What do you think?
Rate this book
Sad Love: Romance and the Search for Meaning
As a woman with a husband and other partners, philosopher Carrie Jenkins knows that love is complicated.
Love is most often associated with happiness, satisfaction and pleasure. But it has a darker side we ignore at our peril. Love is often an uncomfortable and difficult feeling. The people we love can let us down badly. And the ways we love are often quite different to the romantic ideals society foists upon us. Since we are inevitably disappointed by love, wouldn’t we be better off without it?
No, says Carrie Jenkins. Instead, we need a new philosophy of love, one that recognizes that the pain and suffering love causes are a natural, even a good part of what makes love worthwhile. What Jenkins calls “sad love” offers no bogus “happy ever afters”. Rather, it tries to find a way properly to integrate heartbreak and disappointment into the lived experience of love.
It’s time we liberated love.
Love is most often associated with happiness, satisfaction and pleasure. But it has a darker side we ignore at our peril. Love is often an uncomfortable and difficult feeling. The people we love can let us down badly. And the ways we love are often quite different to the romantic ideals society foists upon us. Since we are inevitably disappointed by love, wouldn’t we be better off without it?
No, says Carrie Jenkins. Instead, we need a new philosophy of love, one that recognizes that the pain and suffering love causes are a natural, even a good part of what makes love worthwhile. What Jenkins calls “sad love” offers no bogus “happy ever afters”. Rather, it tries to find a way properly to integrate heartbreak and disappointment into the lived experience of love.
It’s time we liberated love.
152 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 16, 2022
37 people are currently reading
883 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
July 2, 2022
Do you ever get that feeling that a book just sees you? That was how I felt reading Sad Love by Carrie Jenkins. Sad Love deconstructs popular notions of happiness and romantic love with Jenkins's characteristic combination of compassion, originality and rigour, challenging us to reconsider our foundational assumptions about what our relationships should even be for. I want everyone to read this book.
July 18, 2025
I really enjoyed her previous book, but I liked this one even more because I felt like it was more philosophically rigorous and conceptually interesting.
I think that the message about shifting our definition of love will resonate with a lot of people because it goes beyond just romantic love.
I think that the message about shifting our definition of love will resonate with a lot of people because it goes beyond just romantic love.
February 22, 2023
Sad love is a misleading title. Good spirited would have been better? I can understand not wanting to call it eudaimonic love, but eudaimonia is such a beautiful concept!
Enjoyed this, but I listened to this conversation first, and probably didn't need to read the book as well.
https://www.vox.com/23375875/sad-love...
1/10 non fiction goal for 2023
Enjoyed this, but I listened to this conversation first, and probably didn't need to read the book as well.
https://www.vox.com/23375875/sad-love...
1/10 non fiction goal for 2023
November 19, 2023
Qué experiencia. Ya me había ganado y acercándose al final empieza a hablar de cómo la compatibilidad de una pareja se entiende en términos de consumo. El amor romántico no se presenta porque lo merezcamos, y tampoco lo puede todo. El guion romántico es un constructo social escrito por el capitalismo. No es eterno ni natural de por sí, y eso no significa que no se pueda disfrutar mientras se tenga.
De nuevo, el capitalismo es el enemigo.
De nuevo, el capitalismo es el enemigo.
October 15, 2023
Ella parte del concepto de amor romántico que busca el felices para siempre. En ese sentido examina qué significa ser feliz y habla sobre cómo el capitalismo ha pasado de mostrarnos la felicidad como un derecho a mostrárnosla como una obligación. Estamos obligados a buscar nuestra felicidad. Así Jenkins propone que en el amor y en la vida debemos esperar y aceptar toda la gama de emociones, no solo la felicidad. La tristeza debe representar en el amor algo distinto al fracaso. Y también muy importante: el amor no es solo una cuestión de cómo nos sentimos, sino de lo que hacemos. Esto hace que el amor se vuelva un acontecimiento lleno de agencia y de posibilidad de cambio y descubrimiento.
