendered. There wouldn't be anything easier than to use at least some gender-neutral language or at least switch the pronouns up a bit, but no - the book is very clearly written by a man who is attracted to women, because every time beloved is specified more closely it's always she, or has feminine name... You would think that as bisexual, this wouldn't bother me, because it this equation I can still attain the position of the lover, but that didn't happen, I just felt the whole time like I had no agency in the dynamic.
I want to make completely clear that this doesn't seem to be the author's intention, it's just that it's a theme that doesn't concern him and he is completely oblivious to the issue.
Overall, this book is quite good, but if you are interested in the subject, I would recommend physical/e-reading, because while the audiobook isn't exactly hard to follow, it can be... hard to follow.

[Jvermeersch · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have wished to find love, and mourned love lost.
Rejoiced in love and resisted love.
And I might never understand what triggers love.

This book sounded promising in being able to provide new insights about love.
Yet be aware: it is an academic philosophical treaty, the type that requires you to reread every sentence. I'd expected an introduction to be written in a more accessible manner. It is not light-informative reading to inspire your daily perspective towards love.

The only parts I did find interesting in this one were chapters 4 and 5. In particular: the concept of historicity: two persons falling in love because of the unique time-and-space-specific dynamics of their individual properties, which may evolve over time while simultaneously staying sufficiently in sync, and creating a reinforced and unique bond thanks to shared memories and shared projects. It makes love a little less random. And still explains why people do or do not continue to match in different life stages. That, and the typologies described in chapter 5.

If you're looking for a more approachable or contemporary treaty on love, though, I would rather suggest 'Essays in Love' by Alain de Botton. I liked (if not loved) that one.

[Aroob alruwaished]

كتاب يطرح تساؤلات ويحلل محاور موضوع الحب بالاستشهاد بعدة مجالات مثل الأدب والفن والتاريخ، تمنيت لو كان الكاتب محايدًا في تناول موضوع الحب، فعل ذلك في البداية ولكن - بنظري - أفسد نهاية الكتاب بطرح وجهات نظره الخاصة، وختم بحثه باقتباس لـ "بليك" مما أفقد البحث جديته وهيبته ككتاب فلسفي تحليلي، إعجابي بالكتاب لا يعني اتفاقي مع وجهات نظر الكاتب، وعدم اتفاقي مع وجهات نظر الكاتب لا يعني عدم إعجابي بالكتاب، أعجبني النصف الأول من الكتاب حيث يطرح الموضوع بشكل محايد ويثري المعلومات ويسرد تاريخ الحب.

[داليا روئيل]

هل الحب كما نفهمه فعلا
كتاب يطرح نظرتنا للحب بصورة جديدة

[lexi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow! So many interesting concepts and ideas explored! Great introduction to the basic psychological and philosophical theories about love. Loved the discussion on monogamy towards the end as well as the interesting yet terrifying concept of love-inducing/anti-love drugs! 💊

A few of my key takeaways/favourite quotes:

“The convention that marriage is a happy ending, also hints that marriage is indeed an ending, which is a kind of death.”

“Love is not an emotion. Think of love as a condition that shapes and governs thoughts.” 💓

“Your conception of love, probably contributes to the very understanding of the happiness by which you judge it.” 💗

“For the best sex, you’re better off avoiding anyone who is in love with you.” 💟

“There is a hint, perhaps that love is inherently estate of unbalance, disruptive and perhaps even unhealthy.” ❤️‍🩹

“But more frequently love is like thirst: it gives you a reason to do things, but in itself seems not to need any reason at all. It is reason-free.” 💘

“It is the process of perpetual change that will preserve the continuity of love.” 💝

[Raedah♥️ · Rating 4 out of 5]

♥️


. ‏" لماذا نشعر عندما نقع في الحب كأنّنا وجدنا بَضْعَة ضائعةً من أنفسنا ، شديدة الخصوصية والتفرّد " ! .
.

كتاب الحب هو مقدمة وجيزة لفلسفة الحب ولكنه في الوقت ذاته كما يُقال أنه اختصر ألفي عام من تفكير الفلاسفة في الحب، و تطرق للحب من ناحية فلسفية عميقة جداً ، ماهيته وما أسبابه وما نهايته . . .

