13.08.2020

Read the test of love by Eric Frome. Love is the solution to the problem of human existence

THE ART OF LOVING

Reprinted with permission from HarperCollins Publishers and Andrew Nurnderg Literary Agency.

Series “Philosophy – Neoclassic”

* * *

Preface

Reading this book will be disappointing to those who expect to find in it practical recommendations on the art of love. On the contrary, the purpose of this book is to show that love is not a feeling that is easily accessible to any person, regardless of his degree of maturity. The author seeks to convince the reader that any attempts to love are doomed to failure unless a person actively tries to develop his own integral personality in order to gain a creative orientation; satisfaction in individual love cannot be achieved without the ability to love one's neighbor, without sincere humility, without courage, faith and discipline. In cultures where these qualities are rare, the ability to love is inevitably a rare achievement. Everyone can ask themselves: how many truly loving people do they know?

However, the difficulty of the task should not be a reason for refusing to try to understand what is preventing it. To avoid unnecessary complexity, I have tried to present the problem, avoiding technical terms as much as possible. For the same reason, I have also kept references to literature about love to a minimum.

For another problem—how to avoid repeating ideas expressed in my previous books—I have not found a satisfactory solution. The reader, especially familiar with the works "Flight from Freedom", "Man for Himself" and "A Healthy Society", will find in this book many of the ideas already expressed in them. However, The Art of Loving is by no means a repetition of what has been said, not to mention the fact that even older propositions sometimes take on new perspectives due to the fact that they are all centered around one theme - the art of loving.

He who knows nothing loves nothing. Anyone who cannot do anything understands nothing. Anyone who doesn't understand is useless. But the one who understands also loves, notices, sees... The more understanding is invested in the subject, the more more love… Anyone who believes that all berries ripen at the same time as strawberries knows nothing about grapes.

I
Is love an art?

Is love art? If yes, then it requires knowledge and effort. Or is it a pleasant sensation experienced by chance, something that a person “falls into” if he is lucky? This little book is based on the first assumption, although undoubtedly most people today believe the latter.

This is not to say that people consider love to be something unimportant. They are hungry for her; They watch countless films about happy and unhappy love, they listen to hundreds of popular songs about love - and yet hardly anyone thinks that they need to learn anything about love.

This strange attitude is based on several premises that support it, individually or in combination.

Most people see the problem as to be loved and not to be in love, have the capacity for love. So for them the problem is how to attract love, not how to become attractive. To achieve their goal, people take several paths. One of them, used primarily by men, is to achieve success, become powerful and rich as much as their social status. Another way that women especially often take is to make themselves attractive by taking care of their body, clothes, etc. Another way, used by both men and women, is to increase their attractiveness through pleasant manners, the ability to conduct interesting conversation, willingness to help, modesty, peacefulness. Many of the ways to earn love turn out to be the same ones used to achieve success, to win friendship and attention. influential people. In fact, most people in our culture understand attractiveness as a mixture of popularity and sex appeal.

Many of the ways to earn love turn out to be the same ones used to achieve success, to win the friendship and attention of influential people.

The second prerequisite for such an attitude is the opinion that the problem of love is a problem object selection, but not ability to love. People think that loving is easy, but finding a worthy object to love and achieving it is difficult. This view has several reasons rooted in the development of modern society. One of them is the huge change that occurred in the 20th century in relation to the “object of love”. In the Victorian era, as was customary in traditional cultures, love was not considered a spontaneous personal feeling that could lead to marriage. On the contrary, marriages were concluded by agreement between families, either with the participation of a matchmaker or without intermediaries. They were concluded based on social considerations, and it was believed that love would arise by itself after the wedding. But over the course of the last generations Western world The concept of romantic love triumphed, becoming almost universal. In the United States, where traditional considerations have not entirely lost their importance, the vast majority still seek "romantic love," the personal feeling that should result from marriage. This new concept of the priority of freedom in love has enormously increased the importance object versus importance functions.

Another feature turned out to be closely related to this factor modern culture. Our entire culture is based on the desire to buy, on the idea of mutually beneficial exchange. The happiness of a modern person lies in reverently looking at shop windows and purchasing everything he can afford - for cash or in installments. He (or she) looks at people the same way. An attractive girl for a man or an attractive man for a woman is a prize to strive for. “Attractiveness” is generally viewed as an alluring set of qualities that are popular and in demand in the personality market. What makes a person attractive in particular depends on fashion and the demand at the moment for both physical and mental qualities. In the twenties of the 20th century, a girl who drinks and smokes, is cool and sexy, was considered attractive, but today fashion demands that she be more “homey” and shy. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, a man had to be aggressive and ambitious, but today he must be sociable and tolerant to become an attractive acquisition. In any case, the feeling of falling in love usually occurs only in relation to such “human goods” that are available in exchange for one’s own capabilities. I seek to make a deal, and the desired object must be valuable in terms of social value and at the same time want me, taking into account my obvious and hidden advantages and potential. Two people fall in love when they feel they have found the best object on the market that can be purchased, subject to the limitations of the intrinsic value offered in return. Often, as with the purchase of real estate, the hidden potential that can be unlocked plays a significant role in the transaction. In a predominantly market-oriented culture in which material success has a preeminent value, there is little reason to be surprised that human love relationships follow the same pattern of reciprocity as the market for goods and services.

The happiness of a modern person lies in reverently looking at shop windows and purchasing everything he can afford - for cash or in installments. He (or she) looks at people the same way.

The third mistake, leading to the belief that nothing needs to be learned in love, is the confusion of the initial feeling of falling in love and the constant state of a loving person - “falling” into love and “staying” in it. If two people, strangers to each other, as is the case for all of us, suddenly find that the wall between them is crumbling, feel closeness, unity, then this moment of merging is one of the most exciting and joyful feelings in life. This is all the more wonderful and wonderful for people who were previously closed, isolated, and deprived of love. This miracle of unexpected intimacy is often enhanced when combined or generated by sexual attraction and copulation. However, this type of love is short-lived by its nature. The two get to know each other well, and intimacy for them increasingly loses its amazing character, until antagonism, disappointment, and boredom kill what remains of the original excitement. However, at first the lovers do not know all this: they take the intensity of the infatuation, the fact that they are “crazy” for each other, as proof of the strength of their love, although in fact this only indicates the degree of their previous loneliness.

This view—that nothing is easier than loving—continues to be the dominant view of love, despite clear evidence that this is not the case. There is hardly any field of activity or occupation that promises such enormous hopes and expectations and yet so regularly leads to fiasco as love. If this happened in any other area, people would certainly want to know the reasons for the failure, would want to find ways to avoid it, or would give up the corresponding activity. Since the latter is impossible in the case of love, it seems that the only and effective way To avoid failure is to explore its causes and study the meaning of love.

There is hardly any field of activity or occupation that promises such enormous hopes and expectations and yet so regularly leads to fiasco as love.

The first step on this path is to realize that love is an art, like life itself. If we want to learn to love, we must act in the same way as we act if we want to learn any other art - say, music, painting, carpet weaving, medicine or engineering.

What are the necessary steps to master any art?

The process of learning art can be divided into two parts: mastery of theory and mastery of practice. If I want to learn the art of medicine, I must first study the human body and various diseases. But even having received these theoretical knowledge, I still will not in any way prove competent in the art of medicine. I will master it only after long and thorough practice, when finally my theoretical knowledge and the results of practice merge into one - into intuition, which is the essence of mastering any art. However, besides the study of theory and practice, there is a third factor necessary for becoming a master of any art: mastery of it should be the main business of life; There should be nothing more important to you in the world than your art. This is true for music, for medicine, for carpentry - and also for love. Perhaps here lies the answer to the question of why representatives of our culture so rarely learn the art of love, despite obvious failures, despite the deepest thirst for love. Almost everything is considered more important than love: success, prestige, money, power - almost all of our energy is spent on learning how to achieve these goals, and very little on mastering the art of love.

Could it be that the only things considered worthy of study are those related to earning money or prestige, and love, which has value “only” for the soul, in the modern view does not bring benefits and is a luxury to which we are not entitled spend a lot of energy? Be that as it may, in the following discussion the art of love will be considered from the following points of view: first I will discuss the theory of love, and this will be the main part of the book; then I will touch on the practice of love, how little words can mean in this area, as in any other.

II
Theory of love

Love as the answer to the problem of human existence

Any theory of love must begin with a theory of man and human existence. Although we find love, or rather its equivalent, in animals, their affection is mainly part of a complex of instincts; instinctive attachment in its relict form can also be found in humans. But the main thing in human existence is determined by the fact that he emerged from the animal kingdom, from instinctive adaptation, and surpassed nature, without ever leaving it. Man is a part of nature, but once separated from it, he can no longer return to it; he is expelled from paradise - from the state of primordial unity with nature - and a cherub with a fiery sword will block his path if he tries to return. A person can move forward only by developing his mind, finding a new – human – harmony to replace the pre-human, irretrievably lost one.

...the main thing in human existence is determined by the fact that he emerged from the animal kingdom, from instinctive adaptation, and surpassed nature, without ever leaving it.

When a man is born, as a member of the human race and an individual, he is stripped of a position that was definite - as definite as instincts - and is exposed to uncertainty and uncertainty. Certainty concerns only the past and the future (in the sense that it ends in death).

Man is endowed with reason; he is life conscious of itself; he is aware of himself, other people, his past and the possibilities that the future holds. This is the awareness of oneself as a separate being, the awareness of the brevity of one’s life, the fact that he was born independently of his will and will die regardless of his will, the fact that he will die before those he loves, or they will die before him, the awareness of his loneliness and alienation , his helplessness before the forces of nature and society - all this makes his separate, isolated existence an unbearable imprisonment. A person would lose his mind if he could not free himself from this prison and reach out to other people, somehow connect with them and with the outside world.

Feeling alienated creates anxiety; it is the source of all anxiety. To be alienated means to have no opportunity to use your human powers. To be separate from everyone means to be helpless, unable to actively contact the world - objects and people; this means that the world can crush me, deprived of the ability to resist. Thus, alienation generates acute anxiety. In addition, it causes shame and guilt. This feeling of shame and guilt found expression in biblical history Adam and Eve. After Adam and Eve ate from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” after they disobeyed (and there is no good and evil without the freedom to disobey), after they became human, having gotten rid of the original animal harmony with nature, that is, after their birth in human capacity, they saw that they were naked - and were ashamed. Is it possible that such an ancient and simple myth contains the hypocritical morality of the 19th century, and the essence that it wants to convey to us is that the first people were ashamed of not having their genitals covered? This is hardly true, and understanding the myth in the Victorian spirit, we miss the main thing: after a man and a woman realized themselves and each other, they also realized their separateness and differences between themselves as representatives of different sexes. Having realized their separateness, they became strangers because they had not yet learned to love each other (this is quite clear from the way Adam defends himself, blaming Eve and not trying to protect her). Understanding human separateness without reunion in love is the source of shame. This awareness is a source of guilt and anxiety.

Man's deepest need, therefore, is the need to overcome his alienation and escape from the prison of loneliness.

Man's deepest need, therefore, is the need to overcome his alienation and escape from the prison of loneliness.

Absolute failure to achieve this goal means insanity, because the panic of complete isolation can only be overcome by completely shutting off the outside world; only then will the feeling of isolation disappear because the external world.

A person at all times and in all cultures faces the same question: how to overcome his ineradicable desire to satisfy his own needs and come to terms with the fact that other people have the same needs? The question is the same for a primitive man living in a cave, for a nomad tending his flocks, for an Egyptian peasant, a Phoenician merchant, a Roman soldier, a medieval monk, Japanese samurai, a modern clerk and factory worker. The question is the same because it stems from the same source: the human condition, the conditions of human existence. The answer to this is changing. It may consist in the veneration of animals, in human sacrifices or wars of conquest, in the pursuit of luxury, in asceticism, in obsession with work, in artistic creativity, in the love of God and in the love of man. Although there are many answers, as history shows, their number is nevertheless not infinite. On the contrary, if we put aside minor differences, we are surprised to find that there were not so many answers, and the differences between them are mainly due to cultural traditions. The history of religion and philosophy is the history of answers to this main question - answers that are very different in form and very similar in essence.

The answers depend to some extent on the degree of self-awareness the individual has achieved. In an infant, the awareness of one’s self is still slightly developed; he still feels one with his mother and does not feel isolated while his mother is around. His loneliness is healed by the physical presence of his mother, her breasts, her skin. Only when the child develops a sense of separateness and his own individuality, the physical presence of the mother is no longer enough for him, and he begins to need to overcome alienation in other ways.

Likewise, the human race in its infancy lives in unity with nature. The earth, animals, plants - this is still the world of man, who identifies himself with animals, which is expressed in wearing animal masks, worshiping totems or animal-like gods. However, the more the human race grows out of swaddling clothes, the more it separates itself from the natural world, the more pressing becomes the need for new ways to overcome alienation.

One of the ways to achieve this goal lies in all kinds of orgiastic rituals. They could take the form of a self-induced trance, sometimes with the help of drugs. Many rituals of primitive tribes give a vivid picture of this method of solving a problem. In a borderline state of exaltation, the outside world disappears, and with it the feeling of isolation from it. Because such rituals are practiced together, there is a feeling of joining the group, which makes the solution even more effective. Closely related to this and often combined with the orgiastic ritual are sexual experiences. Sexual orgasm can cause a state similar to that achieved in a trance or the effect of certain drugs. Rites of communal sexual orgies were common among many primitive peoples. Apparently, after participating in an orgiastic ritual, a person can for some time muffle the discomfort of feeling isolated. The tension caused by anxiety gradually returns, but is then released again through the repetition of the ritual.

As long as orgiastic rites are common practice in the tribe, they do not cause anxiety or guilt. Such actions are correct and even virtuous because they are shared by everyone, they are approved and even demanded by healers or priests; therefore there is no reason to feel guilt or shame. The situation is completely different if the same decision is made by a representative of another culture where this is not accepted. Unlike those who participate in socially approved rituals, such individuals suffer from feelings of guilt and remorse. Trying to avoid isolation with the help of alcohol and drugs, they feel their isolation even more acutely after the orgiastic experience ends and begin to use these substances with greater frequency and intensity. The use of a sexual-orgiastic solution is in some ways a more natural and normal form of overcoming alienation, partly problem solving isolation. However, for many individuals who do not know how to overcome alienation in other ways, the search for sexual orgasm takes on a function that is not particularly different from alcoholism or drug addiction. This becomes a desperate attempt to escape the anxiety that comes from alienation and leads to an ever-increasing sense of isolation, since sexual intercourse without love cannot bridge the gap between people (except for a moment).

...sexual intercourse without love cannot bridge the gap between people (except for a moment).

All forms of orgiastic union have three characteristics: they are characterized by strength and even cruelty; they completely subjugate the mind and body; they are transitory and periodic. The exact opposite is the form of unity that has most often served as a solution in the past and continues to serve in the present: unity based on submission to the group, its customs, practices and beliefs. Here too we find a significant modification.

In a primitive society, the group is small and consists of relatives living together in the same territory. As the culture grows and develops, the group increases - it already includes citizens of the polis, citizens of the state, and adherents of the church. Even a poor Roman was proud that he could say: “civis romanus sum” - “I am a Roman citizen”; Rome and the entire Roman Empire were his family, his home, his world. In modern Western society, belonging to a group is still the most common way to overcome alienation. With such unity, the individual self disappears to a large extent, and belonging to the group becomes the goal. If I am the same as everyone else, if I have no thoughts and feelings that would distinguish me from others, if I obey the customs, the dress code, the ideas of the group, I am protected and saved from frightening loneliness. Authoritarian systems use threats and terror to instill conformity, and democratic countries Persuasion and propaganda serve the same purpose. There is still a huge difference between the two systems. In a democracy, nonconformity is possible and, in fact, always present; whereas in totalitarian systems, refusal to obey can be expected only from a few heroes and martyrs. And yet, despite this difference, democratic societies exhibit a pervasive conformity. The reason for this is that the desire of people for unity requires satisfaction, and if no other and better way is found, then herd obedience becomes predominant. You can understand the power of the fear of being different, the fear of standing out from the crowd, only by assessing the depth of the need not to be isolated. Sometimes the fear of nonconformity is rationalized as a fear of real dangers that threaten the disobedient. However, in reality people want obey much to a greater extent what are they up to this are forced at least in Western democratic countries.

In modern Western society, belonging to a group is still the most common way to overcome alienation.

Most people are not even aware of their need for submission. They have the illusion that they are following own ideas and inclinations, as if they were individuals and formed their opinions as a result of their own reflections, and it just happened that their thoughts coincided with the thoughts of the majority. Consensus serves as proof that their views are correct. Since there is still a need to feel like an individual, it is satisfied through small individual differences: initials on a bag or sweater, a badge on a bank teller, belonging to the Democratic rather than Republican party, being a fan of a particular sports team. And even the advertising slogan “Not like everyone else” demonstrates this touching need for differences, when in fact there are almost none left.

This growing tendency towards the elimination of differences is closely related to the concept of equality as it has developed in most advanced industrial countries. Equality in the religious sense meant that we are all children of God, we all share the divine-human essence, we are all one. It also meant that the very differences between people must be respected, that although we are indeed one, it is also true that each of us is a unique being, an independent cosmos. This belief in the uniqueness of the individual is expressed, for example, in the Talmudic statement that he who saves a single life saves the whole world; and whoever destroys a single life destroys the whole world. Equality as a condition for the development of individuality was also the meaning of philosophical concepts during the Enlightenment. Kant formulated this most clearly: no person should serve as a means to an end for another person; all people are equal in that they are an end, and only an end, and not a means for each other. Following the ideas of the Enlightenment, socialist thinkers, representatives of different schools, defined equality as liberation from exploitation, the use of man by man, regardless of whether such use was cruel or “humane.”

...people want to obey to a much greater extent than they are forced to, at least in Western democracies.

...no person should serve as a means to an end for another person...

In modern capitalist society, the meaning of equality has transformed. Equality began to be understood as the equality of automata - people who have lost their individuality. Equality today means sameness, not uniqueness. This is the sameness of abstractions, the sameness of people working in the same jobs, having the same entertainment, reading the same newspapers, feeling and thinking the same way. In this regard, some achievements usually lauded as signs of progress, such as women's equality, should be viewed with some skepticism. Needless to say, I am not speaking out against it, but one should not be fooled by the positive aspects of the movement towards equality. This is part of the trend towards the destruction of differences. It is at this price that equality is bought: women are equal to men because they are no longer different from them. The assertion of the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment that “the soul has no gender” has taken hold of minds today. The polarity of the sexes disappears, and with it the erotic love based on this polarity disappears. Men and women are made identical, A unequal like opposite poles. Modern society preaches this ideal of impersonal equality because it needs human atoms, no different from each other, to make them function smoothly and without friction in mass aggregations; everyone is obliged to follow the same commands, although everyone is convinced that they should own desires. Just as modern mass production requires the standardization of products, social processes require the standardization of people, and we call this standardization “equality.”

The polarity of the sexes disappears, and with it the erotic love based on this polarity disappears. Men and women are made equal and unequal as opposite poles.

Unity based on conformity is neither intense nor violent; it is a calm process dictated by routine, and it is for this reason that it often turns out to be insufficient to relieve the anxiety generated by alienation. The prevalence of alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide and obsession with sex in modern Western society is symptomatic of the relative failure of herd conformity. Moreover, this solution to the problem concerns more of the mind than the body, and for this reason is inferior in comparison with orgiastic states. Herd conformity has only one advantage: it is constant, not convulsive. The individual is included in the conformity scheme at the age of three or four years and subsequently never loses contact with the herd. Even his funeral, which he views as his last important social event, is in strict accordance with generally accepted requirements.

The individual is included in the conformity scheme at the age of three or four years and subsequently never loses contact with the herd.

In addition to conformity as a way to alleviate the anxiety caused by isolation, there is another factor to consider modern life: the role of routine at work and in entertainment. A person grows attached to a bench or a chair from nine to five, he is part of work force in production or a clerk in a bureaucratic institution. He does not show initiative, his duties are strictly dictated to him by the organization for which he works; there is no significant difference between those who have risen high in career ladder and those at the very bottom. They all perform tasks dictated by the structure of a given organization, at a prescribed speed and in a prescribed manner. Even their feelings are strictly normative: cheerfulness, tolerance, reliability, ambition, the ability to work with anyone without friction. Routine also reigns in their entertainment, although it is not expressed so harshly. Books are selected by reading clubs, films are determined by the owners of film studios or cinemas and the advertising they pay for. The rest is also unified: a Sunday car ride, watching TV, playing cards, parties. From birth to death, from Monday to Monday, from morning to evening - all actions are routine and correspond to a routine. How can an individual, caught in this web, not forget that he is a man, a unique individual and the master of his only life, with its hopes and disappointments, sorrows and fears, with a thirst for love and a fear of emptiness and isolation?

Erich Fromm

Do you need to learn to love?

Is love an art? If yes, then it requires knowledge and effort. Or maybe love is a pleasant feeling, the experience of which is a matter of chance, something that falls to a person if he is lucky. This little book is based on the first premise, although most people today undoubtedly assume the second.

It's not that people think love is unimportant. They crave it, they watch countless films about happy and unhappy love stories, they listen to hundreds of stupid love songs, but hardly anyone really thinks that there is any need to learn love. This particular attitude is based on several premises which, individually and in combination, tend to contribute to its preservation.

For most people, the problem of love is to be loved, and not to love, to be able to love. This means that the essence of the problem for them is to be loved, so that they arouse a feeling of self-love. They take several paths to achieve this goal. The first, which men usually use, is to become lucky, to become strong and rich as much as the social situation allows. Another way, usually used by women, is to make themselves attractive by carefully taking care of their body, clothes, etc. Other ways of achieving their own attractiveness, used by both men and women, is to develop good manners, ability to have an interesting conversation, willingness to help, modesty, unpretentiousness. Many of the paths to gaining the ability to arouse self-love are the same paths that are used to achieve luck, to gain useful friends and influential connections. It is obvious that for most people in our culture, the ability to arouse love is, in essence, a combination of cuteness and sexual attractiveness.

The second premise of treating love as something that does not require learning is the assumption that the problem of love is a problem of an object and not a problem of ability. People think that loving is easy, but finding a true love object - or being loved by this object - is difficult. This attitude has several reasons rooted in the development of modern society. One reason is the great change that has occurred in the twentieth century regarding the choice of "love object." In the Victorian era, as in many traditional cultures, love was not, in most cases, a spontaneous, personal experience that would then lead to marriage. On the contrary, marriage was based on an agreement - either between families, or between intermediaries in marriage matters, or without the help of such intermediaries; it was based on social conditions, and love was believed to begin to develop from the time the marriage was concluded. Over the past few generations, the concept of romantic love has become universal in the Western world. In the United States, although considerations of the contractual nature of marriage have not yet been completely supplanted, most people seek romantic love, a personal experience of love that should then lead to marriage. This new understanding of the freedom of love was to greatly enhance the significance of the object to the detriment of the significance of the function.

Closely related to this factor is another characteristic modern culture. Our entire culture is based on the desire to buy, on the idea of mutually beneficial exchange. The happiness of a modern person lies in the joyful excitement that he experiences when looking at store windows and buying everything that he can afford to buy either in cash or in installments. He (or she) looks at people the same way. For a man attractive woman- for a woman, an attractive man is the prey that they are for each other. Attractiveness usually means a nice package of attributes that are popular and sought after in the personality market. What makes a person especially attractive depends on the fashion of a given time, both physical and spiritual. In the twenties, someone who knew how to drink and smoke, who was broke and sexy woman, and today fashion requires more homeliness and modesty. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a man had to be aggressive and ambitious to become an attractive “commodity”; today he must be sociable and tolerant. In addition, the feeling of falling in love usually develops only in relation to such a human product that is within the reach of one’s own choice. I seek benefits: the object must be desirable from the point of view of social value, and at the same time must itself desire me, taking into account my hidden and obvious advantages and capabilities. Two people fall in love when they feel they have found each other. best object available on the market, taking into account the boundaries of its own exchange fund. Often, as when purchasing real estate, a significant role in this transaction is played by latent capabilities that can be developed over time. It is hardly surprising that in a culture where market orientation prevails and where material success is of great value, human love relationships follow the same patterns that govern the market.

The third misconception, leading to the conviction that nothing needs to be learned in love, consists in confusing the initial feeling of being in love with the permanent state of being in love. If two strangers, as we all are, suddenly allow the wall separating them to collapse, that moment of unity will be one of the most exciting experiences in life. It contains everything that is most beautiful and miraculous for people who were previously separated, isolated, and deprived of love. This miracle of unexpected intimacy often happens more easily if it begins with physical attraction and its satisfaction. However, this type of love by its very nature does not last. Two people get to know each other better and better, their intimacy loses more and more of its wonderful character, until finally their antagonism, their disappointment, their satiety with each other kills what is left of their initial excitement. At first they did not know all this; they were, indeed, captured by a wave of blind attraction. The "obsession" with each other is proof of the strength of their love, although it could only indicate the degree of their previous loneliness.

This attitude that nothing is easier than loving continues to be the dominant idea regarding love, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is hardly any activity, any occupation, which would begin with such huge hopes and expectations and which would still fail with such invariability as love. If this concerned any other activity, people would do everything possible to understand the reasons for failure, and would learn to act in the best way for this business - or would abandon this activity. Since the latter is impossible in relation to love, the only adequate way to avoid failure in love is to examine the reasons for this failure and move on to studying the meaning of love.

Love is the answer to the problem of human existence

Any theory of love must begin with a theory of man, of human existence. Although we find love, or rather the equivalent of love, already in animals, their affections are mainly part of their instinctive nature;

Man is gifted with reason, he is a self-conscious life, he is aware of himself, his neighbor, his past and the possibilities of his future. This is the awareness of himself as a separate being, the awareness of the brevity of his own life, the fact that he was not born of his own will and will die against his will, that he can die before those he loves, or they before him, and the awareness of his own loneliness and separation, his own helplessness before the forces of nature and society - all this makes his alienated, disconnected existence from others an unbearable prison. He would become insane if he could not free himself from this prison, leave it, uniting in one form or another with people, with the world around him.

The experience of separation gives rise to anxiety; it is the source of all anxiety. To be separated means to be rejected, without any opportunity to use your human powers. To be separated means to be helpless, unable to actively control the world - things and people, this means that the world can attack me, and at the same time I am unable to resist it. Thus, separation is a source of intense anxiety. In addition, it gives rise to shame and guilt. This experience of guilt and shame due to separateness is expressed in the biblical story of Adam and Eve. After Adam and Eve ate from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” after they disobeyed (there is no good and evil until there is freedom to disobey), after they became human, freed from the original animal harmony with nature, that is, after their birth as human beings, they saw that “they were naked, and they were ashamed.”

But as soon as they realized their separateness, they became strangers to each other, because they had not yet learned to love each other (which is quite understandable from the fact that Adam defended himself by blaming Eve, instead of trying to protect her). The awareness of human separateness without reunion in love is a source of shame and at the same time it is a source of guilt and anxiety. Thus, the deepest need of man is the need to overcome his separateness, to leave the prison of his loneliness. Complete failure to achieve this goal means madness, because the panic of complete isolation can only be overcome by such a radical withdrawal from the entire surrounding world that the feeling of separateness disappears, so that the external world from which a person is separated ceases to exist.

At all times, in all cultures, man faces the same question: how to overcome separation, how to achieve unity, how to go beyond the boundaries of one’s own individual life and find unity. This question remained the same for the primitive man who lived in caves, for the nomad who cared for his herds, for the peasant in Egypt, for the Phoenician merchant, for the Roman soldier, for the medieval monk, for the Japanese samurai, for the modern clerk and factory worker. The question remains the same because its basis remains the same: the human situation, the human condition. The answers vary. This question can be answered by animal worship, human sacrifice, militaristic conquest, immersion in luxury, ascetic renunciation, obsession with work, artistic creativity, love for God and love for man. Although there are many answers - the set of which is human history - they are nevertheless not innumerable. On the contrary, if we do not take into account small differences that relate more to individual details than to the essence of the matter, we must admit that there is only a limited number of answers that have been given and could be given by man in the various cultures in which he lived. The history of religion and philosophy is the history of these answers, their diversity, as well as their limitations.

Loving to give

Love means first of all giving, not taking. What does it mean to give? Although the answer to this question seems simple, it is full of ambiguity and confusion.

The most widespread misconception is that giving means giving up something, becoming deprived of something, sacrificing. This is how the act of giving is perceived by a person whose character has not developed beyond the level of a receptive orientation, an orientation towards exploitation or accumulation. The merchant character is ready to give only in exchange for something. To give without receiving anything in return means to him to be deceived. People whose main orientation is not productive perceive giving as impoverishment. Therefore, most individuals of this type refuse to give. Some make a virtue out of giving in the sense of donation. They believe that it is precisely because giving is painful that one must give; the virtue of giving for them lies in the very act of making a sacrifice. That giving is better than taking - this norm for them would mean that experiencing hardship is better than experiencing joy.

For a productive character, giving has a completely different meaning. Giving is the highest expression of power. In every act of giving I exercise my power, my wealth, my power. This experience of high vitality and strength fills me with joy.

I feel confident, capable of great effort, full of life and therefore joyful. Giving is more joyful than taking, not because it is deprivation, but because in this act of giving there is an expression of my vitality.

It is not difficult to realize the truth of this principle by applying it to various specific phenomena. The simplest example is found in the field of sex. The culmination of the male sexual function is the act of giving, the man giving himself, his sexual organ, to the woman. At the moment of orgasm he gives his seed; he cannot help but give it if he is potent. If he cannot give, he is impotent. For women, this process is the same, although somewhat more complicated. She also gives herself, she opens her feminine womb to a man; receiving, she gives. If she is incapable of this act of giving, she is frigid. The act of giving also occurs in the function of a mother, not a mistress. She gives herself to the child developing in her womb, she gives her milk to the baby, she gives him the warmth of her body. It would hurt her not to.

In the realm of material things, giving means being rich. He is not rich who has a lot, but he who gives a lot. A miser who is restlessly worried about losing something is, in a psychological sense, a beggar, a poor person, despite the fact that he has a lot. And everyone who is able to give of himself is rich. He feels like a person who can give himself to others. Only one who is deprived of the essentials to satisfy basic needs is unable to enjoy the act of giving material things. But everyday experience shows that what a person considers to be minimal needs largely depends on both his character and his actual capabilities. It is well known that the poor give more readily than the rich. However, there is a kind of poverty in which it is no longer possible to give, and it is so humiliating not only because it itself causes immediate suffering, but also because it deprives the poor person of the pleasure of the act of giving.

The most important sphere of giving is, however, not the sphere of material things, but the specifically human sphere. What one person gives to another. He gives himself, the most precious thing he has, he gives his life. But this does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices his life to another person. He gives him what is alive in him, he gives him his joy, his interest, his understanding, his knowledge, his humor, his sadness - all the experiences and all the manifestations of what is alive in him. By this giving of his life, he enriches the other person, increases his sense of vitality. He does not give in order to take; giving in itself constitutes acute pleasure. But by giving, he cannot help but evoke something in another person that comes back to him: truly giving, he cannot help but take what is given to him in return. Giving encourages the other person to become a giver too, and they both share the joy they bring to life. In the act of giving, something is born, and both people involved in this act are grateful to life for what it gives birth to for both of them. In the case of love, this means that love is the power that gives birth to love, and powerlessness is the inability to give birth to love. This idea was beautifully expressed by Marx. “Now suppose,” he said, “a person as a person and his relationship to the world as a human relationship, in this case you can exchange love only for love, trust only for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically educated person. If you want to influence people, you must be a person who truly stimulates and moves other people forward. Each of your relationships to man and to nature must be definite, corresponding to the object of your will, a manifestation of your truly individual life. If you love without causing reciprocity, that is, your love as love does not generate reciprocal love, if you, through your life manifestation as a loving person, do not make yourself a loved person, then your love is powerless, and it is misfortune.” But not only in love does giving mean taking. A teacher learns from his students, an actor is inspired by his audience, a psychoanalyst is treated by his patient - provided that they do not perceive each other as objects, but are connected with each other sincerely and productively.

It is hardly worth emphasizing that the capacity of love, understood as an act of giving, depends on the development of a person’s character. It involves achievement high level productive orientation, in this orientation a person overcomes the omnipotent narcissistic desire to exploit others and accumulate and acquires faith in his own human strength, the courage to rely on himself to achieve his goals. The more a person lacks these traits, the more he is afraid to give himself - and that means to love.

In addition to the element of giving, the effective nature of love becomes obvious in the fact that it always presupposes a certain set of elements common to all forms of love. This is caring, responsibility, respect and knowledge.

Love is like caring

That love means caring is most evident in a mother's love for her child. No assurance of her love will convince us if we see her lack of care for the child, if she neglects feeding, does not bathe him, does not try to completely care for him; but when we see her caring for the child, we completely believe in her love. This also applies to the love of animals and flowers. If some woman tells us that she loves flowers, and we see that she forgets to water them, we will not believe in her love for flowers. Love is an active interest in the life and development of what we love. Where there is no active interest, there is no love. This element of love is beautifully described in the parable of Jonah. God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh to warn its inhabitants that they would be punished if they did not leave their destructive ways. Jonah abandoned this mission because he was afraid that the people of Nineveh would repent and God would forgive them. He was a man with a strong sense of order, but not of love. Therefore, when trying to escape, he ended up in the belly of a whale, symbolizing a state of isolation and isolation, where he was transported by a lack of love and solidarity. God saves him, and Jonah goes to Nineveh. He preaches to the residents what God has told him, and everything he feared happens. The people of Nineveh repent of their sins, correct their ways, and God forgives them and decides not to destroy the city. Jonah is very angry and disappointed, he wants justice to prevail, not mercy. Finally, he finds some solace in the shade of the tree that God caused to grow to protect Jonah from the sun. But when God causes the tree to wither, Jonah becomes disheartened and angrily complains to God. God answers: “You pity the plant for which you did not work and which you did not grow, which grew in one night and died in one night. And I don't have to save Nineveh, this Big city, in which there are more than six thousand people, unable to distinguish what is between their right and left hands, and also a lot of cattle? God's answer to Jonah must be understood symbolically. God shows Jonah that the essence of love is working for someone and helping them grow, that love and work are inseparable. Everyone loves what he works for, and everyone works for what he loves.

Love as responsibility

Caring and interest lead to another aspect of love: responsibility. Today, responsibility is often understood as an imposed duty, as something imposed from the outside. But responsibility in its true sense is a voluntary act from beginning to end. It is my response to the expressed or unexpressed needs of a human being. To be “responsible” means to be able and willing to respond.” Jonah did not feel responsible for the people of Nineveh. He, like Cain, could ask: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” A loving person feels responsible. His brother's life is not only his brother's business, but also his business. He feels responsible for all his neighbors, just as he feels responsible for himself. This responsibility in the case of mother and child encourages her to care primarily for his physical needs. In love between adults, it concerns mainly the mental needs of the other person.

Love is like respect

Responsibility could easily degenerate into a desire for superiority and domination if there were not a component of love: respect. Respect is not fear and awe; it means the ability to see a person as he is, to recognize his unique individuality. Respect means wanting the other person to grow and develop as who they are. Respect thus presupposes the absence of exploitation. I want the person I love to grow and develop for his own sake, in his own way, and not in order to serve me. If I love another person, I feel oneness with him, but with him as he is, and not as I would like him to be, as a means to my ends. It is clear that respect is possible only if I myself have achieved independence, if I can stand on my own two feet without outside help, without the need to dominate or use someone. Respect exists only on the basis of freedom: “l’amor est l’enfant de la liberte” - as the old French song says, love is the child of freedom and never of domination. It is impossible to respect a person without knowing him; care and responsibility would be blind if they were not guided by knowledge. Knowledge would be empty if its motive were not interest. There are many types of knowledge; knowledge, which is the element of love, is not limited to the superficial level, but penetrates into the very essence. This is only possible when I can transcend my own self-interest and see the other person in his own manifestation. I can know, for example, that a person is irritated, even if he does not show it openly; but I can know him even more deeply: I can know that he is worried and worried, feels lonely, feels guilty. Then I know that his irritation is a manifestation of something deeper, and I look at him as worried and worried, which means as a suffering person, and not just as irritated.

Knowledge has another, and more fundamental, relation to the problem of love. The fundamental need to connect with another person in such a way as to be able to free oneself from the prison of one's own isolation is closely related to another specific human desire, the desire to know the "mystery of man." Love is an active penetration into another person, a penetration in which my desire for knowledge is satisfied through union. In the act of merging I know you, I know myself, I know everyone - and I “know” nothing. I gain in this way - through the experience of unity - knowledge of what a person is alive and what he is capable of, but this knowledge cannot be obtained through thought.

The idea of the original unity of the sexes is contained in the biblical story that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, although in this story, in the spirit of patriarchy, the woman is considered a secondary being. The meaning of the myth is quite clear. Gender polarization forces a person to seek unity in a special way, like unity with a person of the opposite sex. Feminine-masculine polarity is also the basis for interpersonal creation. This is evident in biological terms, where the unity of sperm and egg provides the basis for the birth of a child. But in the purely mental sphere the situation is no different; in the love between a man and a woman, each of them is born again. Homosexual deviation is the inability to achieve polarized unity, and therefore the homosexual suffers from insurmountable loneliness; A heterosexual who is incapable of love is also susceptible to this misfortune.

The same polarity of male and female principles exists in nature; not only as something evident in animals and plants, but also in the polarity of two basic functions, the receiving function and the penetrating function. In fact, erotic attraction is expressed not only in sexual desire. Masculinity and femininity are present in character as well as in sexual function. Male character can be defined as the capacity for insight, leadership, activity, discipline and courage; female character determined by the ability of productive perception, guardianship, realism, endurance, motherhood. It should always be borne in mind that in each individual both characteristics are mixed, but with a predominance of those traits that relate to “her” or “his” sex.”

Find in order to love, or love in order to find?

Love is not necessarily an attitude towards a specific person; this is an attitude, an orientation of character that determines a person’s relationship to the world in general, and not just to one “object” of love. If a person loves only one person and is indifferent to the rest of his neighbors, his love is not love, but symbiotic dependence or exaggerated selfishness. Most people are still sure that love depends on the object, not the ability. They are even sure that this proves the strength of their love, since they do not love anyone except the “beloved” person. Here is the same misconception that was already mentioned above. Since they do not understand that love is activity, strength of spirit, they think that the main thing is to find the right object, and then everything will go by itself. This attitude can be compared to the attitude of a person who wants to paint, but instead of learning how to paint, insists that he just has to wait for the right object; and when he finds it, he will draw magnificently. But if I really love some person, I love all people, I love the world, I love life. If I can say “I love you” to someone, I should be able to say “I love everything about you,” “I love the whole world because of you, I love myself in you.”

Love doesn't lend

Although much is said about the religious ideal of loving one's neighbor, in reality our relationships are determined, at best, by the principle of honesty. To be honest means not to deceive or be cunning in the exchange of goods and services, as well as in the exchange of feelings. “I give you as much as you give me.” This is the prevailing ethical maxim of capitalist society, both in relation to material goods, and in relation to love.

In pre-capitalist societies, the exchange of goods was determined by direct force or tradition, or personal ties of love and friendship. Under capitalism, the determining factor is market exchange. Whether we are dealing with a goods market, or a labor market, or a services market, each person exchanges what he has for sale for what he wants to purchase under market conditions, without resorting to force or deception.

The ethic of honesty is easily confused with the ethic of the golden rule. The maxim “do unto others what you would have them do unto you” can be interpreted to mean “be honest in your exchanges with others.” But in fact, it was originally formulated in the more popular biblical version: “love your neighbor as yourself.” The Christian standard of brotherly love is in fact completely different from the ethic of honesty. It demands to love your neighbor, that is, to feel responsible for him and unity with him, while the ethic of honesty requires not to feel responsibility and unity, but to stay at a distance and apart; it demands to respect the rights of your neighbor, not to love him. Not by chance, Golden Rule becoming the most popular religious maxim today because it can be interpreted in terms of the ethics of honesty, it is the only religious maxim that everyone understands and is willing to apply. But the practice of love must begin with an awareness of the difference between honesty and love.

Stay awake in love

One attitude, which is extremely necessary for teaching the art of love, needs to be considered more carefully, since it is fundamental to the practice of love. This is activity. I have already said that activity does not mean doing something, but internal activity, the creative use of one’s powers. Love is an activity; if I love, I am in a state of constant active interest in my loved one. But not only to him or her. I will not be able to actively relate to my loved one if I am lazy, if I am not in a state of constant awareness, vigor, and activity. Sleep is the only situation that allows inactivity; There should be no place for laziness in the waking state. Nowadays, a huge number of people are in a paradoxical situation - they are half asleep when they are awake, and half awake when they are sleeping or want to sleep. Being completely awake is a condition for not being bored oneself and not making others bored - and, of course, not being bored or being boring for another - this is one of the main conditions of love. To be active in thought, in feeling, to actively see and hear throughout the day, to avoid internal laziness, either in the form of postponing something for later, or in the form of planned empty pastime, is required condition to master the art of love. It is an illusion to believe that you can divide life in such a way that it will be creative in the sphere of love, and non-creative in all other spheres. Creativity does not allow such a division of labor. The ability to love requires a state of tension, wakefulness, increased vitality, which can only be the result of a creative and active orientation in many other areas of life, if one is not creative in other areas, he is not creative in love.

Erich Seligmann Fromm(German: Erich Seligmann Fromm; 1900, Frankfurt am Main - 1980, Locarno) - German sociologist, philosopher, social psychologist, psychoanalyst, representative of the Frankfurt School, one of the founders of neo-Freudianism and Freudo-Marxism.

"The Art of Loving"

“This book aims to show that love is not a sentimental feeling that anyone can experience, regardless of the level of maturity they have achieved. She wants to convince the reader that all his attempts at love are doomed to failure if he does not strive more actively to develop his personality as a whole in order to achieve a productive orientation; that satisfaction in individual love cannot be achieved without the ability to love one's neighbor, without true humanity, courage, faith and discipline."

Quotes from the book “The Art of Loving.”

Rich is not the one who has a lot, but the one who gives a lot.
Self-belief is a condition of our ability to promise, and since, as Nietzsche said, a person is determined by the ability to promise, faith is one of the conditions of human existence.
The world of thought is caught in a paradox.
The problem of existence can be resolved by each person only within himself, and not with the help of an intermediary.
In the process of creation, man enters into dialogue with the world.
Love is a state in which a person is able to feel and experience his absolute irreplaceability. In love, a person can feel the meaning of his existence for another and the meaning of another’s existence for himself. Love helps a person to manifest himself, identifying, increasing, developing the good, positive, valuable in him. This is the highest synthesis of the meaning of human existence. Only by loving, giving myself to another and penetrating into him, do I find myself, I discover myself, I discover both of us, I discover a person.
Love is the answer to the problem of human existence.
For most people, the problem of love is to be loved, and not to love, to be able to love.
Everyone loves what he loves, and everyone works for what he loves.
If I am like anyone else, if I have no thoughts and feelings that would distinguish me from others, if in habits, in dress, in thoughts I follow the generally accepted pattern, I am safe; I am saved from the terrifying experience of loneliness. Dictatorship achieves this subjugation through threats and terror, democracy through indoctrination and propaganda.
Love begins to manifest itself only when we love those whom we cannot use for our own purposes.
If a person loves only one person and is indifferent to the rest of his neighbors, his love is not love, but symbiotic dependence or exaggerated selfishness.
If a person experiences love based on the principle of possession, this means that he seeks to deprive the object of his “love” of freedom and keep him under control. Such love does not give life, but suppresses, destroys, strangles, kills it...
Love is an active interest in the life and development of the object of love.
Then the person realizes that although he was consciously afraid of being unloved, in fact it was a fear of love, a fear that is usually not conscious.
Loving someone is not just a strong feeling, it is a determination, it is a smart choice, it is a promise.
If I really love a person, I love all people, I love the world, I love life. If I can say “I love you” to someone, I should be able to say “I love everything about you,” “I love the whole world because of you, I love myself in you.”
Most people are not even aware of this need to obey. They firmly believe that they follow their own tastes and inclinations, that they are individualists, that they have come to their opinions as a result of their own reflections, and that their opinions coincide with the opinions of the majority is purely accidental.
There is scarcely any activity, any occupation, which would begin with such enormous hopes and expectations and which would still fail with such invariability as love.

Is it a hard job to love? Is it possible to learn love and how? When do we truly love, and when do we please our ego? How should you treat a child so that he grows up as a mature personality capable of love? When does love only make us stronger without destroying or suppressing our personality? The German psychoanalyst and philosopher Erich Fromm answers such important questions for every person simply and clearly in his work “The Art of Loving.”

How and why did “The Art of Loving” appear?

1956 The war ended relatively recently. Everything develops, changes, progresses. The era of capitalism is reaching its peak. The institution of family has also changed. In the previous century, when creating a family, respect occupied a leading place, social status. Morals have also changed. Sigmund Freud's theory of the unconscious radically upended previous manifestations of love. And in 1956, Erich Fromm created the work “The Art of Loving.” Before that, he had written more than one work on the relationship between man and society.

In this work, Fromm introduces us not only to his theory, but also touches on the opinions of other psychologists and thinkers. Thus, he disagrees with Freud, noting that “human nature is the passions of man, and his anxieties are a product of culture.” Thus, the reader looks at the topic of love from different positions and chooses a closer opinion for himself.

“The Art of Loving” is a fundamental work that will destroy ideas about love formed under the influence of films, novels and the media.

What is the secret of the art of love?

« Reading this book will be a disappointment to anyone expecting accessible instruction in the art of love."Fromm warns in the first pages of his work. You won't find clear guidance like you do in textbooks. This is not one of those books that leaves you with no questions in your head. But this is the work, after studying which you yourself will be able to answer your own questions. questions asked. The secret of this book is that after reading it, every person will discover something new, hitherto unknown, in themselves. And this “new” will bring such changes into his life, by succumbing to which he will find happiness and harmony.

Love theory and practice

Erich Fromm divides the entire narrative into theory and practice.
In the chapter “Theory of Love,” the author introduces the reader to two types of love:
1. True love
The psychoanalyst proves that true love necessarily includes caring, interest, respect and knowledge. Without any one quality, love becomes “immature”.
2. Immature love(symbiotic union) > passive form (masochism)
> active form (sadism)
IN modern society A symbiotic union is quite common.

“The passive form of the symbiotic union is submission or, to use the clinical term, masochism. The masochist avoids the unbearable feeling of isolation and loneliness by making himself an integral part of another person who guides him, guides him, protects him, is like his life and oxygen. The masochist exaggerates the power of the one to whom he submits himself to submission: be it a person or God. He is everything, I am nothing, I am just a part of him. As a part, I am a part of greatness, strength, confidence. The masochist does not make decisions, does not take any risks; he is never alone, but he is never independent either. He has no integrity, he has not even been truly born yet.”

“The active form of the symbiotic union is domination or, to use a clinical term associated with masochism, sadism. The sadist wants to avoid loneliness and feelings of isolation by making the other person an integral part of himself. It’s as if he gains strength by absorbing another person who worships him.”

In the chapter “The Practice of Love,” the psychoanalyst lists 7 qualities, developing and observing which we can become a little closer on the path to the art of love:

1. Discipline.
2. Focus.
3. Patience.
4. Interest.
5. Humility.
6. Faith.
7. Activity.

What is more important: the object of love or the desire to love?

Oddly enough, this question is the most important in a relationship. Fromm expresses the idea that any mature (psychologically) person can build a family/relationship with absolutely any partner. This may seem strange to you. But, having studied all the provisions of Fromm’s art of love, you will definitely make a discovery for yourself that will change your idea of love.

“First of all, it is often confused with the stormy experience of “falling in love,” the sudden collapse of barriers that existed until a certain moment between two strangers. But, as noted earlier, this experience of sudden intimacy is, by its very nature, short-lived. Once a stranger becomes close, there are no more barriers to overcome, no more expectation of intimacy. You get to know your loved one as well as yourself. Or, better said, as little as himself. If the perception of another person went in depth, if the infinity of his personality were comprehended, then the other person could never be known completely - and the miracle of overcoming barriers could be repeated every day anew.”

Who should read the book?

This book is for those who love or are just about to set foot on the path of love. For mothers and young girls. For young families and “experienced” spouses. For believers and atheists. For businessmen and housewives. For the self-confident and insecure. For the happy and the disappointed. For each and everyone separately.
“If one were to study the effect of a mother who truly loves herself, he would be able to see that nothing is more conducive to instilling in a child the experience of love, joy and happiness than the love of a mother who loves herself.”

Why “The Art of Loving”?

“The Art of Love” is a life preserver for those who are drowning and those just learning to swim. This work contains many tasks and goals:

How to spot destructive relationships.
How to love yourself.
How to love a child.
How to create a strong family.
How to grow spiritually.

And this is only a small (but very significant) part of the knowledge that this book can provide.
“The art of loving” is a necessary thing in our century. She will return your love to the mainstream of spirituality and self-awareness.
“The noun “love” as a kind of concept for denoting the action “to love” is detached from the person as the subject of the action. Love turns into a goddess, into an idol onto which man projects his love; As a result of this process of alienation, he ceases to experience love; his ability to love finds expression in the worship of the “goddess of love.” He ceased to be an active, feeling person; instead he became an aloof idolater."

The work of the famous psychoanalyst Erich Fromm “The Art of Loving” turns out to be completely different from what you expect. The book is written in simple accessible language, so that the philosophical statements it contains will be understandable to any person. The author's take on one of the greatest feelings humans are capable of is very interesting. Cause-and-effect relationships that affect all areas of life are revealed to the reader in detail and slowly. This work makes us reconsider our views on quite obvious things, because what seems true to us is not always true in reality. Designed for a wide range of readers.

The main theme raised by Fromm in the book “The Art of Loving” is love. Have you ever wondered what it really is? Love... Millions of books and poems have been written about it. Because of it, empires collapsed and wars were fought. This feeling led to endless happiness and plunged into the abyss of despair. She was the cause of troubles and joy. So different and changeable. Some people are not given it, but others fall into its network immediately and for the rest of their lives. They say love is blind. But is this really so? Nowadays, love is something commonplace. People have become so accustomed to this word that its true meaning has gradually been lost. They began to love for financial well-being, for appearance, for whatever. Love has become a kind of condition that many manipulate. And some remain in obscurity, believing that these are just idle tales of emotionally unstable individuals. What is love? How exactly do you understand that this particular feeling has visited you, since it is so easy to confuse it with other, similar ones? What could this feeling be and how exactly does it manifest itself? Is it possible to learn to love and why is it even necessary?

Cozy home

1 0 0

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl+Enter.