Cosas que criticaría:
Es un libro que gana subrayado. Jenkins tiene buenas ideas pero en el desarrollo, éstas pierden potencia, dejan de ser tan radicales. Por ejemplo, hace crítica del capitalismo pero en ningún momento imagina un afuera del capitalismo. O cuando hace crítica al amor romántico el ejemplo que pone es el de la relación monógama heterosexual con hijos. Es decir, la familia nuclear. Le tiene mucha rabia a las familias nucleares. Y justo creo que la diferencia de edad entre ella y yo hace que esta idea de la «familia nuclear contra la que hay que luchar» me resulte muy lejana, porque nadie de mi edad está formando ese tipo de uniones. Ahí la siento un poco viejuna. jeje.
Pero sigo opinando lo mismo. Sus hipótesis podrían ser lemas increíbles que te lanzan a pensar. Como lemas sesentayochistas. Eso me encanta. Jenkins me ha ayudado a pensar a través de estos lemas mi idea de los amores y eso ha sido precioso.
Cosas que criticaría:
Es un libro que gana subrayado. Jenkins tiene buenas ideas pero en el desarrollo, éstas pierden potencia, dejan de ser tan radicales. Por ejemplo, hace crítica del capitalismo pero en ningún momento imagina un afuera del capitalismo. O cuando hace crítica al amor romántico el ejemplo que pone es el de la relación monógama heterosexual con hijos. Es decir, la familia nuclear. Le tiene mucha rabia a las familias nucleares. Y justo creo que la diferencia de edad entre ella y yo hace que esta idea de la «familia nuclear contra la que hay que luchar» me resulte muy lejana, porque nadie de mi edad está formando ese tipo de uniones. Ahí la siento un poco viejuna. jeje.
Pero sigo opinando lo mismo. Sus hipótesis podrían ser lemas increíbles que te lanzan a pensar. Como lemas sesentayochistas. Eso me encanta. Jenkins me ha ayudado a pensar a través de estos lemas mi idea de los amores y eso ha sido precioso.
December 19, 2022
Sad Love is less cohesive than Ms. Jenkins' first book. She describes it as scraps assembled by an intellectual magpie. This lack of cohesion contributed to its being ultimately unconvincing. It was hard to understand what eudaimonic love is and see how and why it should replace romantic love (the central thesis). For example, why should it not be just recognized as another kind of love one should strive for? Why not add another word rather than attempting to replace an existing usage? Replacing usage seems heavy-handed and prone to generating misunderstanding. ("When I said I loved you, it meant that you are good for me and society, not that I'm passionately obsessed with you.")
That said, the scraps are lovely. I especially enjoyed her discussion of the aphorism that the best things in life are free.
That said, the scraps are lovely. I especially enjoyed her discussion of the aphorism that the best things in life are free.
July 5, 2022
Lose love, gain meaning (and love). In the battle of Nature vs Nurture, here's some nurture that doesn't require throwing your brain out. Evolutionary Psychology getting you down? Try Social Evolution. Your genes won't change, but humanity's expression might. Here's hoping.
The ideas: 5 stars. The editing: 2 stars. I'm going to pretend this was edited well because I really appreciate this author. I don't agree with everything she wrote, but I don't think she'd want me to.
The ideas: 5 stars. The editing: 2 stars. I'm going to pretend this was edited well because I really appreciate this author. I don't agree with everything she wrote, but I don't think she'd want me to.
October 26, 2022
The book that might save us all
October 9, 2025
Jenkins has definitely been thoroughly steeped in the critical theory that is so prevalent in academia. While I think wokeness is largely toxic and harmful for the minorities and society, and that it is racist to the core, I still think she does make some good points on love, and sometimes maintains balance.
