What Love Is E–book/E–pub


  • Hardcover
  • 224
  • What Love Is
  • Carrie S.I. Jenkins
  • English
  • 20 July 2019
  • 9780465098859

10 thoughts on “What Love Is E–book/E–pub

  1. says: What Love Is E–book/E–pub FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins

    What Love Is E–book/E–pub I had high hopes for this one Carrie Jenkins—an analytic metaphysician with a background in mathematical logic—writing on an obviously impo

  2. says: REVIEW What Love Is What Love Is E–book/E–pub

    What Love Is E–book/E–pub This is the book you all have been asking for A thoughtful pamphlet on a subject of great interest to many of us

  3. says: FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD What Love Is E–book/E–pub

    What Love Is E–book/E–pub Is love purely biological? Is it just a social construct? Is it both? Is it a mystery better left unexplored? University of British Columbia philosophy professor Carrie Jenkins delves into this thing called love with an open mind and heart and encourages us to explore it for ourselves As she says love is an extreme sport with the ability to

  4. says: REVIEW What Love Is FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD

    What Love Is E–book/E–pub Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD As a long time practitioner of non monogamy it is so refreshing to delve into a book with a philosophical focus rather than a pragmatic one Jenkins handles the deconstruction of romantic love thoroughly courageously and with a touch of humor Regardless of one's relationship format this book provides a wonderfu

  5. says: What Love Is E–book/E–pub REVIEW What Love Is

    What Love Is E–book/E–pub REVIEW What Love Is As deliberately obtuse as works of philosophy can be What Love Is is a refreshingly accessible and fun read Carrie Jenkins explores romantic love what it is how it has evolved and what it can become Starting with the rather sparse coverage love has gotten from the philosophical cannon Carrie Jenkins also explo

  6. says: REVIEW What Love Is FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD

    What Love Is E–book/E–pub REVIEW What Love Is Fascinating digestible philosophy what could I ask? Jenkins introduces philosophical tools and concepts through the engaging topic of love The flow of her argument gently guided me into deep waters while providing ample support to understand how I could take apart the artifacts of my own life to examine love as a human construction and a biological reality An excellent read all around

  7. says: FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins What Love Is E–book/E–pub Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD

    REVIEW What Love Is What Love Is E–book/E–pub If you already have at least on a theoretical level uestioned the cultural norm of monogamy and are familiar with the basic idea of social constructionism “What love is” won’t probably be a world view changing experience for you

  8. says: What Love Is E–book/E–pub FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD

    What Love Is E–book/E–pub Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins Check out my review at LA Review of Books

  9. says: What Love Is E–book/E–pub REVIEW What Love Is

    FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD What Love Is E–book/E–pub I like Carrie Jenkins From her book she seems nice smart thoughtful and genuinely humble and open to discussing

  10. says: What Love Is E–book/E–pub REVIEW What Love Is

    FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins Carrie S.I. Jenkins · 0 FREE DOWNLOAD What Love Is E–book/E–pub impressively accessible philosophy Carrie is a wonderful writer and I sped through this book in one weekend the subject matter is fascinating as well as being timely and practically important written from a feminist point

