Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-kbn2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-05T10:02:38.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is Love? An Incomplete Map of the Metaphysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2015

C.S.I. JENKINS
C.S.I. JENKINS*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAcarrie.jenkins@ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The paper begins by surveying a range of possible views on the metaphysics of romantic love, organizing them as responses to a single question. It then outlines a position, constructionist functionalism, according to which romantic love is characterized by a functional role that is at least partly constituted by social matters (social institutions, traditions, and practices), although this role may be realized by states that are not socially constructed.

Keywords

romantic lovemetaphysicssocial constructionismfunctionalism

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 349 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chang, R. (2013) ‘Commitments, Reasons, and the Will’. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 8, 74–113.Google Scholar
de Beauvoir, S. ([1949] 1997) The Second Sex. London: Random House.Google Scholar
Fisher, H. (2004) Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York: St. Martin's Griffin.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. (1999) ‘Autonomy, Necessity, and Love’. In Frankfurt, Necessity, Volition, and Love (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 129–41.Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D. (1989) ‘The Phenomena of Love and Hate’. In Soble, A. (ed.), Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love (New York: Paragon House), 218–34.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. (2003) ‘Social Construction: The “Debunking” Project’. In Schmitt, F. (ed.), Socializing Metaphysics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield), 301–25.Google Scholar
hooks, b. (2000) All About Love: New Visions. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Horton, D., and Wohl, R.. (1956) ‘Mass Communication and Parasocial Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance’. Psychiatry, 19, 215–29.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. (2006) ‘The Rules of Flirtation’. The Philosophers Magazine, 36, 37–40. Reprinted in Clark, M. and Miller, K. (eds.), Dating: Flirting With Big Ideas (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 13–18.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. (Forthcoming) ‘Modal Monogamy’. Ergo.Google Scholar
Naar, H. (2013) ‘A Dispositional Theory of Love’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 342–57.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1989) ‘Love's Bond’. In Nozick, The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations (New York: Simon & Schuster), 68–86.Google Scholar
Perry, J. (1979) ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical’. Noûs, 13, 3–21.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. ([1818] 1958) The World as Will and Representation, volume II. Translated by Payne, E. F. J.. Indian Hills, CO: Falcon's Wing Press.Google Scholar
Scott Peck, M. (1978) The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Shand, J. (2011) ‘Love As If’. Essays in Philosophy, 12, 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. (2001) ‘Hermeneutic Fictionalism’. In French, P. and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy XXV: Figurative Language (Oxford: Blackwell), 36–71.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. (1999) ‘Love as a Moral Emotion’. Ethics, 109, 338–74.Google Scholar
Walton, K. (1978) ‘Fearing Fictions’. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 5–27.Google Scholar