I do want to comment on an example of when her ideology and leftist dogma fully overrode reason and reality. In part because I have heard this sentiment (presented as an absolute fact) repeated from left-wing academics a lot. They have an article of faith, and I am just so tired of hearing them express it like a creed. If only critical theorists would actually exercise some critical thinking (but of course, critical thinking itself is like "white" and oppressive and problematic)
So yes, critical theory seems to assume that any and all differences and disparities between the haves and have-nots are ONLY, and I mean ONLY, due to systemic racism, sexism, ableism, etc... and that meritocracy is a toxic myth (merit NEVER has any role at all, in the grades you get, the jobs you work, in success, etc... NOT at all, and NEVER. It is pure myth). So the idea that anyone in America could actually improve their situation (outside of the government fixing things) is a myth. Wealth and power are purely due to privilege and power, and the poor minorities are utterly hopeless to better their lot in the West. Anyone who dares to suggest the idea that behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs increase the chances of bettering yourself is supporting the evil hegemony of white males who rigged the system to support their wealth and power.
If you are a minority and think that hard work, forming supportive communities, being honest, having grit, trying again and again, and giving other people the benefit of the doubt might increase your chances in America, you have false consciousness. The only hope for the poor and historically marginalized people is for the Western capitalist system to be destroyed, and for the state to determine every aspect of life--enforcing inclusion, equity and diversity. Any talk of self-improvement is simply trying to delude people with false hopes--to keep them poor and disadvantaged. To act like merit has any role at all is to suggest that systemic racism, sexism, and white privilege are not the true cause of all the evils in society. It is meant to distract people from the TRUE issues and keep them oppressed.
But, while it is a myth that things like a strong work ethic, being nice, honest, and having a lot of grit GUARANTEE success, it is patently absurd to claim they do nothing, or to pretend that they don't sometimes help people, for they do. Also, while the size of the pool of poor, middle class, and rich in America remains similar, I have heard it is a fact that there is a TON of movement between these categories (up and down). It is a fact that a lot of people move from poverty to the middle class. From the rich down to the middle class, and from the middle class to the rich, and from the middle class to the poor. While clearly the Secret, Disney's wishing on a star, and the rest take it too far, there is a reason millions have sought to immigrate to America. While it is not guaranteed, still, millions of immigrants have been working against incredible odds and have become successful in America
Jenkins just echoes the left-wing propaganda and acts like this does not happen, ever.
It seems those who imbibe Critical theory do not want the poor minorities to improve their lot within the capitalist system; they need the minorities to be miserable, to feel oppressed, and to be continuously angry, full of rage, for only then will they tear the mother effing thing to the ground. If they actually were content, found joy within their life, and possibly improved their situation, would they actually fight? Would they help bring in the glorious revolution? No... they must thus be made to feel everything it is rigged against them, they need to feel hopeless, they must be told to mistrust everyone, and to develop learned helplessness, for otherwise, they might not tear down the white, straight hetronormative, abelist, and capitalistic hegemony that keeps them oppressed.
Sadly, in the meantime, the historically marginalized are the biggest victims--they are hurt the most by this. If white progressives help to trigger a revolution and usher in the dictatorship of the antiracist, to reorder society based upon identity, and grievance--I highly doubt things will be any better for anyone but the powerful elite who now truly would get to rig the system.
I do want to comment on an example of when her ideology and leftist dogma fully overrode reason and reality. In part because I have heard this sentiment (presented as an absolute fact) repeated from left-wing academics a lot. They have an article of faith, and I am just so tired of hearing them express it like a creed. If only critical theorists would actually exercise some critical thinking (but of course, critical thinking itself is like "white" and oppressive and problematic)
So yes, critical theory seems to assume that any and all differences and disparities between the haves and have-nots are ONLY, and I mean ONLY, due to systemic racism, sexism, ableism, etc... and that meritocracy is a toxic myth (merit NEVER has any role at all, in the grades you get, the jobs you work, in success, etc... NOT at all, and NEVER. It is pure myth). So the idea that anyone in America could actually improve their situation (outside of the government fixing things) is a myth. Wealth and power are purely due to privilege and power, and the poor minorities are utterly hopeless to better their lot in the West. Anyone who dares to suggest the idea that behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs increase the chances of bettering yourself is supporting the evil hegemony of white males who rigged the system to support their wealth and power.
