Michael Novak Discusses Romantic Love

The Myth of Romantic Love

No doubt it was occasioned by V-Day. Some, in particular the recently "singled," on FB use the same day to "observe" Singles Awareness Day.

We can't talk about love without referring to Denis de Rougemonet's Love in the Western World. (Still haven't finished reading it.) Eros might be analyzed into certain chemicals involved in passions consequent upon the senses (or maybe even chemical signalling like pheromones), but it cannot help but be pulled towards something higher -- the desire for permanence, friendship/communion?

Is "love" given to different psychological/physiological, behavioral, moral reactions to desire? Most Catholic writers avoid saying eros is immoral. They may talk about how it is a natural response that nonetheless needs to be elevated or subsumed into charity. The moral imperative is to integrate the natural desire to pair off and procreate with reason.

What are the steps of "falling in love" and "being in love"? Does the release of one hormone lead to the release of another? Dopamine is released when we are in the presence of the other to whom we are attracted, we converse with her or act with her. It is not necessarily grounded upon a judgment of deep compatability -- it may simply result from the natural dynamic between men and women, the pleasure one has when one is in the company of a member of the opposite sex, in the initial excitement of attraction. One is no longer alone in the way Adam was alone, and pleasure results from the attaining of a certain good, companionship with a member of the other sex. The basis of marital communion is the natural dynamic between men and women. (Granted, this sort of loneliness will not be satisfied by having friends of the same sex, since what is lacking is not just a friend but a friend of the opposite sex--this loneliness is determined in a peculiar way by the instinct to pair off. So heartbreak may not be taken away through the company of friends, but the sadness of heartbreak can be eased through consolation and distraction.) People will often talk about chemistry, which is a rather vague notion since it covers a variety of things -- affinity, emotional and physiological reactions, and so on. This reinforces that initial pleasure.

But what causes the initial attraction? Is it merely the sex drive and testosterone? The object of attraction must first be recognized, and there are many influences other than instinct (e.g. being attracted to someone with certain physical features because they signal health, fertility, strength, masculinity, etc.) on our idealization of a lover.

I suppose the point of this post is simply to hash these thoughts out, and to think about how the senses (and the body) operate in conjunction with reason with respect to "romantic love."

Daniel Larison, Un-Christian Delusions

For that matter, Jerusalem is also considered holy in the eyes of Muslims. I have no idea how Westerners can claim to “know” that the Iranian government would be so moved by religious apocalyptic fervor that it would engage in suicidal nuclear warfare, but they also seem remarkably certain that the holy status of Jerusalem in the eyes of Muslims somehow doesn’t really “count” and will be tossed aside at a moment’s notice. We often see this selective reliance on the beliefs and statements of people in other states. When Ahmadinejad or some other figure of authority in Iran makes demagogic, bellicose statements against Israel, these statements are regarded as essential for understanding the thinking of the Iranian government. On the other hand, when their politico-religious authorities say repeatedly that they regard the use of nuclear weapons as abhorrent, we are supposed to dismiss these statements automatically.

Michael Novak explains CST

Three Precisions: Social Justice
Three Precisions: Common Good
Three Precisions: Personal Liberty

These probably merit some sort of response.

Michael Novak, again: What, Another Marxist Predicts the Collapse of Capitalism?

Michael Novak, Economic Heresies of the Left

What exactly is in Benedict XVI’s new encyclical on the economy and labor issues is not yet known. Catholic leftists and progressives, though, are already trembling with excitement. Three glaring errors have already appeared in these heavily panting anticipations.

An accurate presentation of real existing capitalism requires at least three modest affirmations:

1) Markets work well only within a system of law, and only according to well-marked-out rules of the game; unregulated markets are a figment of imagination.

2) In actual capitalist practice, the love of creativity, invention, and groundbreaking enterprise are far more powerful than motives of greed.


3) The fundamental systemic motive infusing the spirit of capitalism is the imperative to liberate the world’s poor from the premodern ubiquity of grinding poverty. This motive lay at the heart of Adam Smith’s important victory over Thomas Malthus concerning the coming affluence—rather than starvation—of the poor.

Since the origins of modern capitalism around 1780, more than two-thirds of the world’s population has moved out of poverty. In China and India alone, more than 500 million have been raised out of poverty just in the last forty years. In almost every nation the average age of mortality has risen dramatically, causing populations to expand accordingly. Health in almost every dimension has been improved, and literacy has been carried to remote places it never reached before.

If the Holy Father does not offer anything more than "prudential advice" along with a re-statement of very general statements, I can see the First Things crowd appropriating the encyclical as their own.