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What Love Is

FREE DOWNLOAD É What Love Is Ontinue to evolve in the future Full of anecdotal cultural and scientific reflections on love What Love Is is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand what it means to say “I love you” Whether young or old gay or straight male or female polyamorous or monogamous this book will help each of us decide for ourselves how we choose to love. I like Carrie Jenkins From her book she seems nice smart thoughtful and genuinely humble and open to discussing things I also think she s very brave to be so open about her polyamorous life and difficulties and for enduring the trolls she no doubt has to encounter constantlyBut while her book certainly makes some good arguments and raises some good points it s also pushing a particular agenda really hard which she s never explicit enough about making this entire enterprise somewhat unconvincingI Two uses of wonderMaybe a good place to begin is the epigraph right at the beginning of the bookThis sense of wonder is the mark of the philosopher Philosophy indeed has no other origin and he was a good genealogist who made Iris the daughter of Thaumas Plato TheaetetusThis is beautiful but it s also ambivalent You can either read it as saying wonder is the origin of philosophy or that it is the nature of a philosopher to possess and revel in a sense of wonder These don t have to be mutually exclusive but the first opens up the possibility of a field of inuiry that aims to simply answer all the uestions dot each i and cross each t and bring an end to sense of wonder Meanwhile the latter seeks to inuire into but not disrupt the wonderous nature of what s being studiedJenkins seems to fall solidly within the first campThe romantic mystiue as I see it has a lot in common with the feminine mystiue The romantic mystiue tells us that romantic love is also mysterious and intuitive and close to the creation and origin of life yet special and wonderful partly for that very reason The romantic mystiue likewise encourages us to accept love s nature passively and uncomprehendingly instead of trying to resist or alter it It is a disempowering ideology that celebrates ignorance and acuiescenceAndIsn t there something intellectually comforting about the idea that science can finally tell us what love really is Isn t it reassuring to think we might finally get some answers through the application of tried and trusted experimental methods to our deepest and most perplexing uestions about love It is to meI raise this in part to point out a difference in how she and I approach love but this also becomes a serious problem for her later as I ll argue belowII On biology a little that s good and a lot that s misleadingThe first part of the book is pretty great and it involves her noticing and trying to deal with both the biological and social dimensions of love She points out that we all have brains with their basic chemistry pretty much constant throughout human history and so we should take what science tells us seriously But there is a need to be careful about what science actually tells us and not let our biased assumptions let us read what we want into the scientific resultsShe points out for instance that Helen Fisher argues that bipedalism in humans meant women had to carry children in their arms instead of on their backs and this made them vulnerable creating the need for a protective mate In response Jenkins points out that Fisher herself estimates that the bipedalism evolved some 35 million years ago while romantic love arose only 18 to 1 million years ago This suggests that women managed just fine for at least 15 million years in the middle without this need for a mate She also points out that there might have been many other solutions to this need including the creation of a sling and cooperative child rearing I don t find these entirely convincing pointing to counterfactual possibilities doesn t mean something didn t actually happen but Jenkins does kick up enough dust to render the imperialistic reductive biological views of love suspectBut Jenkins still wants to hold on to a biological understanding of love and far as I can see this means just acknowledging that specific hormones like dopamine oxytocin vasopressin and cortisol are released when people feel attraction to each other She argues that if we ignore this biological basis for love and hold on to only a social conception then lots of phenomena would be hard to explainShe proposes her own account of how love should be seen as both biological and socialI propose a new theory of romantic love At its core is the idea that romantic love has a dual nature it is ancient biological machinery embodying a modern social roleIts social function is to take as input the attraction and affection that arises between adults and produce as output something resembling the nucleus of a nuclear familyShe offers the metaphor of seeing an actor play a character and how we re able to juggle between thinking about the actor and the character without thinking we re failing to understand something Similarly she wants us to recognize both the social and biological perspectives as joint Unfortunately when you think about her particular definition a particular criticism she makes of others appears to apply to her tooThe third common strategy is simply to state that love is both biology and society without doing anything to resolve the appearance of contradiction this createsTo see why I think this applies to her consider one of her examples she gives that she thinks shows love s biological natureConsider for example the situation of a lesbian couple in late nineteenth century England Suppose they are in love biologically speaking the parts of their brains associated with romantic love are active and they are under the influence of oxytocin dopamine and so on But social norms severely curtail their ability to engage in any of the kinds of bonding associated with romantic loveAccording to this the biological aspects of love like hormone hits are culturally independent they ll always be present