If you are a minority and think that hard work, forming supportive communities, being honest, having grit, trying again and again, and giving other people the benefit of the doubt might increase your chances in America, you have false consciousness. The only hope for the poor and historically marginalized people is for the Western capitalist system to be destroyed, and for the state to determine every aspect of life--enforcing inclusion, equity and diversity. Any talk of self-improvement is simply trying to delude people with false hopes--to keep them poor and disadvantaged. To act like merit has any role at all is to suggest that systemic racism, sexism, and white privilege are not the true cause of all the evils in society. It is meant to distract people from the TRUE issues and keep them oppressed.
But, while it is a myth that things like a strong work ethic, being nice, honest, and having a lot of grit GUARANTEE success, it is patently absurd to claim they do nothing, or to pretend that they don't sometimes help people, for they do. Also, while the size of the pool of poor, middle class, and rich in America remains similar, I have heard it is a fact that there is a TON of movement between these categories (up and down). It is a fact that a lot of people move from poverty to the middle class. From the rich down to the middle class, and from the middle class to the rich, and from the middle class to the poor. While clearly the Secret, Disney's wishing on a star, and the rest take it too far, there is a reason millions have sought to immigrate to America. While it is not guaranteed, still, millions of immigrants have been working against incredible odds and have become successful in America
Jenkins just echoes the left-wing propaganda and acts like this does not happen, ever.
It seems those who imbibe Critical theory do not want the poor minorities to improve their lot within the capitalist system; they need the minorities to be miserable, to feel oppressed, and to be continuously angry, full of rage, for only then will they tear the mother effing thing to the ground. If they actually were content, found joy within their life, and possibly improved their situation, would they actually fight? Would they help bring in the glorious revolution? No... they must thus be made to feel everything it is rigged against them, they need to feel hopeless, they must be told to mistrust everyone, and to develop learned helplessness, for otherwise, they might not tear down the white, straight hetronormative, abelist, and capitalistic hegemony that keeps them oppressed.
Sadly, in the meantime, the historically marginalized are the biggest victims--they are hurt the most by this. If white progressives help to trigger a revolution and usher in the dictatorship of the antiracist, to reorder society based upon identity, and grievance--I highly doubt things will be any better for anyone but the powerful elite who now truly would get to rig the system.
May 26, 2023
In the romantic framework we talk about “falling" in love, as if it were something that simply happened to us, like falling into a pit. Or being struck by a bolt of lightning (another common romantic metaphor). In eudaimonic love we choose our own way, guided by what makes our lives and our projects meaningful. Such choices are constrained by circumstances and the choices of others, but I understand these constraints by analogy with the role of constraints in artistic creativity.
I also think we would do well to stop thinking so much about whether our partners "make us happy" and focus instead on whether they lovingly collaborate with us in the co-creation of meaningful work, and of our selves.
It might be other people, it might be a work of art, it might be a career. What exactly it was didn't matter so much; there just had to be something that pointed beyond the narrow horizons of the individual. Frankl says that "a man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears towards a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life.”
Eudaimonic love is emphatically dynamic, not static like romantic love. The daimon of a loving relationship must be understood as something that grows and changes, like a living creature. Something that is impacted by its environment. Eudaimonic love is also not defined by any particular kinds of feelings or emotions, and this means it has room for the full gamut of human emotional potential. If we achieve eudaimonic love, happiness ever after might ensue, or it might not. If it doesn't, it's OK, because happiness is no longer the point. Sad love is not necessarily a failure condition. Sadness - and other "negative" emotions - can be a legitimate part of one's love story.
