The Art of Loving

The book's actual claim is that love is "primarily giving, not receiving." A thing you do, not a feeling you catch. Most of us were raised to ask whether we are lovable enough, not whether we can love. Do you buy that love is a skill you practice, or is that self-help dressed up as philosophy?

"Theology's logical conclusion is mysticism. Psychology's logical conclusion is love." I can't elaborate but this quote rings to me as truth. I'm curious what your interpretation of the quote is. 😊 It's from chapter 2 btw.

In chapter 2, he lists the followings as incomplete answers as ways to achieve unity: 1. Creative activity: not interpersonal 2. Orgiastic fusion: transitory 3. Conformity: only achieves pseudo-unity Why does being interpersonal matter here?

I'm thinking through my understanding of the chapter 2 on the problem of separateness derived from human conditions and the solutions to it. Problem: Reason > awareness > separateness I understand this. It's like a cell in the body suddenly realizing (possibly mistakenly) that it is an individual, effectively separating itself from the body. Thereafter the cell questions what it and the world are and where they are from, feeling anxious and ashamed of the disorientation. (some may feel extremely free instead?) Two solutions to the problem: 1. Reunion through reasoning - or understanding what we are and where we are from. When such time comes, it'd be a new beginning for us, but we don't know when the time would come. 2. Reunion through loving. This transcends the reasoning gap somehow and we become one again (or not feel separateness). He doesn't really go deeper, so I'm just curious how you interpret the chapter.

Who loves this book? This is one of my favorites 😄