Download Learning To Love fb2

Wilson appears to be an Educational Studies research associate with the University of Oxford. He's published at least six books on the subject of "love," and seems to perpetuate the psycho-babble and incoherence of "teachers without a clue." Not everything is far off base, but most of his ideas are rooted in myth, cultist therapy, and fantasy. I'll address myself to his most serious defects in misrepresenting some basic concepts (Chap. 4: Morality and Sharing).

Clearly, he does not understand the difference between morality and ethics, although he cites Aristotle, Hare, and Murdock, which conceptually should have made a difference. Morality is a deontological (duty) proscription (stated in the negative, usually). Ethics is a teleological (purpose-driven) prescription toward well-being, happiness, and human flourishing, which avoids excess and deficiencies (vices) for moderation (virtue). Both concern orthopraxy (right conduct), but from entirely different perspectives. If he can't be clear about such basic concepts, he should not raise them.

The only "moral duty" we can universalize is the "do no harm" principle (which he does not even mention). Hippocrates and J. S. Mill are quite clear about the "avoidance of harm" as a moral imperative. Wilson equivocates between Kant's categorical imperative and Hare's utilitarian calculus, both of which have been repudiated generally, but he cannot represent them accurately. So, his entire chapter equivocates between morality and ethics, but addresses neither, misrepresents both, and indulges unintelligibility, "as if" he knows what to tell his readers.

The "epilogue" concerns "Recovering the Self." He embraces the Cult of Therapy, which seeks self-actualization in the mental metaphysics of "self-actualization." There, one may use others to fulfill one's fulfillment, but I sure hope not. If so, it sure ain't love( maybe narcissistic self-indulgence). The "Self" in recovery of itself has no room for "others," and depth psychology of Freud, Jung, et alia, never speaks to "erotic love." They speak of "conflict," which the Cult will psychoanalyze, and "use" to achieve the ego's gratification (self). A self in love with itself ain't learning to love other than Narcissus. Eros, or desire, is "other-directed," or it is masturbatory.

Dialogue, trust, negotiation, respect, empathy, and seeing the world through your beloved's eyes who sees his world though your own eyes is the foundation of erotic love, and Robert Solomon's "Erotic Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor" is far superior to Wilson's drivel. Pandering the same therapeutic pablum as "advice" that obviously does not work, or is misrepresented, or is misdirected to false orientations, is not my idea of learning anything. One does not learn to love, one grows in love. And the confused ideas posited by Wilson will only lead the reader astray.

An excellent book... it's kind of painful to see so many things you learned the hard way spelled out accurately, and without cliches or sentimentalism. A manual on how to be a person. The tone of the author is very humble, too. Highly recommended--I discovered it by accident on the library shelves.
I object a little bit to his postcript/conclusion about the purpose of sexual relationships (in terms of psychological/personal salvation) but that section is not integral to the book and doesn't at all affect the value of the rest of it.