On Phenomenology of Love

Book: The Art of Loving

Erich Fromm Mentions love in the present as “falling in love”
3 Reasons: Emphasis on

 Being loved rather than on loving

 The object loved rather than on faculty of loving
 Confusion between Initial State of falling in love & Permanent Standing in love.

>> LOVE, a four-letter word that is not easy to define broadly. Yet let u try to define it through the following
concepts.
1. Loneliness and Love
The experience of love begins from the experience of loneliness. The experience of loneliness is basically a
human experience. There comes a point to a human person’s life when toys and food are no longer
interesting. This is the time when one becomes conscious of oneself and begins to ask the question about his
identity. Along with this experience is also the tendency of a person to seek out to other persons with the
same identity as his. They became his barkada. Very often, however, this barkada does not fill in all the empty
spaces of a person’s life. Very seldom does he find himself in a group who will take him for all that he is,
different from the group. Until this equality will mean oneness in difference, the person will remain lonely amidst
a crowd. In an attempt to conform to the group and hide one’s individuality, his loneliness eventually
expresses itself as an experience of boredom. To overcome this boredom and loneliness, the person may
resort to drinks and drugs or any form of heightened sensation as a temporary escape from reality. Another
resort to overcome the experience of loneliness is to keep oneself busy with creative activity. Eventually,
however, the person will tire himself out and boredom continues to creep in. The answer to the problem of
loneliness is the reaching out to the other person. Love is the answer to the problem of loneliness because it
is only in love that I find oneness with the other and still remain myself. Loneliness ends when one finds or is
found by another in what we call a loving encounter.
2. The Loving Encounter
The loving encounter is a meeting of persons. This meeting is not simply like a bumping into each other or an
exchange of pleasant remarks. I can bump into any person without having a loving encounter. Loving
encounter rather means an encounter that happens between two persons or more who are free to be
themselves and choose to share themselves. It presupposes an I-Thou communication. The loving encounter
requires an appeal, an appeal of the other addressing my subjectivity. This appeal may be a gesture, glance,
etc. – all these can be signs of an invitation for me to go outside of myself toward the other. Often times, I
ignore these signs. To be able to see the appeal of the other, I need an attitude, a heart that has broken
away from self-preoccupation.
What is this appeal?
This appeal of the other is not his corporeal or spiritual attractive qualities. The appeal of the other
is himself/herself. It is a call to participate in his subjectivity, to be with and for him/her. While it is true that I
need an attitude that would enable me to go outside of myself and see the appeal of the other, it is also true
that the appeal of the other enables me to go outside of myself. If the appeal of the other is himself, it follows
that the appropriate response from me is also Myself. The phenomenon of love, hence, is
an intersubjective experience. Thus, if this appeal of the other is his own subjectivity, presented and given to
me, my response and acceptance of this subjectivity is very crucial.
If I do not respect this subjectivity by attempting to change it according to my own preference, I have
already violated against the person. Love means willing the other’s free self-realization and happiness. In
love, the other does not give me his freedom. Rather, the other becomes freer because of me. Willingness to
the other’s subjectivity implies a personal knowledge about the other. I must know what makes him/her happy
and what is good for him/her. Other than personal knowledge, willingness to the other’s subjectivity also
implies willingness for him to grow.
Growth takes time; hence, in love I must learn to wait.
3. Reciprocity of Love
It seems that in the loving encounter the focus is always toward the other. What about me? As a response to
the other’s offering of subjectivity, I also give to the other my own subjectivity. Giving to the other my self
requires his acceptance. In love, I am showing my own vulnerability. There is indeed an element of sacrifice
in loving the other which is often understood by many as a loss of self. However, love does not mean a loss of
self. In loving the other I do not lose myself. Rather, I fulfill and complete it. If my love is to be authentic, the
gift of my self must be something valuable to me. I cannot give to the other something which I consider as a
trash. The other is not a trashcan but seen more as a treasure chest. There exist in loving the other the desire
to be loved in return. The desire is essential but it should not become the motive of loving. I do not love
because I expect to be loved in return. The primary motive in loving the other is the other himself, the “You”.
The “You” in love is discovered by the lover himself.
Since the “you” is another subjectivity, he is free to accept or reject my offer. Rejection or unreciprocated
love is no doubt a painful experience. Reciprocity is a mutual granting of equal rights and benefits. If we
would apply to love is being mutual, love means to give-and take. There is indeed an element of sacrifice in