The diversity of human love will not be forced into a narrow channel. It is overflowing everywhere.
Only when we take off the rose-tinted spectacles - something many "healthy" people will not and perhaps cannot do - can we see people as they really are. And only then can we love them as they really are: I cannot love someone if I see only an idealized, distorted version of them, because in that case I do not know the person I purport to love.
Anger doesn't feel nice. It's not a positive emotion or a happy state. Anger is excluded from the picture in "happy ever after" love. But it absolutely can be a part of eudaimonia, and of eudaimonic love. Eudaimonic love is not defined by any emotion, "negative" or "positive." Instead, it includes the full range of human emotion within its scope. All emotions have their role in a good-spirited life and in a good-spirited relationship.
For what it's worth, this is my best guess as to what wisdom consists in: the smooth and seamless integration of rationality with emotion.
I also think we would do well to stop thinking so much about whether our partners "make us happy" and focus instead on whether they lovingly collaborate with us in the co-creation of meaningful work, and of our selves.
It might be other people, it might be a work of art, it might be a career. What exactly it was didn't matter so much; there just had to be something that pointed beyond the narrow horizons of the individual. Frankl says that "a man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears towards a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life.”
Eudaimonic love is emphatically dynamic, not static like romantic love. The daimon of a loving relationship must be understood as something that grows and changes, like a living creature. Something that is impacted by its environment. Eudaimonic love is also not defined by any particular kinds of feelings or emotions, and this means it has room for the full gamut of human emotional potential. If we achieve eudaimonic love, happiness ever after might ensue, or it might not. If it doesn't, it's OK, because happiness is no longer the point. Sad love is not necessarily a failure condition. Sadness - and other "negative" emotions - can be a legitimate part of one's love story.
The diversity of human love will not be forced into a narrow channel. It is overflowing everywhere.
Only when we take off the rose-tinted spectacles - something many "healthy" people will not and perhaps cannot do - can we see people as they really are. And only then can we love them as they really are: I cannot love someone if I see only an idealized, distorted version of them, because in that case I do not know the person I purport to love.
Anger doesn't feel nice. It's not a positive emotion or a happy state. Anger is excluded from the picture in "happy ever after" love. But it absolutely can be a part of eudaimonia, and of eudaimonic love. Eudaimonic love is not defined by any emotion, "negative" or "positive." Instead, it includes the full range of human emotion within its scope. All emotions have their role in a good-spirited life and in a good-spirited relationship.
For what it's worth, this is my best guess as to what wisdom consists in: the smooth and seamless integration of rationality with emotion.
Read
August 18, 2023Ehhh this was a mid-read for me, mostly because I felt the book was all over the place. However, I do feel Jenkin is passion tho.
I only recommend this book if you don't know the different between 'happy', 'contentment', 'choice' and if you go to UBC.
I have been waiting a while to read this book mostly because Carrie Jenkins is a professor at UBC. She teaches in the Department of Philosophy and, apparently, the theory she presents is 'unique'. The goal of this book is the attempt to build a conceptual mirror, she is trying to reflect back to 'ourselves' the ideas and ideals of romantic love. From my understanding, the theory of sad love is eudemonic love. She described philosophy as an imaginary tool to view and examine the world. Deflecting and detracting from our images of romantic love. Carrie disclaims that she lives/lived with depression so the way looking for 'Happiness' was never sustainable.
She dissolves the idea of Eudemonia which essential is 'being surrounded by good spirits', good people, healthy environment, positive influences, supportive communities and networks.
She also presents her theory on 'Happiness' : !! The flow state is happiness !! -Not fame or fortune. & joy, Interest, contentment, love. Positive emotions are a shared collective & surrounding ourselves with people
Overall, I think the purpose of this book was to strip Happiness from Love. & present a new theory of romance : polyamorous love -Which has been around for centuries so idk why people were so offended when Jenkins mentions her love.
