Originally I was thinking of titling this entry ‘Does Love Exist?’ but I was afraid that would have provoked the same confusion as Quine did suggesting that the analytic/synthetic distinction didn’t exist in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” In both situations we have generally agreed upon instances so it would take quite a bit to establish the terms didn’t refer. Rather what I mean to question here, and what Quine rightly should be understood to be disputing, is whether the word in kind refers to a natural kind. In both cases we can easily provide a functional definition for the property in question, ‘that property sentences we say are true by definition have’ or ‘that strong feeling people have for each other in romantic relationships’ but this is far from satisfying. We want to know if there is anything besides its functional role which makes love love.

Or to put it another way is there something in common about the way we feel when we are in love? Our common biological basis (we all have similar sorts of brains) might make us suspect we feel similarly but as love is clearly part of our reproductive strategy it would be quite plausible for men and women to have entirely different feelings. Moreover, there seems to be a particular difficulty in recognizing or defining love that just isn’t present for other types of emotions. No one sits around wondering if they are feeling hopeless or afraid and we don’t have hundreds of insufficient definitions trying to capture these feelings. Does this difficulty in capturing the notion just indicate unrealistic social expectations for love or does it show that love really isn’t a natural kind?

Or to put it less philosophically is it really true there is some special aspect of our feeling present only when we are in love? Or instead is the difference between being in love and having strong feelings for someone merely a matter of judgement, as one might judge a relationship to be worthwhile?

Perhaps this is a bit of a frivolous topic but the Kantians and continentalists are always offering (BS) opinions about love and I wanted to try approaching the issue from a more analytic perspective. Besides, being firvolous is what makes blogs more fun than going to conferences. First I want to make it absolutely clear that I am interested in what ‘love’ actually means. So any responses should plausibly describe how the word is actually used not what you would like it to mean. No responses like, “Love is the continued interest in someone’s spiritual growth.” That simply has nothing to do with the way the word is used. We commonly speak of people being in love who have no or even negative attitudes toward spirituality and their are obviously cases where love actually encourages someone to morally devolve. If you want a word to describe ‘good relationships’ pick another one, love is already taken. Though if anyone wants to argue that one of these type of definitions really describes usage I would be happy to give them a verbal beating.

Secondly, since people who matter to me a great deal read this blog I want to be clear on my introspective observations. I most certainly have a very particular and extremely strong feeling toward significant others. I’m not disputing that there is a feeling of overwhelming intensity towards those I ‘love.’ What I’m genuinely unsure about is whether it differs in kind or only in intensity from feelings which wouldn’t qualify as love. There is clearly a feeling of attachment to a significant other which has a unique character but at least for me this feeling seems to appear long before one would deem one was in love and gradually increase in intensity over time. Also it persists long after one would say that you were no longer in love.

Assuming my introspective experience is not radically abnormal this observation lends itself to several explanations of the apparent difficulty we have in explicating love as compared to the other emotions. The most obvious answer, and the only one that seems to comport with the idea that love is some natural kind of emotions, is that love is actually far more prevalent than we admit. In this explanation love really just refers to that special sort of feeling one has towards a romantic partner and it is just the social implications of admitting that one is in love which mean we acknowledge it so rarely. In this explanation we have a strong commitment to love referring to some natural kind so if the only natural kind in the neighborhood would have us falling in love with people on first dates and in other casual circumstances then we are just mistaken in not using our language in this manner. In this case most people do fall in love at first site, or at least after a few dates and those who don’t acknowledge this are using language incorrectly.

Alternatively our stronger commitment is to the usage of the word and we can dispense with the idea that love is some nice natural kind. In this explanation do be in love with someone means that you feel this particular sort of emotion sufficiently strongly. It is only a difference of degree that separates that feeling you might have for the friend or acquaintance you are just starting to date and what you will ultimately feel for them after growing closer. Perhaps there are also some additional requirements about the nature of this feeling but ultimately the idea that there is some special recognizable feeling of ‘love’ is incorrect. This doesn’t mean that one can’t clearly know one is in love, just as one can clearly know when they despise someone as opposed to just dislike them, there are going to be clear exemplars on both sides. However, when we are unsure if we are in love what we consult is the intensity of our feelings not whether they do or don’t have some particular feature.

Another take on this second option is that ‘love’ is not entirely about feelings at all. A certain type and intensity of feeling may be a necessary condition of love but what we mean by the word is that feeling plus a certain disposition toward the person in question. I personally find this explanation incompatible with usage especially in regards to unrequited love and other cases where love clearly exists without any relationship. However, I wanted to throw out this option anyway.

My inclination is toward the second explanation, though the first is plausible as well. Love refers to a certain intensity of romantic feelings and affection towards the individual in question. It is not really a natural kind and introspection only has limited value in determining whether or not you are really in love. This would explain the great difficulty in conveying what it means to be in love. It is easy to indicate the type of feelings involved but it is near impossible to communicate ‘how much’ of those feelings are necessary to constitute love. Still, I would guess many people have a different take on things so I’m making this post in the hope of hearing alternative explanations.

Even this less than satisfying resolution just assumes that men and women really are having the same sorts of feelings. I suspect that they do but I’m unsure how I would go about verifying this. If anyone has any thoughts I would love to hear them.