Most philosophers would agree that loving one’s romantic partner (i.e., being in love) is, in principle, a good thing. That is, romantic love can be valuable. It seems plausible that most would then think that the process leading to being in love—i.e. falling in love—can be valuable too. Surprisingly, that is not the case: among philosophers, falling in love has a bad reputation. Whereas philosophy of love has started to depart from traditional (and often unwarranted or false) tropes surrounding romantic (...) life, this tendency has not yet reached the analysis of falling in love. The phenomenon continues to be looked at mostly through a compendium of generalisations taken as metaphysical truths—the view of falling in love being akin to “losing one’s mind” or “not being able to think about anything else”. Here, I analyse some of these generalisations to show that although they may reflect some experiences of what falling in love feels like, they wrongly reduce falling in love to two related, but distinct, phenomena: limerence and infatuation. My aim is to refine the current terminology to lay the foundations for a neutral view of falling in love. (shrink)

This essay is not about what love is. It is about what self-ascriptions of love do. People typically self-ascribe romantic love when a nexus of feelings, beliefs, attitudes, values, commitments, experiences, and personal histories matches their conception of romantic love. But what shapes this conception? And (how) can we adjudicate amongst conflicting conceptions? -/- Self-ascriptions of love do not merely describe the underlying nexus of attitudes and beliefs. They also change it. This essay describes how conceptions of love affect romantic (...) experience. I limn distinctions between love and obsessive infatuation and explore ways language can cultivate queer romantic preferences. Since conceptions of love are shaped, often implicitly, by terms available in one’s linguistic community, the resulting nexus of concepts and conceptions manifests linguistic luck. I suggest ways we might sculpt the language of love to better understand—and change—ourselves. Love can help us flourish and so can our “love” language. (shrink)

Les parlers ruraux abondent en métaphores associées à la parole, notamment à la façon dont elle est fabriquée et produite dans cet ouvroir miniature qu’est la bouche. Deux séries de représentations semblent en réalité s’opposer : un modèle technique qui assimile la parole aux activités textiles d’une part (filer, coudre), aux gestes des petits artisans d’autre part (raboter, étamer, limer) ; un modèle organique qui associe la parole à la sécrétion salivaire (baver) et à l’excrétion (« chier sur, faire des (...) crottes »). Ces deux ensembles de représentations servent à opposer une parole féminine et une parole masculine tout en définissant la norme de chacune d’elles. L’étude met en évidence la portée symbolique de la parole féminine qui, nouant le lien entre la passé et le présent, filant le temps cyclique de la communauté, s’identifie avec la dynamique calendaire ; elle montre aussi la complémentarité que cette parole entretient sur le plan symbolique avec la parole des hommes qui, associée à l’excrétion, à la croissance et à la maturation des végétaux et aux gestes qui tranchent et ouvrent, semble figurer la succession des cycles qui doivent à un moment s’ouvrir les uns sur les autres et l’inévitable transformation de toute chose vivante. (shrink)