philosophy as love

Derek Allen, of the Australian National University writes:

Interesting idea about philosophy and love. Personally, I don’t know enough about the subject matter, but others might like to start a thread.

While here, I’ll quote another bit from the book I mentioned:

“… having seemingly exhausted their own mandate … analytic philosophy has begun to turn toward Continental philosophy. Not, alas, as a rapprochement, not by inviting practitioners of Continental philosophy to join the discussion, but only, and as if bored to tears by their own analytic themes, taking up themes (and names like Nietzsche, Heidegger and Deleuze) of Continental philosophy. For the analytic tradition is intentionally bankrupt (this is the internal logic of the analytic method), but although rendered moribund by its own hand, within the profession (aka academic and editorial control) it enjoys the power of the majority or dominant tradition. To keep itself going it means to seize (but not to "think") the spiritual capital of a tradition whose authority is denounced as that of non- or "bad" philosophy."

Bracing stuff.

My thoughts:

You say that you do not know enough about love to discuss the subject, but I think philosophers should not shy away from this subject, since Socrates claimed that his knowledge of love was the sole exception to his general policy of ignorance. 

Then you quote A House Divided: Comparing Analytic and Continental Philosophy, (Humanity Books, 2003).

“… having seemingly exhausted their own mandate … analytic philosophy has begun to turn toward Continental philosophy. Not, alas, as a rapprochement, not by inviting practitioners of Continental philosophy to join the discussion, but only, and as if bored to tears by their own analytic themes, taking up themes (and names like Nietzsche, Heidegger and Deleuze) of Continental philosophy. For the analytic tradition is intentionally bankrupt (this is the internal logic of the analytic method), but although rendered moribund by its own hand, within the profession (aka academic and editorial control) it enjoys the power of the majority or dominant tradition. To keep itself going it means to seize (but not to "think") the spiritual capital of a tradition whose authority is denounced as that of non- or "bad" philosophy."

Philosophy, by this account, has lost the thread from its ancient founding, having become an institution and a dark priesthood obsessed with power.  The religion of emptiness -- intentionally bankrupt -- rendered moribund by its own hand -- enjoying power -- selling its goods by hijacking trends in contemporary culture -- relegating its influences to a lower status -- used goods -- having completed its crossword puzzle -- now free to relax. 

But Nietzsche, Heidegger and Deleuze do not want us to relax.  Like Kierkegaard they say "All existence makes me anxious … the whole thing is inexplicable, I most of all … anxiety may be compared to dizziness … anxiety is the dizziness of freedom … whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate."   This is philosophy that is still connected to its origin -- not a puzzle but all-in engagement in being. 

The fundamental experience in intellectual search is exactly the enigmatic situation we are facing in every moment of our lives.  To me this argues that philosophy is metaphysics, first philosophy, cosmology and ontology, before it is logic and epistemology and analysis.  Heidegger explains:

The important distinction between ‘worldview’ and ‘philosophy’ is the distinction between pre-theoretical understanding and explicitly theorized understanding.  Heidegger says that “when someone strives for a higher autonomous worldview, cultivating a thinking free of religious and other dogmas, then one is doing philosophy” (“The Idea of Philosophy and the Problem of Worldview,” War Emergency Semester 1919, Freiburg, section 1).  At the same time, when someone tries to get some distance from all the ‘natural’ attitudes with which he has been raised, and which he has taken on by belonging to different groups – i.e., when this person starts trying to do philosophy – the goal is to develop a comprehensive point of view, a generic frame of reference for interpreting all experience – i.e. philosophy tries to articulate a comprehensive ‘worldview.’  Heidegger expresses this idea in his 1919 lecture course by saying things like “philosophy is metaphysics” and “philosophy’s struggle with the puzzles of life and the world comes to rest by establishing the ultimate nature of the universe realized as a worldview” and “the task of philosophy is worldview.”

The first issue is existence itself and what if anything we can discern about it.  We are trying to think through the experience of being.  But perhaps we get lost in thinking and lose touch with being -- because we are bringing the examining focus to a game, and not to our own lives. 

As it were: we see our love from afar and want to learn more about her, but this desire may become an obsession; then we have forgotten about our love and the happiness we see in her.  -- What is philosophy if not love?