Starting with a review of research on love as an emotion, with an emphasis on romantic love, it is argued that despite strong emotional correlates evidence is lacking to conclude that love would meet the criteria of basic emotions. Theoretical developments are proposed where love is conceived of as a combination of an objectless drive, a desire for love, and a mythical and scripted representation that offers the possibility of labeling the current core affect. I argue that the basic motive (...) for love is not so much the partner’s personal attributes, but rather the benefits of the transformative power of being in love. (shrink)
Previous research about love, in the social-psychological literature, has focused on the antecedents, or causes, of love. Moreover, within the field of Personal Relationships, love is often regarded as implicitly present, and thus, is not treated directly. Here, we address the possibility of a reversal of this perspective, where love is no longer treated as a dependent variable but as an independent variable. We show that this change is necessary to promote the status of love to that of a reliable (...) object of scientific enquiry. We discuss the differences between scientific and naïve conceptions of love, and the necessity of distinguishingbetween an alleged reality of love and the consequences of the mere idea of love. (shrink)
The commentaries by Cacioppo and Cacioppo, Jankowiak, Marazziti, and Aron and Aron admirably illustrate the multifaceted nature of love and the difficulty of bringing together such diverse perspectives. Rising love is still far from being the subject of true experimental study since the experimenter often only observes the consequences thereof, and attempts to reconstitute in hindsight the circumstances of its onset.
Není tomu tak dávno, co se ti, kdo vzývali termín "analytická filosofie", v naší zemi jevili jako příslušníci nějaké divné sekty, kteří smysl termínu "filosofie" jakýmsi úchylným způsobem překrucují. Není-li však člověk zrovna Valihrachem, nemůže o tom, co slova znamenají, svévolně rozhodovat; a faktem je, analytická filosofie tvoří podstatnou část toho, co se ve světě pod hlavičkou "filosofie" učí a provozuje. (Já bych řekl, že dokonce většinu, ale statistické údaje samozřejmě k dispozici žádné nemám.) Během posledních zhruba deseti let se (...) ovšem situace podstatně změnila a analytický způsob filosofování se u nás začíná široce etablovat. Existují již překlady celé řady klasických děl (Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper, ...) i těch novějších (Quine, Davidson, ...), a vznikla i celá řade původních prací. Co dosud scházelo bylo nějaké systematické historické pojednání o tom, jak tento filosofický směr vznikl, jak se vyvíjel a jak dospěl k tomu druhu otázek, který si předsevzal řešit. Tuto mezeru se nyní pokouší zaplnit kniha docenta filosofické fakulty olomoucké univerzity Lubomíra Valenty Problémy analytické filosofie. (shrink)
The author comments on and criticizes some conclusions of the article by Lubomir Lamy entitled “Beyond Emotion: Love as an Encounter of Myth and Drive.” In addition, she shows evidence that love may be considered an integrated neurobiobehavioral process and, as such, regulated by neural systems and circuits that underlie its emotional, cognitive, and behavioral expressions.
Cardinal Lubomir Husar stipulates the hiding of the project on the provision of the patriarchate of the UGCC by the fact that even its sounding, not to mention the implementation, provokes a "wave of protests" in the Vatican circles, because it says "the patriarchate of the UGCC will weaken the communion with the Successor of St. Apostle Peter, and hence - weaken the connection with the whole Catholic Church, "" will mean the creation of a nationalist colored Church that will (...) sow hatred against all others, "will become a" major obstacle to the unification of Christians in Ukraine ", will lead to" neglect of the rights of the Moscow the patriarchate, which considers Ukraine to be its canonical territory, "to the preservation of" uniticism ", which in our time was condemned as an inappropriate way to achieve unity among all Christians". (shrink)
«Theologicis et Philosophicis doctrinis, ex ipsa Iuris et lustititiae, nec non Prudentiae, aliarumque Virtutum Moralium Natura desumptis, compendiario illustratus et sub auspiciis lUustrissimi Domini D. Georgii de Lubomir L U B O M I R S K I, Comitis in Visnicz et Jaroslaw: Poloniarum Archimarschalci, et Regni Exercituum Ducis, nec non Generalis Cracoviae: et Casimiriensis, Olstinensis, Chmielnicensis, Nizinensis etc. etc. Capitanei. Publicae Disputantium concertationi propositus ab Alexandro J a s k m a n i c k i, sacrae Theologiae auditore. (...) In Cardinalitio Hosiano Collegio Societatis Jesu. Anno ab Homine Deo nato. M.DC.LXIV . Brunsbergae, Typis Henrici Schultz». En habes, Benevolo Lector, plenum titulum libri, qui hie nostram movet attentionem. Primum Auctoris biographia traditur, deinde de eiusdem operis dedicatione sermo est, postea vero ipsa eins politica et socialis doctrina explicatur et commentatur. (shrink)
In his 1998 book Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds, Lubomír Doležel put forth a theory of narrative fiction based on the interdisciplinary framework of possible worlds. In Possible Worlds of Fiction and History: The Postmodern Stage, Doležel takes his earlier theory further and applies it to historiography as well, with the specific aim of showing how the study of history might be defended against the postmodern challenge via the use of possible worlds semantics. Doležel's book is essentially an argument against (...) the postmodern views expressed by Roland Barthes and Hayden White, who have claimed that fundamentally, there is no difference between fictional and historical narratives. According to Doležel, this difference can be saved if the focus of attention is shifted from the textual features of these narratives to the fictional or historical worlds that the narratives project.Doležel's comparison of fictional and historical worlds to each other is quite illuminating and thorough. However, the question remains whether the application of PW semantics does anything besides offering a detailed analysis of the structure of the different types of narrative worlds. After all, one should not overlook the perhaps more practical way of differentiating between historical and fictional narratives through their institutional status. Furthermore, we argue that by focusing on the properties of the end products, that is, the resulting narratives, Doležel concedes too much to postmodernists. A stronger way to give postmodernists a taste of their own medicine would be to argue that the rules that historians follow in the process of generating, constructing, and evaluating weighed causal explanations are fundamentally different from whatever rules govern the generation and construction of fiction. (shrink)
_ Source: _Page Count 19 The theory of possible worlds has been minimally employed in the field of theory and philosophy of history, even though it has found a place as a tool in other areas of philosophy. Discussion has mostly focused on arguments concerning counterfactual history’s status as either useful or harmful. The theory of possible worlds can, however be used also to analyze historical writing. The concept of textual possible worlds offers an interesting framework to work with for (...) analyzing a historical text’s characteristics and features. However, one of the challenges is that the literary theory’s notion of possible worlds is that they are metaphorical in nature. This in itself is not problematic but while discussing about history, which arguably deals with the real world, the terminology can become muddled. The latest attempt to combine the literary and philosophical notions of possible worlds and apply it to historiography came from Lubomír Doležel in his _Possible Worlds of Fiction and History: The Postmodern Stage_. I offer some criticism to his usage of possible worlds to separate history and fiction, and argue that when historiography is under discussion a more philosophical notion of possible worlds should be prioritized over the metaphorical interpretation of possible worlds. (shrink)