ولقد أجاب عن تساؤلات عديدة قد يطرحها أي أحد منا ويرغب في معرفة تحليلها و ايجاد اجابات لها ،، منها ؛
هل نحن نحب لأسباب ما ؟
ما هي الانفعالات التي تصحب الحب ، وما الذي تدفعنا إلى فعلة ؟
ويزيد حيرتك في تساؤلات و أمور أخرى ! . .

جمييييل .. استطيع القول بأنه أحد الكتب الممتعة بالنسبه ( لي ) كوني انجذب دائما نحو الفلسفة حتى و إن لم أفهمها بشكل كامل !! 🤷🏻‍♀️😬🌝🙆🏻‍♀️

[Gowtham · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are two tragedies in life: the first is not to get what you want; the other is to get it.
~ Oscar Wilde and G. B. Shaw


காதல் பற்றி ஒரு புத்தகம் படிக்க நேர்ந்தது, ஒருவொருவருக்கும் காதலை பற்றி சில அபிப்ராயங்கள் அல்லது கருத்துக்கள் இருக்கும், ஆனால் தத்துவார்த்த ரீதியாக காதலின் அடிப்படை தான் என்ன? காதல் வருவதற்கு காரணங்கள் தேவையா? எத்தனை காதல் இருக்கலாம்? காதலிக்கப்படுபவர்கள் என்ன எதிர்பார்க்கிறார்கள்? ஒரு காதல் எப்படி நிகழ்கிறது? அதில் உள்ள வகைகள் என்னென்ன? போன்றவை பற்றி எல்லாம் விரிவாக பேசுகிறது இந்த “LOVE A Short Introduction” புத்தகம், 140 பக்கங்களில் முடிந்தளவில் முக்கியமான கருத்துக்களை பகிர்ந்துள்ளார் Ronald de Sousa. 


ஒரு காதல் நிகழ்வதற்கு அடிப்படை ஒரு பொருள்(Object), அது எதுவாக வேண்டுமானால் இருக்கலாம் மனிதர்களாக இருக்கலாம், விலங்குகள் அல்லது உயிரற்ற பண்டம் என எதுவானாலும் காதல் மலரும். பயம், வலி, ஆசை, தேவை போலவே காதலும் ஒரு வகையிலான வேண்டுமென்றே நிலை(Intentional State) தான். சுருக்கமாக சொல்வதென்றால் காதலை ஒரு வித மனப்பான்மை(Attitude) என்றும் சொல்லலாம். 


காதல் நிகழ்வதை ஒரு சுழற்சியாக(cycle) கொண்டால் ஆசை- தேடல் -இன்பம்(Desire-pursuit-pleasure) எல்லாம் அதன் தொடர் நிகழ்வுகள் என்று சொல்லலாம். 


காதல் வருவதற்கு எந்த வித காரணமும் இருக்க தேவை இல்ல, தாகம் எடுப்பது போல், வலி ஏற்படுவது போல் காதலும் எந்த காரணமும் இன்றி(Reason-free) நிகழ்வது தான். ஒரு காரணம்(Reason) என்பது அனைவர்க்கும் பொதுவானதாகவும் உலகளாவிய பொதுமை பணப்பை(Universal) கொண்டதாகவும் இருக்கவேண்டும். அனைத்து காதலுக்கும் ஒரே வகை காரணங்கள் இருப்பது இயலாத காரியம் எனவே காதல் காரணங்கள் இன்றி உருவாகிறது. 


 காரணமும் இல்லை என்றால் பிறகு எப்படி காதல் வருகிறது? காதல் வருவதற்கு ஒரு பொருளோ அல்லது நபரோ தேவை, அவற்றை காதலிப்பவரின் இலக்கு அல்லது குறிக்கோள்((Target) என்று சொல்லலாம், அந்த நபரையோ அல்லது பொருளையோ எதனால் பிடிக்கிறது, எந்த அம்சம் உங்களை காதலிக்க  வைத்துள்ளது என்பதை Focal property என்று சொல்லலாம். சிலருக்கு ஒருவரின் புற அழகு(Beauty) பிடித்திருக்கலாம், சிலருக்கு அவர்களின் அறிவுத்திறன்(Intellect) பிடித்திருக்கலாம். எந்த அம்சம் கவனம் ஈர்க்கிறது என்பதே காதல் நிகழ்வதற்கு முக்கிய புள்ளி எனலாம். இவற்றோடு சேர்த்து transference, unconscious memory,pheromones போன்ற  சில காரண செயல்திறன்களும்(Causal efficacy) காதலை ஊக்குவிக்கலாம். 


