This topic is so wide. I cannot cover all of them here. I just want to talk one characteristic of the contract.Generally people think they need to make a relationship when they love each other. But I doubt it. If the two persons love and trust each other, they don't need a contract. And if the two persons don't love or don't trust any more, they also don't need a contract. If they don't love anymore, why do they not break the contract?
I think that the main functionality of this kind of contracts is only for the case when they don't love each other, but they want to have the other's property. The contract keeps the relationship for property when they don't love each other. Or it enforces people to THINK they love.
My opinion is that love is love, and contract is contract. They should be treated in different perspectives. I think, radically saying, any kind of contracts for human relationship should disappear. But it is too much theoretical; even more than Socialism. I, thus, think at least the power of love should always be stronger than that of contract.Devotion has got easier these days. I think it means the power for the property contract is getting weaker which is good.
11 comments:
I think it is typical Marxist view that marriage should and will be eliminated in the far future after private property right is removed. The relathions between sexes become totally private issue without any intervention of the society.
Actually some philophers as vanguards tried to live this kind of life,for example,Jean Paul Sartre and Beuavoir. They do not require each other to be faithful and they could have other partners. But I "heard" that sometimes the woman Beuavoir also became jealousy about her competitors.
But what I think is unrealistic to eliminate marriage is that people cannot afford a potentially unstable "family" that might be dismissed at any moment without binding contracts. The so-called divine marriage is among those ancient rituals which bind people together through the solidarity of basic social units,like the family,the tribe. All these social units are of advantage to the reproduction of human beings.
This question is worth thinking through. If you are interested, you can read Kant on marriage.
Helen
I wanna think of it in different view.
I think many people find the value of their lives by acting some roles for others. in faminly, father or mom is the names relating to their roles to other members. they feel comportable when they become bf or gf for their partners.
but as you know, love dosen't have any forms or shapes we can see. we cannot touch or feel love. we can truly recognize it by our acts when we really love each other. love is the behavior itself. not role-playing.
however, if we really love each other, if the relationships aren't following a sense of obligation, we can feel more combined by our role-titles.
So, i think true love is first, making role is second. love is just loving (act).
Keunwoong.
Thank you, friends.
You, guys, raised good points.
They help me think it more.
Thanks.
*PS: Welcome Keunwoong who is my senior friend in my undergraduate school.
To me, contract may comes from the unsteadiness of human relationship itself. love always happen between two or more people, therefore we may face some situation that one of them lose the passion of loving while the other still feel that. The contract makes all of them feel safe when they worried about the other's leaving when they begin to take the relationship seriously. No one want to be alone even if they are doomed to be so.(People die and leave the world, their beloved cannot keep the contract and their hearts are broken.)
Jae, I think people need contract to express their feeling of love, the feeling that they are afraid of the partner's leaving.Instead of the desire of HAVING him or her, I sign the contract to GIVE my promise to them or to BRING the safety to them. I think,that is all what I can do for my beloved.
By love, I mean the willingness to be with them through all the happiness and hardness, experiencing the "pay and pain" TOGETHER;
For love, I may still do not get the essence but I will always try my best effort seeking for it.
Best wishes to all the one in love and all the one in the path toward loving.
Black Beauty
hi jay,
i'm in a "contract of love". its great fun! there is a great peace by an economist of how marriage and family has developed...over the last 3 centuries.....give me your email i send it to you....
well, actually i wanted to ask you if you could help me with my computer - i was so stupid to delete the folder with the programs from the start menu and now i have no clue how to get back........
are you still coming on thursday, around 8 maybe....?
peace out.
p
a great "piece", i mean
Petrik:
You should tell Jay how happy being a married man is(since you are a good example), rather than letting him read boring papers.
Life is life; theory is theory.
haha
Helen
BB// I think any contract doesn't show up their problem as long as they love, so that your saying is correct in your sense. I totally agree that love is giving, and contract is just one of way to express their feeling.
But it is half of the story.
Petrik// I think you meant your marriage is happy. I know you love each other. I can feel it. But some of them are not like you, for example, my family or some of friends. I envy you, and I bless you much.
*PS: Could you send it to jkwak2 of university.
wow, there are so many comments here! 'love' is the most popular topic to discuss all the time of earth history.
i'm so sorry that i'm not fluent in English to discuss it perfectly. anyway, all of us think love itself is beautiful regardless of what those 'contract's mean.
"Best wishes to all the one in love and all the one in the path toward loving." by Black Beaty. i like this sentence. some of us is seeking true love. and some of us is loving each other.
- Kevin (Keunwoong)
p.s i will use Kevin as my english name from now on. LOL
I have read the paper Petrik gave me. It gave me some interesting points.
For example,
"Until 1700s, marriage in the Western were not the love-based, companionate, chosen partnerships we value today."
"Popular marriage in former centuries was usually affectionless, held together by
considerations of property or lineage"
I have a little bit different questions. I don't understand how this paper proves these statements. Because I think it is hard or almost impossible to prove that marriage was affectionless. Actually this paper does not show the logical proving or any evidence. I cannot accept these statements, although they are exactly same with what I have though.
Post a Comment