Wittgenstein on love: The way to a better marriage

Provisional Title: Wittgenstein on love: The way to a better marriage

 (Note: This is a copy of my draft for a course paper on Wittgenstein in my MA. This will still go through a series of revisions this year with the help of my adviser.)


wedding rings


Research Question: What are implications of Wittgenstein’s remarks on love to marital relationship?

 

Thesis Statement: Wittgenstein’s remarks on love provides married couples a practical idea of love which they may apply in order to nurture their marital relationship.

 

Abstract

This paper will argue that Wittgenstein’s remarks on love provides a practical idea of love which married couples may apply to nurture their marital relationship. The secondary literature on Wittgenstein’s remarks on love is scarce. This is not surprising given the fact that Wittgenstein’s remarks on love are also minimal. This paper will mainly base its inputs from two of the latest papers about Wittgenstein on love: Christensen (2020) and Lin (2021). From these, we discover that Wittgenstein’s remarks on love are mainly reactions to other philosopher’s view on love – that is, from Kierkegaard and James. In his diaries we see his responses to Kierkegaard’s views on love. While in his Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, we see his reactions to James’ views on love. This paper will combine these views and support its claim that Wittgenstein’s remarks on love will have a practical use for married couples.

 

1. Introduction

Love is not one of the main topics which the dense literature on Wittgenstein is focused on. There may be many reasons for this, but I believe the main reason is that Wittgenstein himself did not write so much about it compared to his other philosophical concerns. Moreover, his remarks on love is not in any way systematic. That is, we only see these remarks as scattered replies or reactions to other philosophers who talked more about love. In this paper, I will consider two of the philosophers who talked a lot of love in whom Wittgenstein reacted from.

The first philosopher that I will be considering in this paper whom Wittgenstein reacted to is Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard has a notion about the distinction between proper and improper love. Wittgenstein’s reactions to Kierkegaard on love is mainly written on his diaries (Christensen 2020). Here we will see that Wittgenstein does not agree with this distinction. For him, proper love is not tenable and improper love is not really improper. It is the only possible love and what love truly is. I will discuss this further in section 2 of this paper.

After I discuss Wittgenstein’s reactions to Kierkegaard, I will move on the next philosopher whom Wittgenstein also reacted to regarding love. And this is William James. James talked about love in relation to emotion. Wittgenstein on the other hand, talked about emotion in many of his writings (Lin 2021, p. 271). But this paper will only focus on Wittgenstein’s remarks on love vis a vis emotion in his Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology[1]. Here we will see how Wittgenstein, in contrast to James, differentiates love from emotion and feeling. I will discuss this further in section 3 of this paper.

After I present Wittgenstein’s remarks on love, in section 4 of this paper will be discussing the possible practical implications of these remarks. In there I will show at least three distinct but related ways in which couples may nurture their marital relationships. First, is by way of going beyond their own preferences for each other. Second, is by way of reminding each other of their love through acts of love in a regular basis. And third, is by way of having a lifelong view of one’s love for their partner.

 

2. Wittgenstein on love I: Diaries, 1936-37

Love is preferential

In his response to Kierkegaard’s notion of proper and improper love – the selfless and selfish love accordingly – Wittgenstein said that he does not know any love that is not preferential. In his diaries, Wittgenstein remarked: “One could say: What you call love for the fellow human being is self-interest. Well, then I don’t know any love without self-interest, for I cannot intervene in the eternal salvation of another” (Wittgenstein 2003, p. 131-133). I believe that, Christensen was right in saying that, Wittgenstein was referring to Kierkegaard in the phrase “One could say” in the above-cited remark (Christensen 2020, p. 882). That is, Wittgenstein in that specific remark is responding to Kierkegaard’s distinction between proper and improper love – the selfless and selfish love.

Improper love for Kierkegaard, is a form of self-love because it is based on one’s own preference (ibid., p. 880). That is, you love somebody because that person matches your personal preference or standard for a beloved. This is very common to modern day romantic love. As common love story goes, someone falls in love with the person that is ideal for their own eyes. But in reality, that someone did not really fall in love with the person he believes he falls in love to. He is rather in love with the idea that that person falls under his own preference. In a sense, he has only fallen in love with his own preference. He has only loved himself – self-love or selfish love.