regardless of social conditions She pretty clearly wants to use this framework to advocate for accepting polyamory too because polyamorous people also would presumably be feeling love without being able to act upon itBut homosexuality is clearly not the only example that can be brought up In an incredibly racist society for example we can reasonably expect a lot of people from different races who would have felt attraction in non racist societies to not feel love This suggests that the relationship between the social and biological is complex that she s willing to let on because the social can affect the biological itself even if imperfectly This suggests that her view of love doesn t really seem as robust as we might initially thinkMoreover even if we think homosexuality is somehow hard wired and immutable the case for bisexuals and the polyamorous is far from settled So when she saysIn the same way as homosexuality society s insistence on the one true love forever model can t and won t shut down the neurochemistry of all the people who fall in love with a new person after promising themselves to an existing partner or of all the people who grow bored of long term monogamous romance with their spouses We can keep trying to retrain the biological actor by diagnosing these individuals with a medical problem and attempting to cure their desire for others or their chronic boredom Or we can reconsider the failing social normIt really is dishonest because even if it can t shut down the neurochemistry of all people it might for many or even most We simply don t know if the number of people who would even feel love non monogomously within the norm of lifelong monogamy would be the same as the number in a culture without the norm of lifelong monogamy Her argument is made exceptionally weak when she claims that high and rising divorce rates suggest that the one true love forever model is not sustainable as a universal norm since the divorce rate peaked decades ago and has been falling although non continuously since She s clearly pushing an agenda which would be fine if she weren t doing it misleadingly Ultimately while I think it s good for philosophers to clarify the relationship between the social and biological I really don t know whether Jenkins has taken us forward in anywayIII Is that all love isJenkins claims to be a metaphysician so I assumed that her conception of love asancient biological machinery embodying a modern social roleIts social function is to take as input the attraction and affection that arises between adults and produce as output something resembling the nucleus of a nuclear familywas an account of what love really is But this immediately poses a problem When someone says I love you to another person are they really saying my ancient biological machinery wants to embody a modern social role which will eventually output a nuclear family This indicates that Jenkins is trying to give an understanding of love which is supposed to better analyze love that the traditional first person way But this means leaving out of her analysis valuable aspects of love that might not be visible when considering only the third person biological and socialSo while she mentions the union viewNozick was also philosophically interested in romantic love which he thought of as a desire for a certain kind of union with another personRussell himself doesn t explicitly say union is the defining characteristic of love but he certainly thinks it is one of love s important features he writes that love breaks down the hard walls of the ego producing a new being composed of two in one He acknowledges the fear of losing one s own individuality in the process of becoming part of a new being but he calls this fear foolish since individuality is not an end in itself and the loss of separateness is actually reuired for a satisfying life Love for Russell is the best thing that life has to give she immediately ignores this union view and jumps into a criticism of the last line alone according to which love is necessary for a good lifeThis sentiment might sound sweet even cute But it s not A word recently coined by philosopher Elizabeth Brake describes Russell s attitude here amatonormativity Amatonormativity says that romantic love is the normal or ideal condition for a human life so lives that don t include it are imperfect or abnormal Russell s amatonormative attitude becomes especially pronounced when he says that those who haven t experienced mutual sexual love cannot attain their full stature and cannot feel towards the rest of the world that kind of generous warmth without which their social activities are pretty sure to be harmful He says The resulting disappointment inclines them towards envy oppression and cruelty This is a horrible and untrue thing to say There s two things to note here The first is that Jenkins has completely evaded the pretty strong point that a valuable aspect of love is union a disruption of the lonely and separate sense of self She might want to argue that multiple unions are possible maybe because the psyche is fragmented and context variant or that a single union isn t as valuable as it s made out to be But by ignoring it she ignores a pretty big part of what people think makes love valuable This later lets her say stuff likeRomantic love has always been intimately connected with the idea that people especially women are a kind of private property It has been a powerful tool in the enforcement of class structures racist segregation and homophobic oppression Are we sure we want to keep it aroundbut the only reason this even sounds plausible in context is because she s left out everything good about love There are other books which attack love for example Against Love A Polemic but Kipnis admits that hers is a polemic right on the cover Jenkins just portrays her book as an exercise in critical thinking out loud so she can t just use that excuseSecond Russel s claim about the necessity of love to a good life might be too strong but there s a perfectly legitimate view according to which all things being eual a life with love is better