Beloved quotes : "Feeling good enables us to live in a more expansive manner and allows us to desire to learn more about the world." & "A healthy relationship is something dynamic, that changes and grows over time, along with the people in it. When that stops happening the creature is no longer alive."
I only recommend this book if you don't know the different between 'happy', 'contentment', 'choice' and if you go to UBC.
I have been waiting a while to read this book mostly because Carrie Jenkins is a professor at UBC. She teaches in the Department of Philosophy and, apparently, the theory she presents is 'unique'. The goal of this book is the attempt to build a conceptual mirror, she is trying to reflect back to 'ourselves' the ideas and ideals of romantic love. From my understanding, the theory of sad love is eudemonic love. She described philosophy as an imaginary tool to view and examine the world. Deflecting and detracting from our images of romantic love. Carrie disclaims that she lives/lived with depression so the way looking for 'Happiness' was never sustainable.
She dissolves the idea of Eudemonia which essential is 'being surrounded by good spirits', good people, healthy environment, positive influences, supportive communities and networks.
She also presents her theory on 'Happiness' : !! The flow state is happiness !! -Not fame or fortune. & joy, Interest, contentment, love. Positive emotions are a shared collective & surrounding ourselves with people
Overall, I think the purpose of this book was to strip Happiness from Love. & present a new theory of romance : polyamorous love -Which has been around for centuries so idk why people were so offended when Jenkins mentions her love.
Beloved quotes : "Feeling good enables us to live in a more expansive manner and allows us to desire to learn more about the world." & "A healthy relationship is something dynamic, that changes and grows over time, along with the people in it. When that stops happening the creature is no longer alive."
December 23, 2025
Siempre me he cuestionado porque el amor romántico parece ser un eje central en la vida de los seres humanos.
En este ensayo puede replantearme acerca de la felicidad, un amor eudaimonico, en lugar de uno hedonico y que en lugar de buscar a alguien desde una perspectiva capitalista de "propiedad", mercado de opciones o que se vuelva la relación más fundamental o central, sería más sano buscar con quién cocrear o construir.
Logré reflexionar acerca de muchas perspectivas adquiridas desde que somos niños, de esa visión de Disney, del cuento de hadas o felices para siempre. Hay cuestiones como el poli amor que no llegan a calarme del todo, pero supongo que no es una regla sino algo que le funciona a cada individuo y no creo que pueda juzgar algo que nunca he experimentado.
En este ensayo puede replantearme acerca de la felicidad, un amor eudaimonico, en lugar de uno hedonico y que en lugar de buscar a alguien desde una perspectiva capitalista de "propiedad", mercado de opciones o que se vuelva la relación más fundamental o central, sería más sano buscar con quién cocrear o construir.
Logré reflexionar acerca de muchas perspectivas adquiridas desde que somos niños, de esa visión de Disney, del cuento de hadas o felices para siempre. Hay cuestiones como el poli amor que no llegan a calarme del todo, pero supongo que no es una regla sino algo que le funciona a cada individuo y no creo que pueda juzgar algo que nunca he experimentado.
July 14, 2023
Read half of this book, then got dissapointed that there weren't a lot of new concepts for me, so paused it for a couple of months before finishing it.
It is a good book; found the maximiser/satisficer concepts something to reflect on (then dove into researching these concepts under cbt). The eudaimonia idea (and if that is something to pursue through romantic relationships) was also interesting.
It was refreshing to see a polyam perspective in a book that is not 100% polyamory-related, but as a tangential identity that influences one's lived experiences and ideology.
It is a good book; found the maximiser/satisficer concepts something to reflect on (then dove into researching these concepts under cbt). The eudaimonia idea (and if that is something to pursue through romantic relationships) was also interesting.
It was refreshing to see a polyam perspective in a book that is not 100% polyamory-related, but as a tangential identity that influences one's lived experiences and ideology.