While proper love, for Kierkegaard, is selfless because it is based on the love of God (Christensen 2020, p. 881). Here, you love another person not because the other person fits well with your preference for a beloved. So, this love is not selfish, that is, you are not thinking of your own self-interest in loving the other. But, you think of the way to bring the other to love God. This is what proper love is, that is, to love God. Our love with other people will only be proper love if in doing so it will make the other love God. And to make another person love God is to love another person (Kierkegaard 1847/2009, p. 113).

As previously stated, Wittgenstein does not agree with the distinction between proper and improper love that we see in Kierkegaard. For him, there is no love that is not preferential – all love is preferential. Wittgenstein supports this by pointing out that we are individuals – that is, we all have our individuality or particularity (Christensen 2020, p. 883). In other words, we are unique, we are all different from one another. And to love, in human terms, is to acknowledge the fact that we are individuals and appreciate the other’s individuality. Now, to do this, our own preference is vital. If one does not have preference, how can he love a particular individual? Without a preference you are not made aware of the particularities of the other. Hence, not being able to appreciate a particular individual and will just entertain anyone that is available.

But the more important thing about our preferences is that Wittgenstein believe that our preferences are not static but subject to will and responsibility (ibid.). This even more supports the point that preferences are vital to love. Because, as human beings, we have the will to change things – for one is our preferences. Initial preferences may enable us to fall in love with someone, that feeling that someone fits perfectly with our ideal of a beloved. While, it is the will to develop new preferences that may enable us to fully love a person. It is by willfully making other new preferences that we may be able to cater the other particularities of our beloved as we know her better through time. Our preferences will enable our love to grow in time.

 

Love is worldly

Wittgenstein’s remark about love being preferential also in a way responded to Kierkegaard’s characterization of proper love as consisting of the love of God. Love can only be preferential for Wittgenstein (2003) because “[one] cannot intervene in the eternal salvation of another” (p. 133). That is, one cannot make or force the other love God. Because, the love of God is personal to each individual. As Christensen (2020) puts it, “[t]he other's salvation or love of God is not itself a possible object of love because it is a relation, not between lover and loved one, but between every single person and God” (p. 883). So, I agree with Christensen’s claim that Wittgenstein is thus basically saying that proper love in Kierkegaard’s sense is not possible. There is no love in reality that is consisting of and persisting for the love of God (ibid.). In contrast to this, what Wittgenstein (2003) believes is that one can only love in a “world1y sense” (p. 133) and “show respect for all that seems to reveal in me a striving for what’s highest” (ibid.).

 

3. Wittgenstein on love II: Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology

Love is not an emotion

There are two ways in which emotion and love differs for Wittgenstein. Because of these differences love is not an emotion (Lin 2021, p. 279). First, love differs from emotion in terms of genuine duration. Second, love differs from emotion in terms of being put to the test.

For Wittgenstein, genuine duration is characterized by explicit identification of the start and end of something. As Wittgenstein wrote, “Where there is genuine duration one can tell someone: ‘Pay attention and give me a signal when the thing you are experiencing (the picture, the rattling etc.) alters’” (RPP II 50). Emotions have genuine duration (RPP II 148). For example, when someone is joyful. One can explicitly say to oneself and others at what specific time that he is joyful. At the same time, one can in the same manner tell when his joy fades out.

Love, in contrast, has no genuine duration. It is impossible for someone to tell when did he start loving a person. The exact time or moment that one falls in love to someone is unidentifiable. This is a simple illustration that love has surely no genuine duration. For Wittgenstein, love might be called an “emotional disposition” (ibid.) For him, “a disposition is not interrupted by a break in consciousness or a shift in attention” (RPP II 45). That explains why it is impossible to point out the beginning and end of love. Being antithetical to having genuine duration, love is not an emotion (Lin 2021, p. 279).

