Philosophy of love and sex-Nozik & Dworkin
A Nozick and Dworkin comparison
Philosophy of Love and Sex
Introduction
This paper compares and contrasts the philosophical views of two thinkers: Robert Nozick and Andrea Dworkin on the subject of Romantic Love (Eros / Being in Love). By romantic love, Nozick and Dworkin are referring to the possibility of two individuals sharing a single identity: in other words, what Nozick calls love’s bond and Dworkin calls communion. Where Nozick and Dworkin differ is over the value of the pursuit of this identity by lovers. How do Dworkin and Nozick feel about the pursuits of romantic identification by a lover and should this pursuit be unrequited? In Love’s Bond by Nozick and Communion by Dworkin, we see that while Nozick would question the value of unrequited love where only one gets their needs met, Dworkin would embrace it. The reason for the difference in their views is that they have different notions of what constitutes good romantic love. For Nozick, love brings people together to meet each other’s needs. The good of love is met when both partners get their needs met. This is not going to happen if love is not requited. For Dworkin, romantic’s love’s value can be sufficiently realised if it allows the subaltern (usually the woman) in a relationship to preserve her humanity. Says Dworkin, while communion is better, unrequited love where the woman preserves her humanity has virtue as it is necessary for the survival of our species as human. To sum up, Nozick thinks loves good can be achieved only if lovers are equal. For Dworkin, love’s good can be achieved even in conditions of inequality.
Loves Bond, an application of Nozick Nozick states that love is a lived experience, which is defined, by an individual’s internal state of being. This encompasses a broad application of the love process, which includes the love of parent, aimed at his/her young, and what is common that one’s own well-being is tied up with that
Philosophy of Love and Sex
Introduction
This paper compares and contrasts the philosophical views of two thinkers: Robert Nozick and Andrea Dworkin on the subject of Romantic Love (Eros / Being in Love). By romantic love, Nozick and Dworkin are referring to the possibility of two individuals sharing a single identity: in other words, what Nozick calls love’s bond and Dworkin calls communion. Where Nozick and Dworkin differ is over the value of the pursuit of this identity by lovers. How do Dworkin and Nozick feel about the pursuits of romantic identification by a lover and should this pursuit be unrequited? In Love’s Bond by Nozick and Communion by Dworkin, we see that while Nozick would question the value of unrequited love where only one gets their needs met, Dworkin would embrace it. The reason for the difference in their views is that they have different notions of what constitutes good romantic love. For Nozick, love brings people together to meet each other’s needs. The good of love is met when both partners get their needs met. This is not going to happen if love is not requited. For Dworkin, romantic’s love’s value can be sufficiently realised if it allows the subaltern (usually the woman) in a relationship to preserve her humanity. Says Dworkin, while communion is better, unrequited love where the woman preserves her humanity has virtue as it is necessary for the survival of our species as human. To sum up, Nozick thinks loves good can be achieved only if lovers are equal. For Dworkin, love’s good can be achieved even in conditions of inequality.
Loves Bond, an application of Nozick Nozick states that love is a lived experience, which is defined, by an individual’s internal state of being. This encompasses a broad application of the love process, which includes the love of parent, aimed at his/her young, and what is common that one’s own well-being is tied up with that