اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Philosophy
Six Paradoxes of Love, Mostafa Malekian
Mostafa Malekian enumerates six tragic paradoxes of love: from the violence born of preferring expediency over delight and the paradox of performing self-sacrifice, to the conflict between companionship and mystery, and the incompatibility of union and morality with the nature of love.
Six Paradoxes of Love: These six paradoxes are among the tragic and sorrowful aspects of love.
The first paradox is the violence of love. Because in love, I seek the beloved's best interest, not the beloved's pleasure; then naturally, when the beloved's pleasure conflicts with their best interest, I prioritize their best interest over their pleasure; therefore, I become indifferent to their pleasure, and indifference to pleasure is violence. If I attend to the beloved's pleasure, I have trampled ethics, and if I consider their best interest, I have committed violence against them.
The second paradox: For love to endure, you must inform your beloved of the degree of self-sacrifice you have shown in love. For them to know how much you love them, you must be able to show them the extent of the self-sacrifices you have made to preserve and maintain their love; for they do not possess knowledge of the unseen. They are a human being just like you. But as soon as you speak, the other party suspects that you are not truly in love with them, otherwise these self-sacrifices would not seem significant to you. On one hand, I have no choice but to share with my beloved that I am sacrificing everything for you; on the other hand, if I flaunt this sacrifice, they suspect I am not in love with them, for a lover should not regard their own sacrifices as significant. They suspect that I am calculating, not loving.
The third paradox: Love always demands togetherness, even though in many cases togetherness is not in the other party's best interest, and the lover, to the extent that they are a lover and to the extent that they are without will and involuntary in love, involuntarily seeks togetherness, even though this togetherness destroys the interests of the other party, the observance of which was, of course, the first condition of love.
The fourth paradox: A major part of love arises from the other party's mysteriousness. Because the other is mysterious to you, you are in love with them, yet the togetherness that love necessitates gradually eliminates this mysteriousness, and then you see that this human being is of the same cloth as other human beings. When you fall in love, you want to be together; when you are together, the other party is demystified, and demystification reverses the process of love.
(- Unless we say: I love you so much that union holds no desire for me. - Yes; but this, in my opinion, is very idealistic. This statement is more beautiful than it is true. Perhaps once in every millennium, an Awhadi appears who is like this. Truly, it is bitter. Truths are not beautiful.)
The fifth paradox: Love seeks its own killer. Because the lover seeks union, and union is the killer of love. The problem is that love's endurance depends on the other party being out of reach, while the lover wants the beloved to be within reach. But as soon as the beloved is within reach, you are no longer the same person as before; you gradually withdraw.
The sixth paradox: Love is not always aligned with living ethically. Very often, to be ethical, you must fall short in your love, and if you do not want to fall short in your love, you cannot be ethical. Previously in Christian theology, they said there is a conflict among some of God's attributes. They said there is a conflict between God's being absolutely just and God's being absolutely loving. Because being just necessitates living ethically. Justice necessitates that in the position of judgment and arbitration, you inflict pain and suffering on the beloved, but love demands something else. For example, justice and ethics may require that you punish the beloved, and this is incompatible with being a lover.
When I trample ethics, I feel that it is no longer me who is in love with that beloved. A being alien to me has fallen in love. I want to be the one in love with them myself, not a being alien to me whom I look upon with hatred. Theoretically, I firmly believe that when I distance myself from ethics, I distance myself from my very self. Then, when I am unethical and still maintain a loving relationship with my beloved, it is someone else who has the loving relationship. I am alone here, and it is someone else who is making love with my beloved.
.
.
Six Paradoxes of Love
In Conversation: Seddiq Qotbi with Mostafa Malekian
.
.
Discussion6 comments
ای روی تو از بهشت بابی دل بر نمک لبت کبابی درود بر مصطفی ملکیان عزیز
من واقعا طبقه بندی که در مباحث استاد وجود داره رو تحسین می کنم، اگرچه با تمام نظرات ایشون موافق نیستم اما فیلسوف مورد علاقه ام هستن و در بسیاری از موارد پرده از حقیقت برمی دارن. عمرشان مستدام باد.
قبل از همه تمنیات نیک خود را خدمت جناب استاد تقدیم می کنم . سوال من راجع به عشقی است که به انسان حضور و آرامش قلب ندهد آنرا از جنس کرام عشق بوده می تواند . و دیگر اینکه عشاق امروزی جامعه از دید شما چقدر متکی به عشق خوشایندی نیستند.و اینکه اگر یک عاشقی خواستار عشق خوشایندی از ما باشد؛ وظیفه ما در برابر خواسته معشوق مان چیست؟ و چی رفتاری را بخود اختصاص دهیم تا جانب مقابل عشق اخلاقی را که ما برگزیدیم بداند و با عشق اخلاقی زیست کردن را اختیار کند .
سلام . تعارض نخست سطر سوم: وقتی خوشایند معشوق تعارض پیدا میکند با مصلحت او . اصلاح فرمایید.
سلام سپاس، اصلاح شد
درسگفتارهای دکتر ملکان بسیار کلاسه شده، روان و منطقیه. و این دلایل جذابیت صحبت های ایشون برای منه. در مورد این مقاله هم می خوام بدونم آیا ایشون مطلبی به همین جزئیات و ظرایف در خصوص نحوه ی حفظ عشق (شاید نه در شکل و به کیفیت اولیه) دارن یا خیر. تشکر