Another difference between love and emotion is by being put to the test. An emotion need not be put to test. If one is angry one need not test if one is really angry. Anger is just felt explicitly and shows itself clearly in bodily expressions and actions. It just makes no sense to ask oneself if he is really angry or not. You just know that you are.

While in love, to really know if someone loves, there is sense to put it to the test. And Wittgenstein remarked that love can be put to the test as opposed to emotions that can’t be. He says, “Emotional attitudes (e.g. love) can be put to the test, but not emotions” (RPP II 152). Testing love can be done through asking whether there are some things that the lover can do for his beloved. Lin (2021) gives us a good example for this, he writes, “For example: if B is in danger, will A go to rescue B; if B leaves for a place far away, will A miss B greatly; so on and so forth” (p. 280). If one cannot risk his life for his beloved then his love is doubtful – most probably not true love. And if one will not miss the other even after years of being apart. Then, maybe it is not true love. This is how love is different from emotion in terms of being put to the test. Love requires proof to be really considered as true. It is not as simple as emotion that requires no verification.

 

Love is not a feeling

            In saying that love is not a feeling, Wittgenstein points out three ways in which love differs from feelings (ibid.). First, is in terms of endurance. Any feeling does not last for so long. The feeling of being happy, for example, when you achieve something will only approximately last for at least a second and at most a few days. This is supported by the common claim that it is the journey that matters not the actual achievement itself. Because what you will feel at the point of achieving something is fleeting, it was memory of the journey that will last.

While, on the other hand, true love endures for a long time. We see Wittgenstein writes in relation to this and says, “If it passes, then it was not true love” (RPP I 115). An example would be that if one thinks or feels that he loves someone, it is wise to wait it out. To wait and test a feeling for endurance will make one sure that what he feels is not just a mere feeling but true love.  Because if what one feels for someone fades out quickly in time then it was not true love but just some kind of feeling – maybe a feeling of appreciation, attraction, or lust. But if it will endure for a long time then it is not just a mere feeling, most probably love.

The second distinction that love and feeling has is in terms of expression. Wittgenstein writes, “For the characteristic mark of all “feelings” is that there is expression of them, i.e. facial expression, gestures, of feeling” (RPP II 320). Here it is clearly pointed out that feelings can be expressed through (1) facial expression, and (2) bodily gestures. For example, the feeling of being angry can be expressed and be seen in the pulling together of eyebrows, widening of eyes, etc. It can also be expressed and be seen in the shouting gesture or punching gesture, etc. But love cannot be expressed in the same way that feelings can be expressed and be seen.

Third, is again in terms of putting to the test. A feeling like an emotion needs not be put to test. There is I think no need to do more explaining about this. In Wittgenstein’s remark, “Love is not a feeling. Love is put to the test, pain not. One does not say: “That was not true pain, or it would not have gone off so quickly.”” (RPP I 959). While, as explained awhile back, love can be put to the test.

 

4. Marital love

            The main claim of this paper is to present that Wittgenstein’s remarks on love discussed above implies a practical way for married couples to utilize in nurturing their marital relationship. In what follows, are at least three implications of Wittgenstein’s remarks on love that may serve as ways for married couples to apply.

 

Going beyond preferences

            The practical aspect of Wittgenstein’s characterization of love as preferential is his remark that our preferences are not static – as discussed, a while ago. As a willful being, we are capable in willful alteration of our preferences for a beloved if the need arises. Love is preferential. But, Wittgenstein says that we can choose to widen our preferences. That is, to make new preferences in view of the one being loved. The other does not always have all our ideal preferences for a beloved. Some preferences may be met but some will not be. That is why to truly love is to widen or go beyond our initial preferences. To love is to accept the beloved of who they are – their individuality. To do that is to make preferences that cater to them.

            This for me is key to a happier marriage. One cannot be happy with their partner if in the first place they do not “prefer” or in other words “accept” their partner fully – accept their whole individuality. Making new preferences that cater the partner will lead to deeper understanding of the partner. Because, how can one even make preferences for the partner if not understanding what the other is really all about. With acceptance and understanding marriage will surely be a happier one.

            Making new preferences that cater the partner is not an easy task to do. This may require great courage and determination to do and may even require a lifetime to realize. This is I think that marriage is a lifelong project to work on. This idea is discussed later in the section.

 

Constant Effort

            Love as having no genuine duration means that one cannot point out the exact moment one fall in love or one loves another. And I think this also applies to being fall out of love. One cannot exactly tell when someone will fall out of love. For this reason, I claim that this calls for a daily manifestation of effort or “acts of love” for a relationship to stay strong.

            For the husband to remind himself and his wife that he loves, he has to show acts of love in a constant basis. That is, everyday he should manifest his love for her. This is the same with the wife. The wife should also be showing constant effort to manifest her love for the husband. Again, she is doing this for herself to know that she loves her husband and as well as for her husband to know that she loves him.

It is the daily efforts that will give one another something they can hold on to – something they can claim that they love and that they are loved. In fact, this is what happens with couples. Most of the time couples fight because they sense a lack of effort from their partner in their daily encounter. Judgement on the partner is based on is seen in the daily workings of their love relationship.

            We cannot know for ourselves when will we fall out of love or when we fell in love. If we want it to persists as love should be, I think one key thing is to nurture it daily. To show it in actions daily. Different people may show love differently. And different people may interpret efforts as love or not differently. So, it is important that couples know and be transparent about what efforts they view as a loving action. To help each other in nurturing their relationship.

 

Lifelong project

Love endures as Wittgenstein says. And I think people is not mistaken in associating true love with the undying love between old couples. Stories of people loving for decades for the rest of their lives. Married till death. I mean what else endures more than that.

Love can be tested in many ways. But maybe time is the ultimate test. With time comes all other challenges for love. Because human time is never linear. It is full of ups and downs, twists and turns. Together with all the positive things, it is also full of problems. If love endures through these, then it proved to be true love.

Given above, I think that what couples may do is to embrace a lifelong view of love for each other. That is, that they already envision a future ahead of themselves. That surely challenges will come along. And because, they already envisioned this, they may be able to cope with these better when these problems come. They will be approaching marital problems that will challenge their love in a different perspective. The perspective that goes beyond a single problem. The perspective that says, that problems only come and go. That their love will endure all of these. Because, that is what love should be. They can prove their love as true by going through all these problems throughout their whole life.

 

5. Conclusion

Wittgenstein remarked about what love is like and what love is not like. In his diaries we saw fragments of his idea about love in response to Kierkegaard’s. While in RPP, we saw another set of fragments of his idea about love in response to that of James’. I gathered these fragments of ideas on love in this paper. I did not aim at unifying these separate remarks on love. Rather, I explored on how these scattered remarks on love be of practical use for married couples in their marital relationship. I showed that Wittgenstein’s remarks on love may be beneficial for married couples in nurturing their marital relationship. This paper discussed it in three distinct but related ways. First, is that marital relationships may be nurtured by way of going beyond their preferences about each other. Second, is by way of reminding each other of their love through acts of love in a regular basis. And third, marital relationship may be nurtured by way of having a lifelong view of one’s love for the other. That is, enduring despite the many challenges that may go along the way.

 

References

Christensen, A-M. S. (2020). The philosopher and the reader: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein on love and philosophical method. European Journal of Philosophy, 28(4), 876-891. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12473.

Lin, F. S. (2021). How (not) to Read Wittgenstein: McNally on Wittgenstein on Love. Philosophical Investigations, 44:3, 270-294. DOI: 10.1111/phin.12301.

Kierkegaard, S. (1847/2009). In H. V. Hong, & E. H. Hong (Eds.), Works of love, ed. and trans. by. New York: Harper.

Wittgenstein, L. (2003). In J. C. Klagge, & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Private and public occasions, ed. by. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Wittgenstein L. (1980). Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.



[1] In this paper the abbreviation RPP is used for Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology (Wittgenstein, 1980).

Post a Comment

0 Comments