without Or even stronger a life without love is very likely to be not good As Hairspray teaches us without love life is like the seasons with no summer and life is rock n roll without a drummer If these are also amatonormative positions they might still be horrible but not necessarily untrue Jenkins needs to actually make her caseIV A consumerist loveTo return to the initial section the reason I think Jenkins removal of wonder entirely from love is bad is because without a sense of smallness of respecting the givenness of love there is bound to be a drive to mastery See The Case Against Perfection Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering for this general argument It shows when Jenkins lays out her view of loveI think we are capable of striking the necessary balance of change vs caution changing what needs to change without destroying romantic love entirely Here s how Romantic love at the social level could have the function of taking as input attraction and affection between adults not necessarily a particular number or of particular genders and outputting intimate bonds and relationships that are special and significant in people s lives Optional add ons can then include sex kids home building family building agreeing not to enter into other relationships caring for a dog together writing love poems whatever floats the boat of the people in the boat These optional extras would work like a buffet people would be free to decide on the features they wanted in their own relationships without facing stigma for what they did or didn t choose And they would be free to switch it up over time going back to the buffet to add something new to their plates or remove something they didn t likeThissounds pretty bleak to me The idea that love can involve a union greater than its parts something that aims to be a common framework joining people that is accepted as binding and can be taken for granted while the people within it grow together is all lost The sentiment that Joan Didion expresses at the death of her husband would be impossible under this understandingThis will not be a story in which the death of the husband or wife becomes what amounts to the credit seuence for a new life a catalyst for the discovery that a point typically introduced in such accounts by the precocious child of the bereaved you can love than one person Of course you can but marriage is something different Marriage is memory marriage is timeOf course its not a logical necessity that a Jenkins style philosopher can t mourn deeply in this way but it s that what the now seem to mourn isn t the destruction of a bond a metaphysical union they operated within but just the loss of a particularly useful set up Sure understanding social and biological functions are important and it would be idiotic to think love is entirely a mystery in every aspect and literally no one claims this But the image of love Jenkins builds is too muscular in its drive towards control and leaves far too little space for valuing something that actually can t be chosen and understood Maybe I am romanticizing love but look at the alternativeIt s important to clarify that of course you don t ever own your partner in the way you do a consumer good but what I m alluding to is a particular stance towards your partner which is analogous to how we choose a consumer good simply for personal gratification and discard it once it has served its use I call this consumerist because it relies on respect for choice without any notion of a certain state of affairs being considered valuable in itself and not just because it is desired in the moment and I think this is a recipe for our desires being left entirely up to what cultural advertising will tell us to an extent even greater than presently People picking out of a line of goods they re seen on tv also think they are free choosers exercising autonomy we don t think they re any less of consumers because of this Of course someone who sees the effect of culture on patterns of love as non existent will disagree on this pointAddendum The spectre of redistributionAll while this is going on Jenkins does want to insist that calls for the redistribution of love cannot be sustained at allBut on pain of sounding like a broken record they aren t Love sex and people are not property or resources that we get to manage and distribute in the name of euity Men are not entitled to demand a fair share of love sex or womenBut those two ideas simply don t follow Just because love or the lover isn t property doesn t mean they shouldn t be distributed She certainly points that there are many difficult uestions for someone advocating for the distribution of loveMost important though is the suggestion that we view the ethics of love and sex through the lens of euitable distribution or justice We need to remember that we are talking about people and their most intimate relationships with other people Is the idea that the unattractive women will voluntarily choose to take drugs in order to become available to the unsuccessful men and vice versa Or will they be forced to take such drugs The first option sounds bizarre but the second is disturbing Anyhow who decides who counts as unattractive or unsuccessful in the first place In such subjective assessments whose standards are we to take as definitiveBut under her vision where all of the romantic mystiue is gone what reason isn t there for distribution I suspect Jenkins will suggest that autonomy and choice are important This isn t a bad reason but if love is stripped of mystiue and is just a social and biological reality in the particular senses she specifies why not redistribution At the minimum this involves moral principles external to her idea of lovewhich she hasn t defended here A romantic mystiue meanwhile would have shot down the idea simply because part of love s mystery is that is can t be yoked to such a base calculus so I m counting it as a win for it in this regardUltimately Jenkins might dig in her heels regarding these objections but unconvinced me will simply remain in my corner and keep praising the Mysteries of Love