ஒரே சமயத்திலோ அல்லது வெவ்வேறு சமயங்களிலோ எத்தனை பேர் மீது வேண்டுமானாலும் காதல் வரலாம் ஒருவொரு காதலும் ஒருவொரு வகையில் ஈடுசெய்ய முடியாததாக அல்லது தனித்துவமானதாக இருக்கும். 


கவனிப்பு மற்றும் கவனத்தின் பழக்கங்களை வளர்ப்பதன் மூலமும், பிரச்சனைகளின் போது பரஸ்பர தன்மையினாலும், பொதுவான திட்டமிடல் மற்றும் விளையாட்டில் ஈடுபடுவதன் மூலமும் அன்பு அதிகரிக்க வாய்ப்புள்ளது.இதை வரலாற்றுத்தன்மையில் உருவாகும் காதல் எனலாம்.(historicity of love). ஒரு வகையில் காதல்  இப்படி இருக்கும் பட்சத்தில், கண்டதும் காதல்(Love at first sight) என்கிற பதம் பல்வேறு புற காரணிகளாலும், வேறு சில அக(intrinsic) செயல்பாடுகளிலும் உருவாவதாகும். 


அறிவியல் ரீதியாக பார்த்தல்  காதல் என்பது இனச்சேர்க்கை(Mating) பற்றியது, மற்றும் இனச்சேர்க்கை என்பது மரபணுவை(Gene) அடுத்த தலைமுறைக்கு வெற்றிகரமாக கடத்துவதாகும்(Transfer). 


அறிவியல் பார்வையில் பார்த்தோமானால் பல வகை காதல் இருக்கிறது, காதலின் நிறங்கள்(Colours of love) என்று இவற்றை  வகை படுத்தலாம், இவ�� எல்லாம் ஒன்றோடு ஒன்று இணைந்தும் பல்வேறு வேறுபாடுகளுடனும் இருக்கலாம்.(john alan lee கோட்பாட்டின் அடிப்படையில் )

Agape-  பிறர்மீதான அக்கறை அதிகமாகவும் பாலுணர்வு அற்றும் வரும் காதல்.(96 பட ராமை இதற்கு எடுத்துக்காட்டாக கூறலாம்) 


Pragma- உணர்ச்சி பிணைப்புகளைக் காட்டிலும் ஒரு உறவின் நன்மைகளை கணக்கிடுவதாகும்.(Kumbalangi Nights, saji கதாபாத்திரம்  )


Storge-  இது சிற்றின்ப அன்பின்(Erotic love) ஒரு பகுதியாக இருக்கலாம், பாலுணர்வுக்கு வெளியேயும் இருக்கலாம்.துணை மீதான பாசம் அதிகமாகவும் காமம் குறிப்பிட அளவிலும் இருக்கும். (காதல் கொண்டேன் தனுஷ்)


Eros- இது Love at first sight வகையை சேர்ந்தது, ஏற்கனவே இருக்கும் ஒரு அச்சின்(Mould) வெளிப்பாடாக இந்த காதல் இருக்கும். (பெரும்பாலன தமிழ் சினிமா காதல் கதைகள் இந்த வகையை சேர்ந்தது தான்.)(more about sex)


Mania- உண்மையான காதல் அல்லது காதலில் இருப்பது என்று நினைக்கும் மன நிலை(limerence). Stalking எல்லாம் இந்த வகை காதலின் வெளிப்பாடு தான். (e.g: மன்மதன் திரைப்பட சிம்பு )


Ludus- இந்த வகை காதலர்களுக்கு காதல்  என்பது ஒரு விளையாட்டு. (தீராத விளையாட்டு பிள்ளை திரைப்படம் சிறந்த எடுத்துக்காட்டு.) 


