args

Loving is an art

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate! As a brief road-map, I will be offering Definitions, framework, and finally arguments. Also as a clarifying note; through the course of this debate I will often quote the late German-American Psychologist and Social Philosopher "Erich Fromm" Citing, and expanding upon ideas expressed in his book "The Art of Loving" = Definitions = 1. [1] Love: "Immature love says: 'I love you because I need you.' Mature love says 'I need you because I love you.'" 2. [2] Art: "A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. = Framework = Obs1: The resolution states "Loving is an art" Since loving is in the present-perfect tense is present, we must assume that "Love" excludes fleeting moments of affection, (Immature love) as immature love is not one that ceases once a need is satisfied; but is instead in regards to unrequited love (Mature Love), since mature love is not a love that changes depending on the needs/desires of the individual at the moment. Obs2: A divide must be made between love and affection. While love does encompass affection, affection does not necessarily encompass love. Affection is the feeling part of love; whereas love as a whole is a much more complex entity. Obs3: the BOP in this debate is a reciprocal one, I as the pro must prove that Loving is an art, and my opponent must prove that loving is not an art. = Arguments = Contention 1: The justification of love- There are many stages of love, an many different types of love. Ranging from brotherly, to motherly, to romantic, and beyond. And each different kind of love has certain stages that must happen for mature love to take place (i.e. the present-perfect tense of love) through practice, and patience an individual can become immensely better at these actions; thus it is an art. It is also important to note that some different types of love do require certain stages; for instance motherly does require a "falling in love" process, it is a form of love that simply given. Falling in love The easiest stage, in fact it's an uncontrollable part, it does not happen at will; the moment when it seems as though a boundary is broken and two individuals are brought together and are closer to one another. In brotherly love is takes the form of a friendship, in romantic love it takes the form of a relationship; but all the same this stage of love is near purely affection, The art of it comes in later Maintaining love through a difficulty Here is the bulk of my argument, the driving force as to why loving is an art; Where it just a passing feeling and nothing more, there would be no reason to reconcile a difference when a problem occurs. The two would go their separate ways and the love would die. In the case this happens, it is not mature love but immature love as the two in the friend or relationship where in such for their own benefit; thus I am not bound to defend this. However in the case that any action is taken to reconcile the damage between the two people; it has now become mature love. and also through this action of restoration, loving becomes an art; something that is a skill developed across time, and continual practice of the art. Contention 2: The artisan continues the art- [1]"If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism." -Erich Fromm Now continuing the previous contention's line of thought; if all prongs are met for mature love to take place, but the love is only directed towards one person; it is not truly love, but a symbiotic attachment. In which case I am not bound to defend this manner of love as it does not fulfill the perfect-present tense that the resolution specifies. "Just as love is an orientation which refers to all objects and is incompatible with the restriction to one object, so is reason a human faculty which must embrace the whole of the world with which man is confronted." -Erich Fromm If loving is not an art, but simply something accessible by any-one at the drop of a hat, then the same love must also be accessible towards any other person. However we realize that this is not the case, we realize that to be able to love all is a fairly hefty deed. It is something that requires practice, and repetition; it is one that requires the individual to continuously put aside their own needs and desires. It requires one to not seek to be loved, but to seek to love others. Thus in conclusion, I see no avenue in which love (not the passive, immature, "love" or more rightly called affection) cannot be considered an art. Vote Pro! =Sources = [1] Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" [2] Google Dictionary