FREE READ × PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook · Carrie S.I. Jenkins

FREE DOWNLOAD É What Love Is What is love Aside from being the title of many a popular love song this is one of life’s perennial uestions In What Love Is philosopher Carrie Jenkins offers a bold new theory on the nature of romantic love that reconciles its humanistic and scientific components Love can be a social construct the idea of a perfect fairy tale romance and a physi. I had high hopes for this one Carrie Jenkins an analytic metaphysician with a background in mathematical logic writing on an obviously important topic that had hitherto been ignored by the academic philosophical communityUnfortunately What Love Is fails to deliver While philosophy has a long and venerable history of balancing the esoteric with the exoteric see Plato Russell etc this book seems to mark the worst of both worlds Jenkins writes in a uasi collouial tone citing nursery rhymes and TED talks alongside academic journal articles Yet such low culture excursions largely fail to clarify her points For instance she spends an entire paragraph on the metaphor of love as a cocktail of chemicalsIf love is a cocktail it has no single strict recipe It s better conceived of as a family of cocktails Consider daiuiris You d expect to find a few basic ingredients in a daiuiri some kind of rum some sort of citrus juice usually lime and some sort of sweetener usually sugar But individual daiuiris vary the ratio and some include other ingredients like strawberries or bananas Other daiuiris get creative and replace the rum with another spiritMuch of What Love Is reads in this vein wordy glib and vaguely patronizing It doesn t help that neurotransmitters in no way function like cocktails or cocktail ingredientsOn a philosophical level Jenkins central thesis that love is ancient biological machinery embodying a modern social role remains frustratingly underdeveloped For instance she doesn t always clearly differentiate her theory from straight ahead biological accounts Why not say that love is strictly biological but that people tend to ascribe it false properties This in turn could raise some interesting philosophy of language type uestions of reference akin to the debate in epistemological circles vis vis capital K and small k varieties of knowledgeThat is what do we really meanrefer to when we talk about love Or alternatively why adoptcare about this particular formulation of love Which raises the related uestion why does love matter to us in the first placeJenkins also fails to adeuately canvass the various rivals to her view Which is a shame because some of them look uite interesting Like why not subscribe to a phenomenologically based yet biologically grounded theory of love under which love represents a particular feeling brought about by some combination of brain chemicals Such a theory could potentially encompass aliens with non human neurobiology but who nonetheless act like humans in love According to Jenkins these aliens could never be in love under the biological approachAt the end of the day Jenkins tells us that love is a little bit biological and a little bit socially constructed but that it can be hard to tell the difference This strikes me as a pretty obvious claim But as William James once said all great philosophies have faced the charge of triviality at one point or another Many epistemologists endorse a reliablist theory of knowledge according to which knowledge needn t entail certainty Yet the philosopher Peter Unger has pointed out that it seems rather absurd to say I know that chokengisichokeng but I could be wrong Such a phenomenological account of love could draw upon the present debates surrounding materialist theories of consciousness Under some of these theories consciousness depends upon certain physical structures although these structures need not be biological in nature see for instance the silicon brain project

REVIEW What Love Is

FREE DOWNLOAD É What Love Is Cal manifestation those anxiety inducing heart palpitations; we must recognize its complexities and decide for ourselves how to love Motivated by her own polyamorous relationships she examines the ways in which our parameters of love have recently changed to be accepting of homosexual interracial and non monogamous relationships and how they will c. As deliberately obtuse as works of philosophy can be What Love Is is a refreshingly accessible and fun read Carrie Jenkins explores romantic love what it is how it has evolved and what it can become Starting with the rather sparse coverage love has gotten from the philosophical cannon Carrie Jenkins also explores love s biological and sociological underpinnings She goes on to build her own dual theory of the ontology of love complete with references and allusions to Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer did I mention how accessible and fun her writing is Of course she also brings into the work her own experience as a woman in a polyamorous relationship with two men uestioning the limits of our current ideas about romantic love and generating a fair amount of controversy and press Honestly though this probably makes Carrie Jenkins ualified to tackle the philosophy of love as her mostly traditional white male predecessors readily accepted and never challenged many of the societal norms associated with romantic love Philosophy after all is all about asking uestions and challenging assumptions What Love Is is a delicious appetizer setting the plate for thoughtful conversations about the philosophy of love challenging our preconceptions and opening a door to what love can become