What philosopher talks about making love

Vis-a-vis can our bankruptcies in love, philosophical wisdom bring a remedy? Perhaps… Especially if we apply the theories of their authors by being unaware of what were their existences. The such proverb: “Made what I say, do not do what I do…” For Aude Lancelin and Marie Lemonnier, the philosophy of the love is in any case a territory to be reconquered urgently.

Why? Because, they in substance say, “to think the experiment in love is one of the only forms of possible resistance to the ambient nihilism, which, with the fading of the sex act reduced to morbid libertinage, found its weapon of massive destruction”.
Heavy task. Philosophy, éprise of reason, are wary like plague of the love, synonymous with disorder, chaos and feelings unverifiable. To that, they say, it is necessary to add another handicap: “Philosophy is very male. One thus hears the story of only one half of humanity. The anxiety vis-a-vis the female one is already sharp in the common male of the mortals. It becomes exponential among philosophers, beings intransigent by nature. ” They solved, up to now, the problem with the same intransigence: the men reign on the spirit, the women give birth to To traverse the philosophical Pantheon of Aude Lancelin and Marie Lemonnier leads very quickly to this conclusion: the philosophers do not have many lessons to give us. Honour to whom honour is due, let us start with Plato (427-348 av. J. – C.), author of the myth following founder: in the beginning, the man was a sphere, that facetious Zeus judged good to cross into two; since, we all over the world seek our missing half, which undoubtedly awaits us some share. In practice, for Plato and his comrades of the Banquet, the physical love is the best means to reach the divine one. However among Greek thinkers, it is necessary, that point to reach, pass by (on) the body of young people and beautiful beautiful young men, to in no case by the female one, dedicated with the commonplace reproduction.

They are insane, the Romans? Not as much as that: let us observe Lucrèce (v. 98-55 av. J. – C.). For him, there is nothing to await love, if not the certainty “to miss the “ataraxie”, this calm sovereign, this wild independence”, this absence of disorder, in short all qualities who make the good life preached by ancient wisdom. Safety, according to Lucrèce, vis-a-vis the irrepressible requirements of the flesh? A free and plural sexuality, which is not encumbered sirupeux feelings. After all, he would not have repudiated Marc Aurèle (121-180) who considered that the coitus is never but “one friction of belly with ejaculation in a spasm of sticky liquid”…

The concept of viscous dégouliné until XVIe century, in particular at Montaigne (1533-1592), which adored to preserve in its moustache, a long time after the love, “the odor of the sticky kisses”. Skeptic, the author of the Tests is without illusion on the love, for him, limited to “an waked up, sharp and merry agitation”. He makes fun of the prudes, “those which go there only from one buttock”, but made proof, thing extremely rare at his time, of consideration for the female one, which he places on an equal footing, and not only with regard to the sex. “It does not have anything generous, writes he, that which can receive pleasure where it does not give any. ”

Not this generosity in Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), apostle of the equality of all in front of the law, but certainly not between the sexes. Father of the romanticism, his sexual immaturity is legendary. He called his great love, Mrs. de Warens, “mom” (considering her age, she could the being). He finally lived with a woman whom he did not love, of which he had five children, that he all gave up. What did not prevent it from writing admirable texts on the love and Emile, a treaty on the education of the children of an admirable coherence – theoretical.

To rationalize for less suffering
One cannot, on the other hand, reproach Kant (1724-1804), the author of the Bases of the metaphysics of manners, to miss coherence. Its life is with the image of its work: désincarnée. It derogated forever from its currency “always Acted in such a way that the maxim of your action can be set up in universal law. ” What to remain untouchable and intouché.

To remain in the cold, a word of the Dane Sören Kierkegaard (1813-1855). The love occupies a central place in the work of the author of the Newspaper of the seducer. So central that, to preserve this jewel in all its purity, it is absolutely necessary to avoid consuming it. The lovers will meet of as much better in eternity than they were not linked in reality…

Nietzsche (1844-1900) finally gives to the love the beautiful role, that of absolute generator of any creativity. Even if, in the facts, its love life were a disaster. That which did not await fifteen minutes to require – in vain – the hand of the first come young girl, suffered from a passion badly rewarded for beautiful Lou Andréas-Salome, egery of Freud and the Rilke poet. He lived under the cut of Elisabeth, his infernal sister, who diverted her thought with the profit of the Nazis…

Fortunately, the couples are not absent from history of philosophy: Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), the greatest passion of Martin Heidegger, his “beat of wing of Eros”, known as: “Is the love initially the power of the life? ; we belong to alive owing to the fact that we are under the orders of this power. That which undergone this power forever did not see, it does not form part of the alive ones. ”

As for Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), not very scrupulous seducer, one can take it in red-handed romanticism in the Being and Nothing. It described the love there as a form of subtle capture. One really loves neither a slave nor a too autonomous being. There is a balance to find, always unstable, always to reinvent. The base of the joy of love, adds the accomplice of the “arranged young girl”, it is to feel justified to exist.

Does the trade of the philosophers have a utility in our adventure in love? For Marie Lemonnier: “Between the catch of distance with respect to its affects with the risk to desiccate them and liming passion, there is a balance to find. ” For Aude Lancelin, smiling: “Until now, the rationalization did not preserve us torments of passion! ” Both are nevertheless of agreement. “The love is a war, one can die about it: for this combat, philosophy is a secret weapon…”