Love, Loss, and Identity in Solaris
In Christopher Grau & Susan Wolf (eds.), Understanding Love Through Philosophy, Film, and Fiction. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
| Abstract | The sci-fi premise of the 2002 film Solaris allows director Steven Soderbergh to tell a compelling and distinctly philosophical love story. The “visitors” that appear to the characters in the film present us with a vivid thought experiment, and the film naturally prods us to dwell on the following possibility: If confronted with a duplicate (or near duplicate) of someone you love, what would your response be? What should your response be? The tension raised by such a far-fetched situation reflects a tension that exists in real life: that between an attraction to qualities possessed by a person and attraction to the person in a manner that transcends such an attachment to qualities. In short, this cinematic thought-experiment challenges us to reflect on what we really attach to when we fall in love: is it the person, or is it merely the cluster of characteristics the person manifests? Which sort of attachment is appropriate? Which is philosophical defensible? The protagonist Chris Kelvin’s ambivalence at encountering this bizarre possibility is gripping because it tracks our own ambivalence about such matters. Frankly most of us don’t know just how we would react to such a situation. The thought that accepting and embracing such a “visitor” involves a violation to the original person is natural and pervasive, especially if the acceptance comes with a failure to acknowledge the distinction between the original person and the “visitor”. At the same time, a deep attraction to such a person would surely also be entirely natural and perhaps even inescapable. We, like Kelvin, are torn in different directions by this (thankfully) far-fetched possibility. One philosopher who affirms that accepting a duplicate as though it were the original is the rational thing to do is Derek Parfit. His argument for “the unimportance of identity” is both powerful and radical, and though I’ll be critical of his approach, in the final section of the paper I suggest that it does offer up the resources for an intriguing interpretation of the end of this complex and ambiguous film. | |||||||||
| Keywords | Solaris Soderbergh Love Irreplaceability | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesIrene Mcmullin (2011). Love and Entitlement: Sartre and Beauvoir on the Nature of Jealousy. Hypatia 26 (1):102-122.
Niko Kolodny (2003). Love as Valuing a Relationship. Philosophical Review 112 (2):135-189.
Simon May (2011). Love: A Secret History. Yale University Press.
John Wilson (1995). Love Between Equals: A Philosophical Study of Love and Sexual Relationships. St. Martin's Press.
Simon May (2011). Love: A History. Yale University Press.
Aaron Ben-Ze’ev (2008). Hating the One You Love. Philosophia 36 (3):277-283.
Gary Foster (2011). Overcoming a Euthyphro Problem in Personal Love: Imagination and Personal Identity. Philosophical Psychology 24 (6):825 - 844.
Christopher Grau (2010). Love and History. Southern Journal of Philosophy 48 (3):246-271.
S. Matthew Liao (2006). The Idea of a Duty to Love. Journal of Value Inquiry 40 (1):1-22.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-29Total downloads136 ( #3,195 of 549,124 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