காதலித்து தோல்வி அடைந்தவர்களுக்கு அல்லது காதலித்து கொண்டிருப்பவர்களுக்கும் இதில் எந்த வகையை சேர்வோம் என்று கணிக்க முடிந்திருக்கும். இவை பற்றி  எல்லாம் தெரிந்து வைத்துக்கொள்வது சிறந்தது. 


புத்தகத்தின் இறுதி பகுதி காதலின் நெறிமுறைகள் மற்றும் ஒழுக்கங்கள் பற்றிய  கோட்பாடுகளை விளக்குகிறது. ஒருவரை மற்றும் தான் காதலிக்க வேண்டுமா? ஒரே பாலின காதல் சரியா? பால் புதுமையினர்(LGBTQ+) பற்றிய புரிதல் எவ்வளவு முக்கியம்? என்பன  பற்றியெல்லாம் விளக்கியுள்ளார். இவை பற்றிய தெளிவு நம்மிடையே நடக்கும் உரையாடல்களில் ஒருவித ஆக்கபூர்வ புரிதல்களை உண்டாக்கும். மாறிவரும் சமூக சூழலில், உறவுகளில் ஏற்படும் மாற்றங்களையும் கருத்தில்கொண்டு அதற்கேற்ப நம்மை நாமே புதிப்பித்து கொள்ள வேண்டும்.


 ஒரு காலத்தில் அடிமைத்தனத்தை கடவுள் தான் அனுமதித்தார், இயற்கையாகவே பெண்கள் பலவீனமானவர்கள் என்ற கட்டுக்கதைகள் நிறுவப்பட்டு வந்தன. அதை போலவே காதலிலும் நிறைய பிற்போக்கு சம்பரதாயங்கள் வழக்கத்தில் இருக்கிறது. அத்தகைய புனிதப்படுத்தப்பட்ட கருத்துக்களை உடைத்து, கால சூழலுக்கேற்ப மாறி கொள்வது பகுத்தறிவாகும். 

 

நேசிப்போம் !

மாறிக்கொள்வோம்!

வெள்ளை பூக்கள் மலரட்டும்!

  




 

[Emīls Ozoliņš · Rating 3 out of 5]

At the time of writing, there are at least a few thousand of these Oxford introductions. Seriously, anything you want - from Buddhism to Anarchism to French Cinema, to Birds, maybe, I think but don’t remember precisely. Anyway, anything.*

And thus it feels like this one failed - I was not introduced to love, I was introduced to speculations on some topics regarding love, I was introduced to some musings on what some aspects of love should be, but that was about it.

Not that I expected to finish the book and find out what love is - think if the author managed to do that, that would be, frankly speaking, insane (yet probably the second craziest thing to happen within the last 24 hours - a US presidential candidate got shot in the ear today), but that’s besides the point - for introductions like these, it felt like this one should follow more of a structural pattern than it did, but it also could very well be that I have no idea what I’m talking about. After all, how can you write an Introduction to Love? How do you go about it?
That being said, while I have no alternative approaches to offer, I didn’t necessarily connect with this one.

Not to say it was bad! It was still a fun read, as many of these introductions tend to be. They can be a great starting point - like the one on French Cinema I mentioned earlier. Surely that could be a great gateway to something you might not be very privy to if you’re not French or a cinephile.

*The copy I have says there’s an Introduction to Nothing, as well. So I suppose I’m wrong, technically speaking.

[Mohit Dhanjani · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a balanced book and faithful to its title and framework.

It provides multiple perspectives on Love (from philosophy to science, including natural and social science).

My own experience with love and that of people around me made me contemplate a lot and come up with certain insights. What came as a surprise to me is that it was already well covered in this book in the 'bestowal theory' of love.
Another one, that “mere acquaintance tends to induce liking” was a theory that was in sync with my observations.

References and suggested readings are also quite valuable.

From academic point of view, this is undoubtedly a good book.
But even for personal use this book will play a great role if you are going through a heartache because of love. This book might make you comparatively objective and situate your problem in a wider context, which will ultimately help you resolve some of the issues.
After reading this book, you might find that your problems are so common and general (this part will provide you relief), and nothing is actually unique about your love story (this part might make you a little sad).

Definitely should be read at least once.

[Educalifornia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lo compré en Berlín en 2022 y me lo he acabado a estas alturas porque, aunque es una veryshortintroduction, creo que hay que tomársela con calma... Una vez te acostumbras al inglés "sofisticado", te pide tiempo para ir digiriendo y aplicando (si es el caso).

