Philosophy 145 Paper #2

Topic A. C. S. Lewis and Aristotle.  (Difficult to do well and in an interesting way.) 

Summarize C. S. Lewis’s four loves and his three components of love (Appreciative, Gift- and Need-love).  Summarize Aristotle’s three forms of friendship.  Are there any correspondences between any of C. S. Lewis’s classifications and Aristotle’s?  How would C. S. Lewis classify Aristotelian character-friendship?  Which of the four loves does it fall under, if any?  What are its components?  What would Aristotle think of the whole range of things that C. S. Lewis considers to be “Friendship”?

Topic B. Forming a “we” (Nozick).  

What does Nozick think is essential to any kind of love?  Nozick thinks that in the case of romantic love, there is a formation of a “we”, a joint identity.  What is a joint identity—what goes into it?  Why might someone think that forming a joint identity is worth doing?  Why does Nozick think that if someone has formed a “we”, he or she will not wish to “trade up” for a better person?  Is Nozick right?  Why or why not?  Is it possible to have mutual, reciprocated romantic love without the formation of a “we”?  Would the love be healthy then?  Is it possible to have a “we” in the absence of romantic love?  How about in the absence of any kind of love?  Why would someone like Nozick think it unlikely that a romantic love can include more than two persons?  Illustrate at least one of the claims in your paper with something from Ice Storm.

Topic C. Nozick and John Paul II on love (Hard)

Describe Nozick's account of the formation of a "we" in terms of the surrender of identity, and John Paul II's account of the formation of love through a mutual self-giving.  What might John Paul II mean by this mutual self-giving?  What parallels or contrasts do you see in the two authors, for instance with respect to autonomy, or the negotiations at entry into a "we", or issues of "using" the other person?  Can one combine the insights of both into a single story?  If so, how?  If not, why not, and which view is better?

Topic D. Cohabitation and marriage

Carefully state two arguments (e.g., the ones discussed in class) to the effect cohabitation is (generally or always) preferable to marriage, being careful to specify whether the arguments are in favor of committed (and if so, in what way) or non-committed cohabitation.  How might someone criticize these arguments?  How might one argue that marriage is (generally or always) preferable to cohabitation?  What position is right?  You should make reference to our readings here as well make use of the philosophical discussions of love in the first part of the course.

Topic E. Marriage and unconditionality of love (Hard to do interestingly and well.) 

Mendus and Martin differ on whether the marriage promise is unconditional.  Explain their respective positions, being careful to explain the distinction between making a vow and making a prediction, and Martin’s explanation for why the marriage vows do not include “exception clauses”.  Which one—if either—is right?  Are perhaps some parts of the marriage vows conditional and others not?  What other reasons might someone have for thinking the marriage promise is unconditional?  How is this connected with Kierkegaard’s and Aristotle’s ideas about love?  If the marriage vows were unconditional, would it follow that divorce is always wrong?  

Topic F. What is marriage good for?  

Our society has an institution of marriage.  Why might one think this institution is a good thing?  What might one think the institution of marriage is good for?  (Aquinas, John Paul II, Tucker, McGowan, the sociological articles, and Ice Storm are possible sources here;  use at least two of them.)  Do you agree?  Why or why not?  What do you think should be the point of the institution of marriage as distinguished from other kinds of relationships?  Or do you think that it is an institution that by and large we should get rid of?  Make sure you argue for your view and connect it with philosophical readings on love.