loving the other which is often understood by many as a loss of self. To be able to love, one must be able to
love oneself first.
4. Creativity of Love
When love is reciprocated, love becomes fruitful; it becomes creative. What is created in love is growth and
self-realization and fulfilment.
5. Union of Love
The “we” that is created in love is the union of persons and their worlds. The union of love, however, does not
involve the loss of identities. On the contrary, there self-realization. We become more of ourselves by loving
each other. As what poet E.E. Cummings says: “one’s not half two, it’s two that are halves of one.”
6. The Gift of Self
“Love is essentially a gift of self. To give myself in love is not so much to give what I have as of what I am and
can become. To give myself is to give whatever that is alive in me. I am able to give myself because I
experience a kind of richness. This richness cannot help but overflow to the other.
But why to this particular other? Why did I choose you and not some other? Because you are lovable, and
you are lovable because you are you.
7. Love is Historical
Love is historical because the other who is the point at issue in love is a concrete particular person, not an
abstract one. The concrete other is not an ideal person but a unique being with all his strength and
weaknesses. To love is to love the other historically. Love, thus, involves no abstraction. Everything in love is
concrete.
8. Equality in Love
If love is essentially between persons, then it follows that love can only thrive and grow in freedom.
Love is not bondage but liberation.
There exists therefore an equality of persons in love.
8. Equality in Love
Love is not a bondage but a liberation. In love there must be no superior/inferior. Freedom must be practiced
w/in love. Freedom to be your own self, and express the mutual love shared w/ your loved one.
Ex: Love being demonstrated w/ our Friends. We accept and respect each other’s differences including
strengths and weaknesses.
9. Love is Total, Eternal and Sacred
“Love as gift to the other as self cannot be but total” A person is indivisible and persists through time and
space. We express authentic love without limit and without periphery. As such, love as a gift of self to the
other as self cannot but be total. “I do not give only a half of me but a total me…”Love, then, is total.
Moreover, the gift of myself to the other is not given only for a limited period of time. In love, I cannot say to
you “you are my friend only insofar as you are my classmate” or “I love you only for two years”. Love implies
immortality; it is eternal. As Gabriel Marcel would say, “I love you” means “you shall not die”.
Love is sacred. The persons involved in love are unique, irreplaceable and as such are valuable in
themselves. And since love is the gift of a person of his own self to other person, their relationship is also sacred.
It is sealed w/ trust, intimacy and even share secrets. Nevertheless, after all the discussions about love, it seems
as if love in itself is never exhausted. Love is a mystery. To see this mystery is to experience it, rather than talk
about it. But what can love do to one’s life. Try it anyway and see if without love, you can be anything at all.
Martin Heidegger’s Phenomenology of Death
According to Heidegger, the being/essence of man is a being-in-the-world. This is an important assertion
since it highlights that man’s being is not other-wordly, that man is man precisely because he is a being in the
world. Consequently, if man is a being in the world, then man will cease to be as man when he is no longer in
the world.Heidegger specifically denotes man’s being as Dasein, a German term which means “being there”
(Da – There, Sein – Being) By being in the world, Dasein is able to realize itself. Like a plant that needs a soil to
grow, the world serves as place where self-realization and actualization is made possible for Dasein.
By being thrown (“thrown” since the human person did not choose to exist in the world before he was
conceived) into the world, Dasein realizes its own possibilities, and it constantly actualizes its potentialities of
existence. Hence, by being in the world, man’s potentiality for being is never exhausted. For example, “I
cannot say that I will only actualize my potentials and realize myself for twenty years, then after that I will no
longer do actualization and realization”. By being in the world, Dasein is able to realize itself. Like a plant that
needs a soil to grow, the world serves as place where self-realization and actualization is made possible for
Dasein. By being thrown (“thrown” since the human person did not choose to exist in the world before he was
conceived) into the world, Dasein realizes its own possibilities, and it constantly actualizes its potentialities of
existence.
Hence, by being in the world, man’s potentiality for being is never exhausted. For example, “I cannot say
that I will only actualize my potentials and realize myself for twenty years, then after that I will no longer do
actualization and realization”.
Man, as long as he exists, has never reached his wholeness. “Man has always an unfinished character.”
If by being in the world I am a “not-yet”, an unfinished project, then by being no longer in the world ,
everything is already done, already finished. Man can no longer “be” when he is no longer in the world.
Being no longer in the world is only possible in death.
“Ang buhay ng tao ay parang isang pagsusulat ng nobela na hindi pwedeng tuldukan habang nabubuhay
pa siya. Matatapos lamang nobelang ito kapag wala na siya sa mundo.”

In death, man loses his potentiality for being. He is no longer being there. He is no longer a Dasein.
What is death for Heidegger? How is death related to the being of man, and what is man’s attitude towards
death? Our first experience of death is the death of others. However, we never experienced death of another
as he experienced it. In death, the totality of man is involved; it is Dasein coming to an end.
Death is not representable; “No one can take away the other’s dying from him.” Death is always mine.
Death is therefore the possibility of man, a ‘not-yet’ which will be. It is an impending event that must happen
to every individual. We have said that as long as man exists, he lacks a totality, wholeness; and this lack comes
to its end with death. Dasein, as long as it exists, is a not-yet, a not-yet that must come to be.
This not-yet of Dasein is like the not-yet of the unripeness of the fruit. The ripeness of the fruit is the end of its
not-yet, and the death of man is the also the end of his not-yet. There is, however, a difference between the
ripeness of the fruit and the death of man. With ripeness, the fruit comes to the fulfillment of its being. With
death, however, man may or may not attain his being’s fulfillment. Man, as long as he exists, is a being-
towards-death.
BEING-TOWARDS-DEATH

Heidegger explains that the state of man as being-in-the-world is also the state of being-ahead-of-himself.
This means that man is his state of existence projects himself in advance. This projection is made manifest is
man’s being conscious of his potentialities and possibilities.
“By being conscious that I can do this or that, or that I can be this or that, then I become ahead of
myself, ahead of what I actually am at this point in time.”

There is, however, an extreme and ultimate possibility opened for man. This is the possibility of no longer
being there (in the world). Hence, death is seen as the apex or the uttermost not-yet of man.
Death is the possibility of my no-longer-possible, of no longer being-able-to-be-there; the possibility of being
cut off from others and from things. And this possibility is the possibility that must be. Death, therefore, is not
just something that happens to man; it is something impending. As soon as I am born into this world, I am
already thrown into this possibility. The fact that I exist in the world construes that I exist with the possibility of
death. This possibility is revealed to me especially in the feeling of anxiety, the experience of dread wherein I
come face to face with this possibility of death. Anxiety is different from fear, for in fear (of death) I distance
myself from the possibility of my end. But in anxiety, I dread not only the possibility of death but also the
possibility of leaving the world. Many, however, are ignorant of the possibility of death which is own-most.
They are so engrossed in immediate concern with things that they have taken for granted this ultimate
possibility. But however busy we are, the fact remains that we are to die soon.
How do we treat this possibility? Two kinds of attitude are involved here: authentic and inauthentic.
Inauthentic Attitude Towards Death

In our daily life, death is seen as something like a mishap that often occurs. However, we hide our own
possibility of death by putting this as an event that only happens to others.

“Alam mo ba, malapit nang pumanaw si Mang Tasio.” “Ah, ganun ba? Kawawa naman ang pamilya niya.”

This kind of sympathy enables us somehow to dissuade ourselves that death is something that may happen
to us but not at this moment.

“People die…one of these days one will die too, in the end; but right now it has nothing to do with us.”
This is the inauthentic mode of man of being-towards-death. This attitude presupposes that death is certain,
“but not right now”. Hence, it is at the same time a denial of the certainty of death. In other words, this attitude
is an evasion of an impending event, an event that must happen.

Authentic Attitude Towards Death

The authentic response of man in his awareness of being-towards-death is not of evasion nor of giving
new explanations for it. Man must face the possibility of death as his possibility, the possibility in which his very
existence is an issue. Facing death is not actualizing death, for that would be suicide. In suicide, man does
not actualize himself but rather denies himself of his potentialities. The authentic attitude is an anticipation of
the possibility of death. By anticipating death, man realizes that death is his own-most possibility.
In accepting death as his extreme possibility, man for the first time can understand and choose among the
possibilities opened for him in the light of this extreme possibility. In other words, by accepting death, man
would realize the essential things in life, and will opt to achieve them instead of other less-important things.
The anticipation of the possibility of death opens to man all the possibilities of making himself. Man now comes
to grip his wholeness in advance. He is now open to the possibility of existing as a whole potentiality-for-being.
By recognizing his end, man is able to complete himself.

Karl Rahner’s Notion of Death

Heidegger’s freedom towards death seems to reach a theological development in Karl Rahner, one of
the leading theologians in history. For Karl Rahner, death is not just something that happens to man but it is in
itself an act of man, an act of self-affirmation in regards to his acceptance or refusal to be his authentic self,
a self that is open to transcendence. Thus, death constitutes the highest act of freedom of man, the freedom
to say yes or no to his openness to God. Death constitutes the highest freedom because death involves the
whole man. With the whole of man involved, there comes a total commitment. Death, being man’s extreme
possibility, enables man’s total commitment to take place. Death brings a kind of finality, a definity to the life-
long decision of man with regards to his destiny. It should not be taken as an isolated point in the life of man.
Rather, death must be taken as the culminating point of his life, the point where he finally reaches a fulfillment,
a totality. Every free act of man should carry an awareness of his fulfillment to a commitment. As such, death
should be present in every free act of man.