Identifier: ErichFrommLArteDiAmare. Identifier-ark: ark://t4pkq. Ocr: ABBYY FineReader Ppi: Scanner: Internet Archive. Sorry, this document isn't available for viewing at this time. In the meantime, you can download the document by clicking the 'Download' button above. Todo sobre el electrodoméstico microondas. ERICH FROMM L ARTE DI AMARE PDF (garfstontanguicon.tk). submitted 4 months ago by choco
|Language:||English, Dutch, Arabic|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||20.69 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.49 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Erich Seligmann Fromm; 23 марта , Франкфурт-на-Майне — 18 . Il libro più popolare di Fromm è stato L'arte di amare, un bestseller. Erich Fromm says in his best-seller The Art of Loving: “If I really love one person, 1 E. Fromm, L'arte di amare, Il Saggiatore, Milan , p. 2 P.A. Sorokin, Il. The art of love according to Eric Fromm and Chiara Lubich . and sociologist Erich Fromm showed that love is really an art form and therefore . L'arte di amare.
Fromm defended these opinions also in interview with Mike Wallace when he states: "love today is a relatively rare phenomenon, that we have a great deal of sentimentality; we have a great deal of illusion about love, namely as a But the question is that one cannot fall in love, really; one has to be in love. And that means that loving becomes, and the ability to love, becomes one of the most important things in life. Each of these is difficult to define and can differ markedly depending on the people involved and their circumstances.
Seen in these terms, love is hard work, but it is also the most rewarding kind of work. One of the book's concepts is self-love. According to Fromm, loving oneself is quite different from arrogance, conceit or egocentrism. Loving oneself means caring about oneself, taking responsibility for oneself, respecting oneself, and knowing oneself e.
In order to be able to truly love another person, one needs first to love oneself in this way. The current belief is that a couple should be a well-assorted team, sexually and functionally, working towards a common aim. This is in contrast with Fromm's description of true love and intimacy, which involves willful commitment directed toward a single unique individual.
One cannot truly love another person if one does not love all of mankind including oneself. The book includes explorations of the theories of brotherly love , motherly and fatherly love, erotic love , self-love, and the love of God pp. And in this book, Fromm outlines his theory of love, and how it is an art.
As with other arts, such as painting and sculpture, he claims that love has two parts: theory and practice. The book is divided accordingly. In the theory section, he goes over five different types of love: brotherly love, motherly love, erotic love, self-love, and love of God.
He explains the different functions of these different types, and its various characteristics. And in the practice section, he basically gives various factors that affect and influence the practice of love.
So, where do I begin criticizing this work? First of all, I deeply hated the fact that his arguments are all along the lines of speculation.
I am all for empiricism, and he has all these grandiose claims that were never proven with evidence, all throughout the book. He has claims for example about the difference between motherly and fatherly love, about the importance of the male-female divide, about mothers and instinct, but all of his arguments are conjecture, and not actually supported by empirical evidence.
I being a scientist have big problems with that. I also think that he suffers from a cultural bias, in that in Eurocentric cultures, at least, love as a concept actually refers to various different things, which roughly corresponds to the different "types" of love. However, I think that it is just an accident of language that English has one word to refer to all of those, which gives the illusion that all of these concepts are inter-related and compose a superset of human emotions.
However, one simply has to look to other cultures, and one will realize that there are actually different words that refer to these "types" of love. Greek for example has four different words for what the English language refers to as "love".
era settembre zero assoluto youtube to mp3
Lewis actually has a book discussing the Four Loves as seen in Christianity. Thus, I fear that this book, which is in a way a typology of "love" may actually be resting on the false premise that there is something in common will all manifestations of love, and that Fromm is just undergoing an endeavor that is ontologically faulty. This can be seen by the various differing assumptions that he makes regarding the different types of love.
Speaking of assumptions, this is another part in which I have problems with.
Erich Fromm L' Arte Di Amare
He makes all these assumptions about the various characteristics of various "loves" but I can think of so many counter-examples to prove him wrong. One assumption he has is the instinct of the mother to her offspring, and how that is the defining factor in motherly love.
He claims that mothers by virtue of giving birth of her child, are predisposed to love her child unconditionally. I believe the contrary. I think I can re-explain every phenomenon he tackles with a simpler rule, without resorting to various other assumptions, and that is by claiming that "love" as we know it is simply a matter of constraint satisfaction and selfishness. We show love to a target because we need something from the target: whether it be one's child, one's brother, one's sexual partner, or one's God.
If the need goes away, then we stop showing love.
Prometeu Acorrentado / Édipo Rei / Medéia
Thus, in the case of motherly love, when there is another need that is present in the mother, that runs counter to the need pertaining to the infant, then the mother will sooner or later give up the child for adoption, abandoning the infant in one way or another. If motherly love were instinctive, then we won't actually be witness to the grave number of orphanages around the world. Another assumption he makes is the centrality of the male-female opposition.
He claims that these two poles are necessary for real erotic love to happen.
By implication, he explicitly claims that homosexuals are incapable of love. I tend to disagree. Personally, I believe that humans can be post-gendered and has the ability to be attracted to another person, regardless of the other person's gender, if one's constraints are set up that way.
Thus, gender variation for me is just a matter of constraint setting. I do not like the fact that Fromm categorically eliminates the ability to love from non-heterosexual people. Perhaps it is just the sign of the times he was living in the book was published in , and important studies by Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker were not around yet. As of , homosexuality was still listed as a mental illness according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and wasn't removed from the list until Alfred Kinsey published two seminal volumes on sexual behavior of the human male and female, and Evelyn Hooker did several series of experiments providing evidence that self-identified homosexuals were no worse in social adjustment than the general population.Strnge is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?
Poetically speaking, Bach, Mozart, Shakespeare, Plato, Socrates and our loved ones can live on through us insofar as we can see the world through their eyes.
Showing of reviews. So, I have offered here a counter explanation to the phenomenon of love.
I believe that it is a simpler explanation, satisfying Occam's Razor. Jun 09, Jeruen rated it did not like it My goodness, what is this dude smoking? Ozleft An independent forum of strategy, tactics and history ecoocialista the Australian left, green and labour movements.