A PHENOMENOLOGY OF LOVE

(Man As The Lover)

What is love? The question has been asked since the time of Plato, not only by the
professional philosophers but by people from all walks of life. Much has already been written on this
subject, answers to the question have been given and many more questions posed; and yet the
reality of love has not been exhausted. The very fact that this question of what love is still being
asked seems to show that love is part and parcel of mans life, and a philosophy of man is incomplete
without a philosophy of love, of man as loving.
Many of us have the tendency to equate love with romance. The world love rings a sweet
melody to the ears, brings to the imagination the image of two lovers whispering sweet nothings to
each other in the park or on the telephone, unmindful of the rest of the world as if only they matter
and exist at all. Love is a many splendored thing, so the song goes.
On the other hand, love is pictured many times as an act of possessing or being possessed by
another person. People fight and struggle in the name of love. I love you has come to mean, You
are mine and I want you to do the things I want, I want you to be of what I you want to be. Or else,
it has come to mean, I am yours, and you can do whatever you want to me.
For many young people, love has become synonymous with sex. To love another means to be
passionately attracted to her and to bring her to bed with me. This equation of love with sex has led to
the idea that friendship is not love, that when two lovers break up, they may settle down for friendship
as if friendship were inferior to love.
People say, love is blind and lovers do not see. This has come to mean that to love is to be
attracted to the good qualities of the other. Sometimes this is earned to the extreme of attributing
attractive qualities to the other even if they are not there. Love has come to be equated with
admiration.
Erich Fromm in his famous book The Art of Loving1 mentions the fact that the popular notion of
love at present is falling in love. People have the misconception that there is nothing to be learned
about love, that love hits a man like lightning. Either you are struck by the arrow of Cupid or you are
not. He attributes this popular notion of love to three reasons:
1)
the emphasis on being-loved rather than on loving. This is evident in the many books
written and sold on how to win friends and influence people, how to be attractive, how to have a
sex appeal, etc.
2)
the emphasis on the object loved rather than on the faculty of loving. People talk of the
ideal girl, the ideal boy, the ideal husband, the ideal wife. And it seems the right object to love
follows the same trend as the fad in the market.
3)
the confusion between the initial state of falling in love and the permanent standing-in
love. People mistake the initial feeling of infatuation as love. Two people finding themselves as
strangers in a country and feeling lonely easily fall for each other. If they simply based their love on
this feeling of loneliness their love will not last.

Our phenomenology of love must first set aside all the above preconceptions of love. Now, let
us go back to the original experience of love.
Loneliness and Love
The experience of love begins from the experience of loneliness. The experience of loneliness
is basically a human experience. Because man as man is gifted with self-consciousness, there comes
a point in the stage of mans life that he comes to an awareness of his unique self and the
possibilities open to him. He becomes aware that he is different from others, that he is not what
others (like his parents) think him to be. As a child, his gaze was turned towards things; toys and
candies made up his world. As a child, people were mere extensions of his ego, mere satisfaction of
his desires. But as he grows up to become more an adolescent, his gaze is gradually turned inwards;
he questions the things that were taught to him by his parents and teacher; he reaches for his own
identity. Who am I? becomes more important than the toys and candies that once were objects of
his desires. Too old to be identified with the child and too young to be considered an adult, he feels
misunderstood, unwanted, alone.
His natural tendency is to seek out his fellow adolescents from understanding and acceptance.
Together they invent their own language, their own music. It is in the barkada that he finds equality.
But then what has equality come to mean? It has come to mean uniformity, sameness in actuality.
The adolescent groups himself with his barkada because they happen to have the same likes and
dislikes as he. Very often, he has a different barkada for movies, another barkada for work and study.
Very seldom does he find himself in a group who will take him for that all he is, different from the
group.
Until this equality will mean oneness in difference, the person will remain lonely amidst a
crowd. Loneliness is possible even if one is immersed in the crowd. In an attempt to conform to the
group and hide ones individuality, his loneliness eventually expresses itself as an experience of
boredom.
To overcome this boredom and loneliness, the person many times resorts to drinks and drugs
or any form of heightened sensation. The effect of this artificially created sensation is to involve ones
total being in some kind of a trance reminiscent of the primitive mans ritual and dance. It provides to
the lonely and bored person a temporary escape from reality, temporary because the trance, the
happening is transitory and periodical.
Another resort to overcome the experience of loneliness is to keep oneself busy with creative
activity. Keeping oneself occupied with all sorts of activity diverts ones attention from oneselfbut
only for some time. One eventually will tire himself out. Moreover, it is not any activity that can be
fulfilling ones emptinessthe activity has to be creative, something that the person himself has
started, developed and finished to end. This kind of activity is rare nowadays. And even if one
discovers himself in this creative activity, in the end he still has to come to face with the anguish of
being alone.
The answer to the problem of loneliness is the reaching out to the other person as another.
Love is the answer to the problem of loneliness because it is only in love that I find at-onement and
still remain myself.

Love is the union under the condition of preserving ones integrity, ones
individuality. Love is an active power in man, a power which breaks through
the walls which separate man from his fellowmen, which unites him from
others, love makes him overcome the sense of isolation and separateness, yet,
it permits him to be himself, to retain his integrity. In love the paradox occurs
that two beings become one and yet remain two. (Fromm, p.21)
The Loving Encounter 2
Loneliness ends when one finds or is found by another in what we will call a loving encounter.
The loving encounter is a meeting of persons. The meeting of persons is not simply bumping
into each other, nor is it simply an exchange of pleasant remarks, though these could be
embodiments of a deeper meeting. The deeper meeting here in love happens when two persons or
more who are free to be themselves choose to share themselves. It presupposes an I-thou
communication, a communication of selves. (This is possible even in groups of common
commitments although the meeting of persons may be harder due to the expectation of roles.)
First of all, the loving encounter necessitates an appeal, an appeal of the other addressing my
subjectivity. The appeal may be embodied in a word, a gesture or a glanceall these can be signs of
an invitation for me to transcend myself, to break away from my pre-occupation with myself.
Very often in the daily run of life, I ignore this signs. I am too absorbed or too conscious of the
roles I am accustomed to play in daily life as a teacher, a student, an employer, a priest, that I fail to
see the appeal of the other. To be able to see the appeal of the other, I need more than eyes; more
than mindI need an attitude, a heart that has broken away from self-preoccupation.
What is the appeal of the other?
The appeal of the other is not his corporeal or spiritual attractive qualities. I can conceptualize
the other into a list of beautiful qualities (which I myself may lack) but they can only at best give rise to
enamoredness, a desire to be with the other. But once the qualities cease to be attractive, love also
ceases. Love is more than mere infatuation, more than mere liking such and such qualities of the
other. The other person is more than his qualities, more than what I can conceptualize of him. And
love is the experience of this depth and mystery of the other and the firm will to be for him.
Nor is the appeal of the other an explicit request coming from the other. The explicit request of
the other may just be a sign of a deeper appeal, yet if I base my reaching out to the other simply on
this need, it may well be because of a certain pity, and not really out of love. Or, it may be possible
that I can satisfy his request because I just want to get over with it and not be bothered anymore. In
such a case, even if I have satisfied the request of the other, he may go away dissatisfied because
my heart was not in it.
The appeal of the other is himself. The other in his otherness is himself the request. The
appeal of the other is the cal to participate in his subjectivity, to be with and for him.

While it is true that I need an attitude that has broken away from self-preoccupation to see the
appeal of the other, the converse also holds: the appeal of the other which is himself enables me to
liberate myself from my narrow self. It reveals to me an entirely new dimension of my existence, that
perhaps myself-realization may be a destiny-for-you. Because of you, I understand the meaningless
of my egoism. Perhaps, I am not meant to be alone, perhaps I can only be truly myself with you.
If the appeal of the other is himself, what then is my reply?
Since the appeal of the other is not his quality or an explicit request, it follows that my
response cannot be outpouring of my qualities to the other or the satisfaction of his request.
Compatibility is not necessary love. Neither is submission necessary love. Sometimes, refusing the
request of the other may be the only way of loving the person in a situation, if satisfying it would bring
harm to the person.
If the appeal of the other is himself, then the appropriate response to the appeal is Myself.
As a subjectivity, the other person is free to give meaning to his life. His appeal then to me
means an invitation to will his subjectivity, to consent, accept, support and share his freedom. Love
means willing the others free self-realization, his destiny, his happiness. At times it may mean
refusing whatever could impede or destroy the others possibility for self-realization. When I love the
other, I am saying, I want you to become what you want to be. I want you to realize your happiness
freely.
Love, however, is not only saying it, it is doing it. Love is effective, it takes actions. (Action
speaks louder than words.) Since the other person is not a disembodied subjectivity, to love him
therefore implies that I will his bodily being, and consequently his world. Love is inseparable from
care, from labor. To love the other is to labor for that love, to care for his body, his world, his total wellbeing.
Willing the happiness of the other, however, also implies that I have an awareness, though
implicit and at times vague, of the others destiny. I have a searching for and a partial finding of his
way in the world. And whatever opinion I have of the happiness of the other will influence and give
direction to my affection for him. It will open certain worldly roads for him and also close others, those
that would not bring him closer to his destiny. Love then necessitates a certain personal knowledge of
the other.
Of course, the possibility exists that I could be mistaken as to what will make the other happy.
The temptation is also very great that I may impose my own concept of happiness on the other. I can
go on laboring for the happiness of the other, where in reality I am simply fulfilling my own needs. The
other has become an extension of myself and has become absorbed by my own person. If love is not
to become domination, it must be balance by a certain respect, respect for the uniqueness and
otherness of the other. Respect does not mean idolizing a person; it simply means accepting the
person as he is, different from myself.
Accepting the other as other, as he is, is not to be taken in a static sense. The other is also
himself in his potentialities, in his becoming. But his becoming may have a different rhythm from my
own. His pace of growing may be faster or slower than my own. In such a case, respect also means
being patient. Patience is also harmonizing my rhythm with his. Like a melody or an orchestra, my

music of life must follow his own tempo. Patience requires a lot of waiting and catching-up, a waiting
that is active, ever-ready to answer to the needs of the other, and catching up that is spontaneous
and natural.
Reciprocity of Love
From our description above of loving encounter, it seems that love is wholly concerned with the
other. What happens to myself? Am I not at all concerned with myself in love? Am I not at all
interested in being loved in return? Here we touch upon two important questions on love: First, what
is the relationship of love of the other and love of myself? Secondly, what happens with
unreciprocated love?
In the loving encounter, my response to the appeal of the other which is his subjectivity is
myself. I will the others free self-realization. In other words, I offer myself to him by placing a limitless
trust in the other. This opening of myself to the other is defencelessness. It becomes a call upon the
love of the beloved, an appeal to him to accept the offer of myself. This appeal of the lover to the
beloved is not the will to draw advantage from the affection for the other (upang magkaroon siya ng
utang-na-loob). It is not compelling, dominating or possessing the other. Love wants the others
freedom: that the other himself choose this safe way and avoid that dangerous path.
There is indeed an element of sacrifice in loving the other which is often understood by many
as a loss of self. In love, I renounce the motive of promoting myself. I have to break the provisional
structure I have given to my own life, and this is painful. Entering into a friendship is acceding to my
friends wishes which may not be the same as mine. The pain lies in abandoning my egoism, my selfcenteredness.
But this does not mean the loss of myself. On the contrary, in loving the other I need to love
myself, and in loving the other I come to fulfill and love myself.
In loving the other, I have to be concerned with myself if my love is to be authentic. Since in the
loving encounter I am offering myself to the other, the gift of myself must first of all be valuable to
myself. If I despise myself and give myself to the other, my giving is a throwing away of myself. I have
made the other a garbage can of my despicable myself. In the development of man, this love of self
takes the form of being-loved. I am first loved by my parents, teachers and friends before I learn to
give back that love to others. The joy I first experience in life is the joy of being loved.
And yet this value of myself remains unconfirmed, the joy of being myself a hidden joy. I need
to go out to others, to accept and value them as they are to discover the value of myself. In giving
myself to the other, I discover my available self. In willing the happiness of the other, I experience the
joy of the giving. I giving I also receive. Just as the teacher is taught by his students and the actor is
stimulated by the appreciation of his audience, so in loving the other I cannot help but also fulfilled. In
love, giving is also receiving, and receiving is giving.
Consequently, there exist in loving the other the desire to be loved in return. I cannot love the
other if I am one hundred percent sure my offer will not be accepted. One does not give something he
knows the other will not receive. The desire is essential but should never become the motive for
loving, otherwise I am loving the other not for what he is but for what I can get in return, for myself.

The primary motive for loving the other is thus the other himself, the You. The you is not a
he or she l talk about. The you is not just another self (just a rose among other roses, a fox
among other foxes3), but the you-for-whom-I-care. The you in love is discovered by the lover
himself. It is not that the lover is blind to the objective qualities of the other but that he is clear that the
other is over and above his qualities. The motive of love is the you that is seen not only by the eyes
or the mind but more by the heart. I love you because you are beautiful and lovable, and you are
beautiful and lovable because you are you.
Since the you is another subjectivity, he is free to accept to reject my offer. This is the risk of
loving, that the other may reject or betrayed the self I have offered to him. What happens to
unreciprocated love?
One cannot of course erase the possibility that the rejection of the beloved could be a test of
the authenticity of love. If the other rejects my offer and I persist in loving the other inspite of the pain,
then perhaps my love is truly selfless, unmotivated by the desire to be loved in return. But granted
that the rejection is final, what can one say of the experience? No doubt the experience is painful, and
it will take time for the lover to recover himself from the experience. Nevertheless the experience can
provide him with an opportunity to examine himself. It can be an opportunity for self-reparation. The
experience of being rejected can be an emptying of oneself which would allow room in oneself for
development. In this sense, an unreciprocated love can still be an enriching experience.
Indeed, the risk and reality of love being reciprocated proves that there is no shop in the world
that sells love.
Creativity of Love
When love is reciprocated, love becomes fruitful, love becomes creative.
Granted that knowing the other person as he is necessitates loving him, still there is a
distinction between knowing the other as other and loving him as he is. In knowing, I actively let
reality be by opening myself to it, but this letting be of reality demands a certain respect and
acceptance of reality which is somewhat passive. Loving the other, however, is willing the others free
self-realization, and willing demands a making of the other. In fact, in every encounter, there is
making of each other: the teacher makes the student a student, the student makes the teacher a
teacher. In the loving encounter, we also make each other be. What then is created in love?
To understand more clearly the creativity of love, let us try a brief phenomenological sketch of
the experience of being-loved: what does the other make of me when he loves me?
When I am loved, I experience a feeling of joy coupled with a sense of security. The feeling of
joy is the sense of being valuable, of being accepted and consented to. I no longer feel the fear of
being myself and anxiety of trying to be someone else. I experience an exhilarating sense of freedom.
At the same time I feel secure, secure because the lover participates in my subjectivity such that I no
longer walk alone in the world but that I walk together with him. The other by his love has made me
fully myself, not just being what I am but also by being what I can become when I am with him. What
is thus created in love is a being-togetherness, a we. I can no longer say, I did this or he did that
but we did this and that.

Concomitant with the creation of the we is the creation of a new worldour world. No longer
do we live in two different worlds, but our worlds have become one.
Such a feeling coming over me
There is wonder in everything I see
Everything I want the world to be
Is now coming true especially for me
And the reason is clear
Its because you are here
Im on top of the world looking
Down on creation and only the explanation I can find
Is the love thats found ever since youve been around
You almost put me at the top of the world.4
(Lyrics from the song Top of the World)
My life is very monotonous, he said. I hunt chickens; men hunt me.
All the chickens are just alike and all men are just alike. And, in consequent,
I am a little bored. But if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came to shine
on my life. I shall know the sound of the step that will be different from all
the others. Other steps send me hurrying back underneath the ground. Yours
will call me, like music, out of my burrow. And then look: you see the grainfields down under? I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use to me. The wheat
fields have nothing to say to me. And that is sad. But you have hair that is the
color of the gold. Think how wonderful that will be back the thought of you.
And I shall love to listen to wind in the wheat 5
(Excerpt from the novel, The Little Prince)
Union of Love
The we that is created in love is the union of persons and their worlds. The union of persons
is not an objective union: when two things are united what results is a composition or assimilation: the
two elements are no longer distinguishable from each otherthey have each lost their identities. The
union in love, however, does not involve the loss of identities. The I does not assimilate the you or
vise versa. On the contrary, the I, the you another. We become more of ourselves by loving each
other. This is the paradox in love, the many in one, one in many. Says the poet E.E. Cummings,
ones not half two
its two that are halves of one.
The Gift of Self
It is not our intent here to explain this paradox of love, the paradox of one in many and many in
one. That would call for a metaphysics of love. What we can do on a phenomenological level is
attempt to clarify and deepen this paradox by means of description of love as essentially a gift of self.
What is the nature of a gift? A gift is causing another to possess something which hitherto you
possess yourself but which the other has no strict right to own. If the other has paid for that which I
have given him, this is not gift-giving but an exchange or selling. It is of the very essence of gift-giving
that it be disinterested, that is to say, I give not in order to get something in return.

Love is essentially a disinterested giving of myself to the other as other. The giving in love is
not a giving up: I am not being deprived of something when I give in love because the self is not a
thing that when given no longer belongs to the giver but to the given. Nor is the giving in love the
giving of the marketing character because as we have said, in love I do not give in order to get
something in return. Furthermore, the giving in love is not of the virtuous character: I do not give in
order to feel good. I do not give with reporter and photographer surrounding me. Why then do I give
myself in love?
The answer can be seen in what is essentially given in love and to whom it is giventhe Self.
To give myself in love is not so much to give of what I have as of what I am and can become. And this
self that I am and can become is given to the other as other, not so much of what you have but of
what you are and can become. I can of course express this giving of self in the giving of what I have,
in the giving of sex or material things, but when I do so the thing has become unique since it has
become a concrete but limited embodiment of myself. When I pick up a rose from a garden of a
hundred roses,
Add- ons:
As human persons learn to love, he learns to consider other as persons. There are kinds of
love as enumerated by social psychologists:
Ludic love a love that gives entertainment and excitement
Storge love one that develops over a period of time since it is not a product of immediate burst
of passion.
Pragma love one that demands, compatibility, hence it is considered as practical and traditional.
Manic love an obsessive and jealous type of love.
Agape love at its best; sometimes it is called unconditional love.
Eros means love to and desire on another person who belongs to the opposite sex
Filial love or philia is understood as a grade of love where the lover expresses fondness of and
appreciation to the other.
Aside from the kinds of love, it is also important to note the characteristics of love.
1. Love is an Encounter
2. Love is Silent
3. Love Always Seeks for Unification
4. Love is Giving
5. Love is Growth
6. Love is Action
7. Love is Creative
8. Love is Mutual
9. Love is the Supreme Value
10. Love is Mysterious
11. Love is a Decision