Philosophia 46 (3):689-703 (2018)

Authors
Pilar Lopez-Cantero
Tilburg University
Abstract
People who experience love often experience break-ups as well. However, philosophers of love have paid little attention to the phenomenon. Here, I address that gap by looking at the grieving process which follows unchosen relationship terminations. I ask which one is the loss that, if it were to be recovered, would stop grief or make it unwarranted. Is it the beloved, the reciprocation of love, the relationship, or all of it? By answering this question I not only provide with an insight on the nature of break-ups, but also make a specific claim about the nature of love. I argue that the object that is universally lost in all break-ups is a person with certain intrinsic qualities, who is in a relationship characterised by certain shared activities and recognized as romantic. That means that, at least in romantic terminations, the beloved and the relationship are not independent objects of grief. So, plausibly, they may not independent objects of value in love. Hence, those who state otherwise should face up to this objection coming from the study of break-ups.
Keywords Love, grief, emotions, break-ups
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11406-017-9935-8
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Reasons of Love.Harry G. Frankfurt - 2004 - Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Love as a Moral Emotion.J. David Velleman - 1999 - Ethics 109 (2):338-374.
Love as Valuing a Relationship.Niko Kolodny - 2003 - Philosophical Review 112 (2):135-189.
Loving People for Who They Are (Even When They Don't Love You Back).Sara Protasi - 2016 - European Journal of Philosophy 24 (1):214-234.
Necessity, Volition, and Love.Harry G. Frankfurt - 2001 - Philosophical Quarterly 51 (202):114-116.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Love: What's Sex Got to Do with It?Natasha McKeever - 2016 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):201-218.
Romantic Love.Thomas H. Smith - 2011 - Essays in Philosophy 12 (1):68-92.
Thinking Love: Heidegger and Arendt.Iain Thomson - 2017 - Continental Philosophy Review 50 (4):453-478.
On 'Love at First Sight'.Christian Maurer - 2014 - In Christian Maurer, Tony Milligan & Kamila Pacovská (eds.), Love and Its Objects: What Can We Care For? Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 160-174.
Climbing the Ladder of Love.Brendan Shea - 2015 - In Adam Barkman & Robert Arp (eds.), Downton Abbey and Philosophy: Thinking in the Manor. Open Court. pp. 249-259.
What is the Point of Love?Carolyn Price - 2012 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (2):217-237.
Loving People for Who They Are (Even When They Don't Love You Back).Sara Protasi - 2016 - European Journal of Philosophy 24 (1):214-234.
Romantic Love: Neither Sexist Nor Heterosexist.Carol Caraway - 1987 - Philosophy and Theology 1 (4):361-368.
Romantic Love: A Philosophical Inquiry.Dwight Van de Vate Jr - 1991 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
Romantic Love.Carol Caraway - 1987 - Philosophy and Theology 1 (4):361-368.
Romantic Love.Carol Caraway - 1987 - Philosophy and Theology 2 (1):361-368.
The Romantic Love Relation.Stuart William Cedrone - 1989 - Dissertation, The University of Connecticut

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-12-23

Total views
216 ( #39,984 of 2,374,914 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
40 ( #18,488 of 2,374,914 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes