What is love according to Robert Nozick? What are some of the challenges for love to succeed according to him? Do you think love is possible given t

What is love according to Robert Nozick? What are some of the challenges for love to succeed according to him? Do you think love is possible given these challenges or not? Why?

Introduction 150 words

American Philosopher, Robert Nozick was born in 1938 New York and was well known for his book published in 1974 Anarchy, State and Utopia

History of Robert Nozick

Mention phenomena of love

Structure of essay

What this essay will conclude

Paragraph 1 700 words

History of love in philosophy

What is love according to common definition and society

What is love according to Robert Nozick

Add some quotes from Robert Nozicks book loves bond and anywhere else

Paragraph 2 700 words

What are some challenges for love to succeed according to Nozick?

What are contemporary challenges to love in this day and age

Add some quotes from Robert Nozicks book loves bond and anywhere else

Paragraph 3 700 words

Do you think love is possible given these challenges?

Why or why not

Personal opinion on Nozicks view of love

Derive response based off of Nozicks view

Conclusion 200 words

Conclude what was mentioned in each paragraph

Bibliography (Example format from essay 1) - Include in text referencing e.g. (Troxell, 2022)

Troxell, M (2022) Schopenhauer, Arthur, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: <https://iep.utm.edu/schopenh/#H3>

Wicks, R (2021 Fall Edition) Arthur Schopenhauer, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/schopenhauer/>

New World Encyclopedia contributors (2021) Arthur Schopenhauer, New World Encyclopedia. Available at: <https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Philosophy>

What is Schopenhauer's pessimism? What arguments does he have for pessimism? Do you agree with Schopenhauer's pessimism or not? If you do, try to anticipate responses to his arguments for the view, and defend his arguments from those responses. If you do not agree with Schopenhauer's pessimism, how would you reply to his arguments for the view?

Born in 1788, German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer has influenced the views of many not only through the philosophical world but as well as in psychology and literature. He is most commonly known for his work The World as Will and Representation and is often referred to as the philosopher of pessimism due to his substantial development of incorporating the pessimistic view within the works of philosophy. The modern meaning of pessimism entails the view and tendency of a person to always have a negative attitude toward all past, present and future situations. The modern definition was derived from Schopenhauers understanding that the will of humanity can never be fully satisfied as it has no purpose or goal to strive for resulting in human existence being forever dissatisfied (New World Encyclopedia contributors, 2021). Throughout this essay, there will be an analysis of Schopenhauers definition of pessimism, his arguments for this definition and my own point of view derived from whether his arguments are plausible or not that will take place.

Schopenhauer developed most of his thoughts around pessimism when he created his book The World as Will and Representation published in the year 1818. His meaning behind this creation is that within the universe, more specifically the world, the only object that relates to us as human beings are our physical body which can be perceived in two different aspects (Wicks, 2021). The first being from an objective and external point of view that is referred to as representation and the second aspect is the opposite by having a subjective and internal view in which Schopenhauer refers to this as will. Representation of the world refers to the appearances of the world through ideas and objects whereas the will of the world is what the world truly is as itself (ibid). Schopenhauer interprets the will of the world to be in a state of eternal frustration, as it endlessly strives for nothing in particular, and as it goes essentially nowhere (Wicks, 2021). Derived from this negative view of the world, this is the foundation of Schopenhauers pessimism. He claims that individuals are anguished products of unattainable desire or deficiency which results in suffering through daily life (Troxell, 2022). However, he goes on to declare although we are living in an insatiable striving state of mind, suicide will not solve this matter of existence as death will not end the suffering only put cease to the physical form of the suffering (ibid). He believes that the only way to find salvation from this suffering and to overall reduce this frustration is to try and reject any form of desire. This is where Schopenhauer initiates his appreciation for asceticism, favoured by religions such as Buddhism and Vedanta (Messerly, 2017). The definition of asceticism describes it as a lifestyle practice of strict self-discipline by denying all desires and forms of indulgence. As previously mentioned, Schopenhauer does not approve of suicide however, in a severe case of an individual following an asceticism lifestyle they might willingly accept death by starvation in which Schopenhauer believes is the only acceptable manner of suicide (ibid). As he believes that the will is evil, the asceticism lifestyle can transcend human nature and thus solve this issue of evil within the world (Wicks, 2021). When Schopenhauer talks about happiness within his famous work The World as Will and Representation, he describes it as a negative rather than positive nature that does not leave an individual forever satisfied that then will result in their yearning and feeling of boredom from their temporary relief of pain (Schopenhauer, 1819). This forms another foundation for Schopenhauers pessimism as he believes that happiness is destined to be frustrated or recognised as an illusion. (ibid). As he believes permanent pleasure is an unattainable aspect this then brings to light that he aligns happiness or pleasure to be only possible when there is an absence of pain (Fernandez, 2006). Therefore, Schopenhauers ultimate belief in relation to pessimism is that as long as desires arise in us, suffering is inescapable. (ibid). However, Schopenhauer preaches conditional pessimism which means he believes it is possible to be liberated by our desires as previously mentioned. If he believed in solely pessimism in its truest form then he would not mention the possibility of an ascetism lifestyle. Schopenhauer has many thoughts and arguments for his development of pessimism which will be discussed next.

Through his exploration and elaboration of pessimism, he provides a number of arguments for his belief and has become very influential in his thought process of pessimism. Schopenhauers two most significant arguments about pessimism share a common premise which is that having desires ultimately results in pain or suffering or in some cases both (Fernandez, 2006). His first argument takes place by claiming that it is impossible to satisfy all desires as desires lack in objectivity and aim (ibid). From this statement, it is evident to see that his strong belief in satisfying not just one desire but multiple is impossible to attain thus resulting in all desires being painful. These desires also in absence of lack and needs that then contributes again to the pain caused by desires. A compelling argument stated by Fernandez states if pleasure is only negative, then no matter how many desires we manage to satisfy, the pleasure that we obtain thus can never outweigh the suffering that stems from possessing unsatisfied desires. (2006). This statement further solidifies Schopenhauers first argument as even if we satisfy some of our desires, the pleasure received by satisfying these desires is negative, therefore, creating a continuous cycle of satisfying desires to only then be unsatisfied when not all have been fulfilled. Schopenhauer has evidently set the expectations for happiness at an extremely high level as he believes that happiness is only achievable when one has reached permanent satisfaction which from his arguments he believes it to be very unlikely (ibid). He provides evidence of the struggle to find happiness by displaying that one will always experience some type of pain or suffering to prove his argument is valid. His second argument claims that when satisfying any number of desires or even rarely all of our desires this will then give rise to an empty longing in other words boredom which also results in suffering (Fernandez, 2006). His reasoning behind this argument is that once that desire has been achieved with satisfaction it is human nature to then take that attained desire for granted which will then lead to us trying to find the next best object of desire. By once satisfying and acquiring each desire than ultimately this will result in unfulfilling suffering that is vulnerable to boredom as some individuals might desire to have desires. To merge his first argument with his second argument, it is evident that he believes that it is firstly impossible to satisfy all desires and secondly if these desires are satisfied it will eventually lead to boredom to then suffering because of this boredom that will take place. This then is a vicious cycle of pain and suffering that as long as there are desires emerging within us then it is inevitable to experience this cycle. Another argument Schopenhauer provides for pessimism is that salvation does not redeem life, therefore, it would have been better if life had not come into existence. (Smith, 2014). This is a strong statement that many might find hard to agree with as he is trying to put forth that salvation may not always be the answer to ending suffering but can be for some cases and for others it would have been best if we did not have to exist at all. These arguments provided by Schopenhauer offer an insight into his pessimistic outlook on life and the reasons behind his thoughts in which numerous individuals have been significantly influenced.

There are many individuals who either reject or accept the idea of pessimism much to Schopenhauers credit for providing the many developments on the matter. He has made a large impact on the meaning of pessimism in modern society in which it is often negatively received by many. For example, if an individual is seen as having a pessimistic outlook on life it means they have less social support, lower resilience, a reduced ability to cope with stress, and a greater propensity for depression and anxiety disorders. (Scott, 2022). Thus, emphasising just how large of a negative impact on individuals everyday lives it is to have a pessimistic outlook on life. However, in modern-day life, there can also be a number of benefits to attaining a healthy dose of pessimism. (ibid). These might include the ability to avoid dangerous risks and to always be prepared when something negative does occur in life by bracing for the worst and being able to have a plan set in advance. Schopenhauer provides compelling arguments as to why pessimism is a constant reality of our world. However, there are counter-arguments in response to his arguments as what he is preaching in my personal opinion is not solely plausible. For example, in reference to his first argument that it is impossible to satisfy all desires gives rise to a fault when mentioning his second argument that if all desires are met then boredom will be the result. This is baffling as he is claiming that on one hand satisfying all desires is impossible but yet in argument two, he is providing a safety net for if individuals are able to satisfy all desires there will still be pain and suffering. Although pessimism contributes greatly to an individual maintaining a logical, rational and realistic thought process there are still faults to his arguments as can be seen with his last argument. For example, his last claim that life would have been better of if it were not brought into existence has a very negative impact and is not a plausible statement. This is because if life was not meant to exist then there is the question of why do we even exist. Schopenhauer makes individuals question their whole existence in which I believe he has complicated not just what it is to be happy but also what it is to endure pain and suffering. Therefore, due to the faults found in his arguments, this is where I struggle to agree and find plausible Schopenhauers take on pessimism.

In conclusion, it is evident to witness the impact Schopenhauers pessimism has had on societys outlook on life and overall existence. Developed from his famous book The World as Will and Representation is where his take on pessimism really grows into the meaning we now know today. The modern meaning of pessimism describes the view and tendency of a person to always have a negative attitude of all past, present and future situations whereas Schopenhauers understanding is that the will of humanity can never be fully satisfied as it has no purpose or goal to strive for resulting in human existence to be forever dissatisfied. His arguments for pessimism first begin with claiming that it is impossible to satisfy all desires as desires lack in objectivity and aim then moving into his second argument that if all desires are satisfied then this will result in boredom. His final argument mentioned is that human existence should never have been created in the first place in order to avoid forever being unsatisfied with desires or happiness. Although Schopenhauer is very compelling in his arguments, I still found his view to be unplausible and lacking in further clarifications that should have been made.

Bibliography

Troxell, M (2022) Schopenhauer, Arthur, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: <https://iep.utm.edu/schopenh/#H3>

Wicks, R (2021 Fall Edition) Arthur Schopenhauer, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/schopenhauer/>

New World Encyclopedia contributors (2021) Arthur Schopenhauer, New World Encyclopedia. Available at: <https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Philosophy>

Messerly, J (2017) Summary of Schopenhauers Pessimism. Available at: <https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/03/17/schopenhauers-pessimism/>

Schopenhauer, A (1819) The World as Will and Representation, Dove Publisher.

Fernandez, J (2006) Schopenhauers Pessimism, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, The Australian National University. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40041014.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A12967a7b96313861ffc5c599d79ca22b&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1>

Scott, E (2022) Is It Safer to Be a Pessimist? Very Well Mind. Available at: <https://www.verywellmind.com/is-it-safer-to-be-a-pessimist-3144874#:~:text=Impact%20of%20Pessimism,impact%20your%20outlook%20on%20life>

Smith, C (2014) Philosophical Pessimism: A Study In The Philosophy Of Arthur Schopenhauer, Georgia State University. Available at: <https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=philosophy_theses>

Nozick and Delaney on love

PART I: THE NATURE OF ROMANTIC LOVE

Forming a new entity, or a we, which is characterized by some changes in your attitudes towards your (and your beloveds) well-being, autonomy, and identity:

Well-being

Your well-being is tied to that of your beloved: You regard the promotion of her well-being as a good for you.

It makes you vulnerable (challenges to your beloveds well-being can be beyond your control, and yet theyll affect you) and it affords some protection (your beloved will be invested in your own well-being).

Question: Are we talking about what actually constitutes your beloveds well-being, and yours, or what each of you regards as his/her own well-being?

Suppose that your beloved wants to embark on some journey which is important for her, even though it involves some level of risk. You want her to be safe, so you regard the promotion of her not pursuing that journey as something good. She, however, regards the promotion of her pursuing that journey as something good.

Are you acting out of love when you dissuade her from embarking on that journey?

Autonomy

Decisions are no longer made alone.

It makes sense if your well-being affects your beloveds, and vice versa.

Identity

You make your beloved a special area of attention (as a part of who you are, in some sense?).

Division of labour: Some things only need to be enjoyed by one of the two people.

Adopting the same desires and interests as those of your beloved?

Delaney on this aspect of love:

Adopting the same desires and interests as those of your beloved doesnt seem to capture the idea of uniting with the other person.

You dont want your beloved to appropriate your projects.

And yet, you dont want her to be a mere spectator.

We need, then, a level of involvement in the beloved's projects, without taking over.

Question: Is the idea of forming a joint identity anything over and above the well-being idea above?

PART II: ASPIRATIONS IN LOVE HAVING TO DO WITH FREEDOM.

You want your beloved to be fully possessed by you / be the whole world for her.

You want your beloved to love you freely.

Question:Isnt there a tension between (i) and (ii)?

The concern is that, perhaps, it is impossible to beon the one hand, captivated or possessed, by your beloved, andon the other hand, to be in that state freely.

Isn't the state of being captivated, or possessed, by the other person a lack of freedom?

Possible response

We can enter a state in which we lack freedom freely.(You can freely get drunk, for example.)

Rejoinder

But (ii) does not say that you want your beloved to enter into love freely.What (ii) says is that you want your beloved to stay in love freely.(Or should we understand (ii) as a claim about entering the state of love?)

Note:This tension between (i) and (ii) is precisely the concern that Sartre had about love being 'an ideal out of reach'.

Interestingly, Nozick seems to disagree with Sartre on this point. He doesn't seem to think that, just because we have (i) and (ii) at the same time, achieving love is impossible.

You want your beloveds love not to be fickle. You want to be able to count on it.

Question: Isnt there a tension between (iii) and (ii)?

The concern is that, perhaps, it is impossible to be loved in a way which ison the one hand, free, andon the other hand,not subject to change at any point

Possible response

The way to make these two aspirations consistent is by focusing on the reasons why your beloved loves you.

If your beloved loves you for the right reasons, then maybe that love is freely given, but unlikely to change. The idea is that the right reasons are, in some sense, solid or permanent.

Rejoinder

But that approach assumes that love is given for some reason.

Is this the kind of thing that we do for a reason? We need to examine that idea in more detail before we grant that assumption.

PART III: ASPIRATIONS IN LOVE HAVING TO DO WITH REASONS.

You want to be loved for yourself (as opposed to your money, beauty, etc.)

You think your beloved shouldnt trade up if another person with lots of positive features comes along.

It seems to make sense that we have both ideals: If your beloved loves you for yourself, then she doesnt love you for your properties. So it seems pointless to trade up in the hopes of getting more positive properties in another person.

You want to be loved for the right reasons

Not for a version of yourself (but for something that you take to be central about you)

Not for something that is central about you in an instrumental way, but in itself.

You want the love you receive to be deserved.

You want your beloved to be discerning (as opposed to someone whod love a schmuck).

Note: Delaneys explanation for why we want this is close to Nietzsches.

He seems to think that the reason why we have (vi) and (vii) is that, in this way, by feeling loved, one gains reason to approve of oneself.

Interestingly, Delaney disagrees with Nietzsche about one thing. He doesnt seem to think its a bad thing that love feeds ones self-esteem.

Question: Isnt there a tension between (iv) and (vi) on the one hand and, on the other hand, between (v) and (vii)?

If you are loved for yourself, your properties shouldnt matter. So there should be no such thing as loving for the right/wrong reasons.

If you want your beloved to be discerning, then it shouldnt be inappropriate to switch to a lover with better properties.