Love as Intimate Identification

Abstract

This chapter argues that to love someone is to be intimately concerned for his well-being as this particular person. Such intimate concern is cashed out in terms of intimate identification: having a concern for his identity, understood in terms of the sharing of his cares and values for his sake, that is analogous to, but not identical with, your concern for your own identity. This account of love enables us to make sense of the idea that love is essentially for particular persons, the way love essentially involves trust and respect, and the intuitive depth of our feelings of pride, shame, and other person-focused emotions focused on others.

Philosophy of Love and the Hiddenness Argument

“…This understanding of love puts words to a deeply held intuition many people share about love. 'The union view claims that love consists in the formation of (or desire to form) some significant union, a "we"' (Helm 2021). There is disagreement over what this "we" amounts to, whether it constitutes a new being with ontological status or is merely metaphorical, but such debates can be set aside for now.…”

“…When we think about what it means to love another person, a common description is to say that we care about the beloved or wish the best for her. The robust concern view of love emphasizes this sense of caring for the other as the defining feature of love (Helm 2021). Soble describes the view in the following way: 'x desires for y that which is good for y, x desires this for y's own sake, and x pursues y's good for y's benefit and not for x's…' (Soble 1997: 68).…”

“…Soble describes the view in the following way: 'x desires for y that which is good for y, x desires this for y's own sake, and x pursues y's good for y's benefit and not for x's…' (Soble 1997: 68). It is important to recognize that robust concern, though not necessarily incompatible with having union with the beloved, rejects the notion 'that love is to be understood in terms of the (literal or metaphorical) creation of a "we"…' (Helm 2021).…”

The Break-Up Check: Exploring Romantic Love through Relationship Terminations

“…The second one is to suggest that the ‘central element’ approach may be a wrong one, so maybe the love-and-valuing and love-as-identification views should get closer in the way I claim the property and the relationship love-as-valuing views should. There are also views which integrate the valuing and the identification elements (see for example Helm 2010 ; Smith 2011 ). I intend this paper to indirectly act as support for the idea that the study of love should be re-directed with that integrating tendency, instead of the current focus on the search for a ‘central element’.…”

“… 13 Surely, often look for a new relationship after a break-up, which seems to contradict the claim that reciprocity cannot come from anyone. That is the so-called ‘fungibility problem’ (Helm 2010 :25), according to which the object of one’s love is fungible, interchangeable with someone else with the same qualities. Fungibility is only a problem from the perspective of rationality –it would be rational to love the substituting object.…”