En el amor hay mucho en juego y ordenar los pensamientos no pasa a menudo.

Quizás tenga que ver con haberlo cerrado en una playa portuguesa, pero este ensayico me ha gustado. Y la portada es bonita.

[I. Mahmood · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Love is selfless; love is selfish. Love is kind; love is cruel. Love is fickle; love is forever. Love is heaven; love is hell. Love is war. Love communes with the divine; love justifies the worst of crimes. Some say God is love--and surely both have much to answer for. Traffic with the divine can be perilous, even for bystanders." ~ Ronald de Sousa.

[Phat Duong · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tình yêu dưới cái nhìn của triết học...

[Jessi ❤️ H. Vojsk [if villain, why hot?] · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting philosophical approach to explain and understand the concepts of love in ancient and modern times.

[Frank Spencer · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I've noted before, these Very Short Introductions seldom if ever disappoint. As the author notes, this one is somewhat disquieting, in that it looks at issues that we usually don't look at. De Sousa shows a mastery of science and literary issues. The copy I got used apparently was formerly in the New York Public Library. How will the NYC residents ever understand love now?

[Linda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Last chapter was simply preaching for polyamorous lifestyle. Would have loved it, if it didn't reek so much like propoganda. Maybe the subject itself provokes a lot of yada-yada-yada.

[Razan Alharbi]

مُثير للتساؤل ، ومُطمئن في بعض المواضع
ماذا لو أن جزمك القاطع بشأن حب أحدهم مجرد وهم أخضعته الظروف؟

[Minervas Owl · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit, I didn’t particularly enjoy reading this book. Partly, that’s because I found it not a good short introduction. Partly, it’s because I disagree with some of the author’s perspectives. However, despite my reservations, the book did prompt me to reflect on my intellectual interest in love from a fresh angle, which I appreciate.

Sousa introduces several insightful ideas. Notably, he argues that love is better understood as a syndrome rather than a single-dimensional phenomenon. I find his definition compelling: love “is a condition that shapes and governs thoughts, desires, emotions, and behaviors around the focal person who is the ‘beloved.’” This holistic view captures the complexity of love more accurately than simplistic definitions.

The author also explores many conflicting and troubling aspects of the social construct of love. For instance, lovers often simultaneously aspire to both consummation and perpetuation of love—a tension that can be difficult to reconcile. Sousa also highlights a darker side of love: the tendency of some to view their beloved as a possession. For these individuals, love carries an implicit proviso: “I want your happiness above all things—provided that I am the one to provide it.”

While the book shines at moments, it falls short as “a very short introduction.” Sousa struggles to offer a clear and satisfying analytical framework. The philosophical “target” approach he introduced feels clumsy and adds little value. Moreover, the book lacks a coherent synthesis of prior research, and its overall structure seems disorganized and lacking in logical flow.

One of the more intriguing sections introduces Helen Fisher’s research, which distinguishes lust, limerence, and attachment as three distinct systems related to love. Drawing on this, Sousa advocates for polygamy as a potential way to navigate the conflicts among these needs. In his vision, polyamorists would recognize the inherently fleeting nature of limerence and strive not to succumb to its disruptive power.

I find this idea unsettling—not because I’m a staunch defender of monogamy’s sanctity, but because I feel Sousa downplays the value of limerence. Can someone truly “play it cool” during limerence, maintaining good relations with both old and new lovers, as if sampling different vegetables to satisfy various nutritional needs? It seems overly dispassionate.

That said, the book did make me realize that a significant part of my intellectual curiosity about love centers on limerence, and I plan to explore this further. In that sense, reading this book was not a waste.

Memorable Quotes:

“When approaching a work of art, you cannot escape classifying it first in terms of a certain genre, period, and style. After that, you hope to be drawn into the endless intricacies of the particular; these are what make the work unique, and they can be appreciated even when they cannot readily be named. That attitude is no less appropriate to the target of love.”

“Love is largely the offspring of chance: in proximity, order of acquaintance, pheromone compatibility, generic influence, and accidents of taste, transference, and habit. And it is none the worse for that.”

(edited with AI assistance)