July 13, 2023
Although the concept of eudaemonic love was new for me, the rest of the book seemed to take a lot of what I’d already been thinking, and organise it into a more coherent whole, like pieces that didn’t used to fit anywhere now had a place to hang out. I loved this book.
September 3, 2024
El amor se relaciona siempre con la felicidad, y aún así es más común que “love is blue”, y que “love hurts”, vivimos en la paradoja del amor, que mientras más expectativas tenemos más nos sentimos insatisfechos.
La filósofa canadiense Carrie Jenkins aborda las diferentes artistas de este controversial tema. Nos presenta algunas hipótesis del porque percibimos que el amor es triste, centrándose en las expectativas que las canciones, las películas, incluso los libros han reproducido, creando el arquetipo del amor único y monógamo que dura toda la vida, atribuyendo que está relacionado también con la belleza eterna, y creando mitos alrededor del sentimiento, se asocia que amor es igual a felices pasa siempre.
El matrimonio se convierte no solo en un contrato anhelado, la gente involucrada se siente con derechos como si hubiera comprado a la otra persona, lo cual suele decaer en celos, y esto a su vez en violencia.
Por otro lado sentirnos tristes es inherente de los seres humanos y no es sinónimo de ser fracasados.
La filósofa se centra en mayor medida en el amor erótico pero recuerda que existen otros como el amor filial o el amor patriótico, en los cuales también se sufre de desencantos
Un interesante y divertido ensayo porque el buen humor tampoco está peleado con lo filosófico.
La filósofa canadiense Carrie Jenkins aborda las diferentes artistas de este controversial tema. Nos presenta algunas hipótesis del porque percibimos que el amor es triste, centrándose en las expectativas que las canciones, las películas, incluso los libros han reproducido, creando el arquetipo del amor único y monógamo que dura toda la vida, atribuyendo que está relacionado también con la belleza eterna, y creando mitos alrededor del sentimiento, se asocia que amor es igual a felices pasa siempre.
El matrimonio se convierte no solo en un contrato anhelado, la gente involucrada se siente con derechos como si hubiera comprado a la otra persona, lo cual suele decaer en celos, y esto a su vez en violencia.
Por otro lado sentirnos tristes es inherente de los seres humanos y no es sinónimo de ser fracasados.
La filósofa se centra en mayor medida en el amor erótico pero recuerda que existen otros como el amor filial o el amor patriótico, en los cuales también se sufre de desencantos
Un interesante y divertido ensayo porque el buen humor tampoco está peleado con lo filosófico.
February 9, 2025
Me lo compré en un momento de mi vida en el que estaba pasando por un desamor. Me encantó este libro por su manera de explicar el significado del amor en relación a cómo nos lo ha vendido el sistema desde pequeños y te muestra otro significado al amor mucho más profundo.
March 21, 2023
This book definitely needs to go on society’s to-read list!
November 28, 2023
not a good book. would not recc
February 3, 2025
This was the conception of love that I've been looking for my whole life! Reading this felt like a breakthrough.
December 4, 2025
No sé si fui yo, el momento en el que lo leí o qué sucedió pero me pareció absurdamente redundante. Explica lo mismo una y otra vez y tarda mucho en dar su punto de vista final. Creo que tenía una expectativa muy alta tipo “El fin del amor: querer y coger en el siglo XXI” de Tamara Tenenbaum y pues no, no me terminó de atrapar ni convencer. Tal vez habrá que leer otro de ella o tal vez habrá que retomarlo en algunos años.
December 12, 2022
An existentialist critique of the notion of romantic love as defined by a consumerist capitalist monogamist culture as something that happens to you and is a happily ever after. Also a critique of behavioral economics, mindfulness, the patriarchy, nuclear families, dating apps, behavioral neuroscience , toxic positivity, "knowing yourself" among other things. Like all existentialist writing, great thoughts, no cohesion.
PS: Great footnotes, she's read everything and it shows
PS: Great footnotes, she's read everything and it shows
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews