North American Philosophical Publications

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Properties Author(s): Simon Keller Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 163-173 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009994 . Accessed: 11/10/2011 03:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

American

Philosophical

Quarterly

Volume 37, Number 2, April 2000

HOW DO I LOVE THEE? LET ME COUNT THE PROPERTIES

Simon Keller

Xf back, good able

someone then

I love that's

loves me romantically a reason for me to feel the most Among that I can gain valu? from

that I want ing reason we loved

about myself. of rewards love

argue that be? should give us a romantically to feel good about ourselves and that not be uncomfortable that romantic love with the is given section of this

to defend.

I will

need

romantic that comes one whom me

is the personal from the knowledge I love

affirmation that some?

consequence

as a worthy mantic love. Of

has chosen romantically of her own ro? recipient all the people she could to love me. That suggests

In the first conditionally. I'll try to get clearer on what the paper, view it is trying to and what question is, answer. The second section will explain the virtues Section these virtues of the properties view, and say why are not to be found elsewhere. three will contain a criticism of one

love, she chooses that the reason why she loves me should be to do with the things that set me apart from others. She should love me because I have and others of properties that lack.1 But wait. ditionally. properties I wouldn't What should not be given con? if I change, and lose the that my partner finds attractive? like to think that there would Love left for her comes to love. And prop? along whose attractive than mine? instead romantic of me? love

formulation of the view, and a suggestion as to how the view should be revised so as to deal with hand, the criticism. section will Revised view in the fourth deal with some

objections. I. The Properties View is this. makes To put West? The

then be nothing what if someone erties Wouldn't So are more

she then love him

perhaps my partner's should not be grounded that set me

should Call graph should

in the properties others. Perhaps she apart from love me just for being me, however I will be.

The question that I am addressing to the modern Western What, mind, for an ideal romantic relationship? it another way, what do we modern erners want from romantic is that most

love?

I am and however the view

in the first para? flagged the properties view?romantic love be for properties. This is the view

(in our people guiding thought a schematic view of share culture, now) what an ideal romantic is like. relationship An ideal romantic holds be? relationship tween two people who care for each other

163

164 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

much, probably sex with have gether, very have dreams, sex with anyone, are committed live each share and to? sleep if they secrets and the who
hands.

took the glowing

face between

her two

other

to maintaining

and so on. Some will pro? relationship, nounce a sneer; the "ideal" "ideal" with romantic pressive, that most relationship, they will say, is op? or boring. But I think unnatural, is aware of the ideal, everyone are intent upon achieving it. The is to articulate one as?

"Why? Because his hair is brown and grows away from his temples; because he opens and shuts his eyes, and his nose is a little out of he has two lips and a because drawing; square chin, and a little finger which he can't too straighten from having played baseball in his youth. Because?" energetically "Because
moiselle.3

and many goal of this paper pect of the ideal.2 The

you do,

in short,"

laughed Made? an?

that this paper addresses is question a question love. about romantic specifically sure what sets romantic I'm not exactly apart from other sorts of love, but I think that romantic love can be adequately as that type of love that nec? characterized love involves essarily with the beloved Part of what cally is to desire a strong desire to share a romantic relationship. someone romanti? to share with

I'm not much swer, which doesn't but I am

interested interested

in Edna's

she understands tell a causal

in the way in the question. She story about how she

state?"I love him got to be in her present because he was the most handsome and charming man at the party on the night that I realized that I was fed up with my hus? band"?nor does she explain what it is about herself love that makes him her a romantic for perhaps to I need lover?"I because, reasons,

it is to love

him a loving that is intimate, mutual, exclu? relationship and possibly sexual. This desire, of sive, be outweighed others?a course, may by romantic lover may prefer, on the whole, not to be in a romantic if her rather the beloved?but mantic someone and must with be with relationship love is really ro? be present You can love

biological love someone." Instead, Edna tries (with? out much or justify, to rationalize, success) or make her loving him. Forget? intelligible, that led to her ting about the circumstances in love, forgetting about the psycho? that and sociological features logical a lover, and forget? tomaking contribute her ting that she might be unable to stop loving falling him even why The itmakes if she tried, Edna tries to explain sense for her to love him.

or cultural

love then the desire must strong. without

to spend time he loves whether him, without caring and without whether else, anyone caring or not your love is reciprocated, but this wanting cannot as romantic love.

qualify task is to say something My interesting about ideal romantic love, as understood Westerners. My claim is by contemporary that ideal romantic ties. But what does love is love for proper? this mean?

view says that the ques? properties tomake tion, "What justifies your choosing her the object of your romantic love?" is a to ask, and that ideal ro? sensible question answer mantic it lovers can, in principle, to a set of the beloved's prop? by appealing I say, "in principle," erties. the because to imply view is not intended that ideal lovers should always have the relevant list to hand. Often, we don't of properties ready it is that we love about know exactly what

"Why?" asked her companion. "Why do you love him when you ought not to?" Edna, with a motion or two, dragged on her knees before Mademoiselle herself Reisz,

HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 165

and often we don't have reason someone, to care. The idea is just that the continuing love of the ideal romantic lover is justi? of a by the beloved's possession or not the certain set of properties, whether lover knows what it they are. That's what fied means to say that ideal romantic view love is love for properties. Nor does the properties ideal people. lovers love If I tell you to be intel love, to some extent, deserves lectualized. All should agree, however, that we can ask ourselves our love is whether justified?we be embraced self him imply that rather than Iwill whether can make can decide or resisted. whether When it should I find my? I can decide to send city. I if I know that

in love with it would flowers

someone, be better

for me

or to move

to another

dancing, graceful then you might tion, and your strong will, to respond be moved "You're by saying, sensible only in love with graceful dancing, and strength of will; you're conversation, not really in love with me." Your claim might be that my infatuation with

properties that I love you for your conversa? your sensible

even this judgment be incapable of acting upon it. If you feel uncomfortable with my talk of choos? ing

to love, then hear it as talk about to embrace love. The properties choosing view says that an ideal romantic lover freely chooses to embrace and that his choice possession To make his love for his partner, is justified by his partner's of a certain set of properties. the properties view interesting,

and willpower conversation, dancing, me to ignore the more central aspects of com? character. That is a substantial your plaint, no problems for the If, on the other hand, you properties are lodging the more general protest that I love your properties instead of loving you, but it raises view. then your worry lata of the love My love for you is misconceived. relation holds are you in virtue The re? or is and me. of,

your leads

I need to say something sorts about which of properties should be the ones that moti? some are vate romantic love. Here guidelines. someone properties had, where existed the properties for which First, is romantically loved should be not have that the beloved might this means that he could have

justified by, your having certain properties, but this does not at all imply that I love instead of loving your properties you that would mean).4 (whatever Another worry that some may have about the properties tic love look properties romantic lover view is that itmakes I said to say how in principle, roman? that the an ideal answer too cerebral. tries

those proper? instantiating to love him for his ties. So it is not enough of being him, or of instantiating property his haecceity. the beloved should not Next, be loved for properties of his that make essential events reference that are to achievements or past. He not be loved for his property of hav? should ing saved your life ten years ago, or of having been the one who used to send you flowers. Third, properties shouldn't ing the beloved be should be loved for that are not overly extrinsic. He loved for his property of be? of whom in the too distant

without

view

the question, ing to love romantic None state who we love

could, "What justifies your choos? her?" and I will of speak as love that is given freely. is intended to over? we can choose that or I think whether

of this, however, to which the extent we love. As

your mother one important class (This rule has approves. a romantic of exceptions.) lover Finally, ner takes for properties that his part? or objectively, to be intrinsically, that she doesn't attractive, meaning appre? ciate these properties because just they are should be loved

the person

can, to some not to love someone;

it happens, extent, decide I think

that romantic

166 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

attached properties idea to her beloved. attractive She finds those fall in love with someone because of cer?

in anyone.

Underlying
loved

this list of guidelines

is the

that the properties for which we are should be of such a nature as to give us a reason to feel good about ourselves, to think that we are attractive, admirable, valuable about people. herself because Someone feel good might herself she believes

and you can continue to delight in these; but eventually you must love the person and not for the himself, tain characteristics not, at any characteristics, delimited list of them."6 He ways of developing this rate, for suggests idea. First, any two we

might think of falling in love as being like

in ducks, with the devotion imprinting caused characteristics but then initially by to them. Sec? sustained without reference ond, we might to economics, part take a perspective related to show that, once seeking of a relationship, it is to our advan? in

painter, bowler. leg-spin I think, that play a central (but properties, not exclusive) role in ideal romantic love. good These are the properties that make romantic good

to be a good

a good teacher, or a But there are some

being will be

us good like being a partners?properties listener, being caring and sensitive, Some of these properties generous. relational One reason properties. as find you attractive might partner is that you know exactly he is in a bad mood.

to stay tage characteristics

of it regardless the our partner.7 of In articulating his Kantian theory about the nature of (not just romantic) love, J. Velleman

why a romantic how

someone

David

to treat him when is the class

that to love some? suggests one is to perceive and appreciate the value that he possesses virtue of his "solely by that "is is essential that it disarms to

to the rule of exceptions (This that the properties for which we are loved should not be too extrinsic.) Just which us good romantic partners properties what we and our partners are depends upon for like, so there's no list of the properties romantic which should be every partner make I speak of romantic love for I am thinking (but properties, especially some? not only) of the properties that make one a good romantic partner, in the context of the particular Neil Delaney lar relationship. has defended he thinks someone to his revision a view that wants simi? the to be that he loved. When

a person." "All being love," says Velleman, our emotional defenses in response self-existent

toward an object to its incomparable value as a end." "When the object of our ... we are to love is a person responding that he possesses the value virtue of by say, an all sorts for a per? intrinsic our

a person or, as Kant would being instance of rational nature."8 While of son, things may it is our trigger our love of his

recognition as a person?a property not have done without?that value

that he could underlies

to mine, and for which properties loved takes When view don't to be central I offer my in section

can be summarized

as those

self-conception.5 to the properties I'll I

love. In theory, although maybe continuing not in spirit, Velleman's theory is consis? tent with Nozick's of falling comparison It is positions in love with imprinting.9 like these decide that we will to reject have to consider view. Properties? if we the properties for

three, explain why quite agree with Delaney's position. a defense Before of the proper? offering

II. Should Being a reason great

I be Loved loved

which

ties view, let me outline the grounds upon an alternative be position might based. Robert Nozick says that "you can

should give us romantically to feel good about ourselves. The difference between the love received

HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 167

from a parent and the love received from a romantic is that "in says Nozick, partner, adult love, we are held worthy receiving of the most the primary of being object intense tween love."10 I think that the love be? can be pretty parents and I think that parents and children intense, are, ideally, held to be worthy of the love that and children they receive. Still, cial about romantic Romantic there is something spe? love between adults. are not and we you how wonderful you are. In an ideal re? reason to have should

you lationship, believe him; when other things are going to love you the fact that he chooses poorly,

to think that you are you a reason gives not such a bad person after all. Being loved should give you a reason to romantically love, this is to explain to the early with easy regard Alan falls When stages of a relationship. at in love with Ellen, his love is directed of her, rather than at anyone else, because his appreciation of certain characteristics that she possesses. He might be attracted to her because sible which some of her conversation, she dances. similar strong will, her sen? and the grace with loves Alan for feel good about yourself. On any account of romantic

obliged are not obliged to stay in love with any? one. We can choose our romantic lovers in our parents a way that we cannot choose or children. Further, to give someone your her one romantic love is to offer to make of the most An enduring ern culture, the partners in your life. important people in romantic partnership, West? is thought of as one in which live together, know each other

love is given freely. We to fall in love with anyone,

If Ellen

set of attributes, then each of them can be affirmed the knowledge by are valued by someone that their qualities whose is important. This is con? opinion sistent both with the claim that love should be for properties and with claim that love should the op? be for this

take on each other's interests, intimately, share hopes and fears, support each other through good and bad times, spend more together a shared identity. should offer you time than with That anyone someone else, form you love in her life

always posing

You, seen by the lover as someone who can share her life at the most intimate level, can make her life happier and more One fulfilling. of the great goods you can receive in adult life is the knowledge that the person you love sees in you the qualities of a desir? able Part romantic of the partner.

can, and ideally about being you.

such a place does, make you

only in the first instance. properties us consider Let the way in which

feel good are of all people,

relationship might proceed. Quite possibly, the properties that Alan and Ellen admire over time, be lost or will, a year, Ellen might subsumed. After have two years, she After up dancing. given an irreverent sense have developed might in each other any? ten years, she have become less intense in her ap? might to life and relaxed her strong will. proach to her By now, it will be of little comfort to share that, ten years ago, Alan wanted thing but sensible. After his life with who dancer son have a strong-willed, graceful offered sensible conversation. his romantic that she is still love as a rea? his worthy then that love must that she of humor that makes her conversation

of of being loved, good for what? course, is just the knowledge that, ever are loved. reason, you Ideally, the fact that you are loved also however, serves as a reason of his love, worthy to share him to want ship with partner, that you sense that itmakes a romantic to think are for

If she is to have to believe some and chosen

relation?

a romantic If you have you. then he is probably forever telling

companion, to properties reference

168 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

possesses sustained ciation in the present. If Alan's other love is the best would football have little in the school, you player reason to be convinced

for taking his love as any indication that she is now wor? loved. The way to avoid this thy of being to result is to require continue that Alan an objective such properties, have appreciation now be de? that he might lighted by her humor and her easy-going nature. Then, she will have good reason to be continually affirmed by his love. It can also ship which suspected not proceed does mutual appreciation will free cease choice. be that a relation? with of a the that for Ellen's

by something of Ellen's present she will have no justification

than an appre? then characteristics,

that you are a won? by a lover's confidence derful person when you know that he would believe that regardless of your qualities. Velleman's Kantian be able though itmight loved romantically ing feel your value theory to explain should looks as why be? make you On this view,

about yourself. good lover perceives and appreciates the that you possess virtue of solely by

continuing other's properties is governed by Alan

being a person. This value is of such a type as not to be replaceable or susceptible to to be a person is to be spe? comparisons; of how many there others cial, regardless are who Having you a perfectly about yourself. being possess someone the same sort of value.11 love you in this way gives to feel good good reason It reminds you of how spe? you are, just in virtue of

to be one How

might in the rela? justify his involvement ten years after it has begun? If he tionship or she's Ellen" loves Ellen "just because it is his interests to remain in the

cial and valuable a person.

because

now that he has entered it, then relationship his love is controlled he made by a decision ten years ago, when he and Ellen were both very different people. He no longer loves her to anyone else) because he freely (as opposed to do so, but because he has no prac? chooses tical choice but to do so.Where he loves Ellen

such a value, Perhaps persons do possess and perhaps it is recognized in us by our Our value as persons, romantic partners. is not what makes most of us feel however, in admirable that we are valuable, people I am interested. the way in which to remember that we are special It's nice in virtue

in the that she possesses for the properties can be the these properties present, however, free choice to remain basis for his continuing a part of the relationship. Let's think about how might try to show gives an alternative loved view roman?

of being persons, but we also like to think as possessing of ourselves the types of are replaceable to value that and subject we like to think of ourselves comparison; as good as people of admirable character, friends and lovers, and so on. Ideal roman? tic love our value value should that we give stretches possess us reason some way purely to think that the beyond in virtue of

tically about yourself. ers should have of each other's

that being to feel good you a reason Itmight be argued that lov? a subjective

appreciation so that Alan's properties, love will be such that he always delights Once features Ellen develops. in whatever in his these lover, he may even come to

our personhood. III. Love thinks Delaney wants to be loved and that Change a romantic lover

seen admire

Such in others. qualities does indiscriminate love, however, wildly not offer the affirmation that we seek from a romantic partner. Just as we are skeptical that her grandson someone's insistence of is

that she for properties to be central to her self-conception.12 takes He says that we usually have a fairly clear idea of who we are and what we value, and

HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 169

hope to find a lover who will ap? us for these aspects of ourselves. preciate It would not be a good sign for their rela? that we if Alan and Ellen says Delaney, tionship, were to make of the lists, Ellen's separate to that she takes to be central properties her self-conception erties for which and Alan's he loves of the prop? and for Ellen, between them. never have be that anyone would thought to her for such a reason, but be she

attracted could

to find the revelation imagined It will give her a new and quite exciting. thoroughly pleasant way of thinking about and will encourage herself, that aspect to her character. being loved for a property is preferable self-conception for those her to develop In this instance, to her peripheral

there to be little correlation her est

In such a situation, Ellen might worry that lover does not truly know who she is. our clos? "one of the functions To Delaney, can serve is to stabilize relationships our ways and reinforce of thinking about our belief to help us maintain ourselves; that we have
about

purely

to being loved of her properties that she

as takes to be important, because already well as affirming it her value as a partner a new, posi? in her to develop encourages tive direction. Some effect to the attention is paid by Delaney to a person's that changes character have upon his romantic relationship, player to lep?

the properties that the

we highly

value

ourselves."13

Imagine Ellen and Alan Ellen

relationship to the romantic conforms Let and us ask I am a and have conversa?

between

may and he presents the case of a football a minister who retires and becomes ers in India. Obviously, romantic relationship football be player

ideal as presented by Delaney. about her self-conception, her say, "I have a strong will, dancer and a sensible graceful tionalist." he says, graceful sation." reinforce Ask Alan

the grounds of the in which the retired would have to

is involved

why he loves her, and "I love her for her strong will, her and her sensible dancing, a situation Such would Ellen's self-conception to further strengthen an even better conver? surely and en? her will conversa?

for revised. To account significantly such transformations, introduces Delaney the notion of love which is "plastic, where

courage her and to become

this just means that your lover's feelings towards you will be flexible and respon? to (significant) to sive ... modifications In the ideal roman? your self-conception."14 tic relationship, will track my the love that is held for me as a person. Fur? evolution

tionalist and an even more graceful dancer, but it does not, I think, represent the kind of in which we would hope to find relationship The missing is change. ourselves. element sorts of discrepancies between the Many set of properties central to our self-concep? tions and the set of properties for which we are loved will If one to my not be considered ismy favor? to ably. be central sion of the attributes that I take

this tracking should states, ther, Delaney be reciprocal, such that no changes will occur inmy partner that would make it dif? ficult for me to objectively the appreciate properties Again, from missing we might account. While Delaney's hope to changes that our love will be flexible in our partner, we don't want this tracking be purely coincidental. If I do not want go to live to to there she possesses. is something

pas? self-conception for political then I would be causes, to hear my lover say that she loves annoyed me for my cute self-righteousness. Con? reaction, though, to cite her quietly subversive mor as a reason for his love. sider Ellen's ifAlan sense Ellen were of hu? may

to be in India, and do not want from my partner for long periods, away I love him for his deci? then why should sion to become a minister? What reason is there for me to believe that my partner will

170 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

continue to as my properties to be motivated is meant by of the other's appreciation love me of his partner. If a workmate to attend bible study her Ellen encourages a and if this activity becomes meetings, shared with in Ellen's then of change character, one way or another, can be expected, in Allan to share in the activity. That might involve Ellen convincing Alan to join her at the meet? to her and what itmeans ings, or explaining out his opinion and support, or dis? seeking cussing how to rearrange their life together in light of their religious differences. to Ellen cannot is that changes point about in isolation from Allan's romantic needs opinions. ship, all shared When not In an ideal transforming lovers The come and are source

change? Love an objective

view offers no and Delaney's properties, reason to presume in the prop? that changes erties of one lover will be such as can be objectively ing seems loved by the other. The track? to be happening just by chance, to have that we expect and the confidence love seems to in our partners' continuing been lost. relationships to a romantic time, should and are dynamic. The will Romantic partners change

have

over

relationship an ideal romantic such love

relation?

relationship Is this aspect with

survive

to romantic

change. consistent

experiences

view? It is, once we con? the properties itself will sider the role that the relationship in the change that lovers undergo. play The source in which love of a romantic of personal The way will prob? you your partner in which ably not be the same as the way see yourself. He will love you for prop? you sees partner transformation. can be a

experiences. romantic

alone. They change ues and goals through shared through the eyes

change, they do take on new val? experiences,

self-knowledge through gaining to? of the other, through learning a romantic relationship. gether to maintain This is part of what we mean when we say that choose lovers a shared identity. forge to love someone romantically that make him like to influence To is to some?

that you did not know you had?not that are central to your self-con? properties cause you to this love will ception?and erties imagine to grow ing new and for yourself possibilities in a new direction.15 And becom?

can be itself partner to be a transforming experience. expected I in a romantic As a partner relationship, into someone who can com? might change a romantic promise, acts, and who who thinks is able of others to engage before he in construc?

your who you would time, like to have lead your life in unforeseeable we of whether The question directions. life over someone love someone ask that we as the question at a public swim? a person with whom I "Is this in the rooms is the same

see in him properties one who you would

ming pool: would like to change?" IV. Responses

to being romantic partners, are friends, workers, and readers, people are changed by all internet surfers, and they sorts of experiences that do not arise directly from their romantic An impor? relationships. is tant part of the romantic ideal, however, a romantic lover - at in the idea that changes

tive argument. In addition

to Objections

up a) Trading To trade up is to leave your better. Such partner for someone is not thought we don't desirable in a loved

romantic behavior one. In?

to the properties upon any rate, changes - should love is built which his partner's are come about through experiences which

to avoid deed, just want for someone abandoned better, we to even want our romantic partners the view lookout. imply But doesn't that a romantic

being don't be on

the properties partner should

HOW DO ILOVE THEE? LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 171

to trade up? IfAlan and always be prepared Ellen are loving happily when Alan meets who is a better dancer than Ellen, Helen, a stronger will has and whose than Ellen, conversation sensible, then why love for these prop? objective erties not make him fall in love with Helen? should Alan's The properties view is consistent with the are that ideal romantic relationships You can love some? essentially dynamic. claim one for his properties, while expecting that the properties for which you love him now will not be the properties for which you will love him in a few years' time. This allows is even more b) But doesn't loved? If we everyone deserve to be

for properties that set us aside from others, then is that to say that there are some people?those who do not have the right properties?who do not de? serve to be loved? It is surely misguided to imagine that there is some threshold properties to become that we

are loved

of desirable quantity must exceed in order

appropri? ate objects of romantic love.16 I don't think that anyone deserves to be not romantically To be loved, anyway. loved

the proponent of the properties view to offer two reasons why a partner to an ideal roman? tic relationship would not seek to trade up. First, being a romantic lover would see that his to trade up would be dam? prepared Romantic aging to the present relationship. and want to open themselves, partners open to the changes that their rela? themselves, to throw tionship will bring. It is exciting in your lot with to agree that someone, to us will probably whatever be happens for the best. And possible your beloved it is not psychologically to in this way disarm yourself time to

is to be loved romanti? romantically and different someone, cally by properties are attractive to different For any people. there are some people who given person, are more of that appropriate objects love than others. We all think that person's there mantic makes know are which any ro? properties of ours must and it have, partner feel good to about yourself you some

are such that that your properties takes you to be an appropri? your partner ate object of her love. But there are no

at the same while around for someone better. ing as romantic Second, partners to share a gether, they come values and a way of looking at The

look? to?

such that anyone who instanti? properties ates them and is not loved romantically has been done an injustice. The properties view does not divide people into those who should be loved. Any view that did, if it placed in the lovable everyone would be implausible. We are only camp, ever lovable relative to a certain lover. even c) Fetishism Velleman were and shouldn't

change

of system the world.

of shared change is such that process will come to have the prop? beloved your erties that you value, and you will come to value the properties that she has. Further, some of those properties will be proper? ties that could only be had by someone who shared

thinks loved

that if we knew for our

that we

part of your history?knowing are joking and when you are be? you how to treat you when ing serious, knowing you get stroppy, understanding why you do what you do. In an ideal romantic relation? when ship, the lovers will know better partner to be found. that there is no

has

being distinguishing then we would feel characteristics, trivialized. "Someone who loved you for your quirks would have to be a quirk-lover, on a fetishist."17 to being the way someone a fetishist does not become she loves But just for characteris? people them from others. A whose itself love (or some to things in

because tics

that distinguish fetishist is someone other attitude)

attaches

172 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

virtue of certain are not properties, the sorts where those be lost, but we hope that our lover will still to care for us. Such a commit? be around ment would but one. indeed it would, be a type of love, says when called upon,

properties love (or some upon which based. You is appropriately

of properties other attitude) are a fetishist

Delaney, represent romantic

if you enjoy all football games in which

someone gets taken off on a stretcher, but not if you enjoy all football games in which there is a high degree of skill and competi? if you love You are a fetishist tiveness. someone because navel, he is caring, but not if you he has an outward-poking love someone because and fun to be around.

the end of

as a the relationship Romantic love for proper? commitment

if the proper? ties are lost, but a relationship in which one is not loved for the properties that person he presently falls short of the ro? displays mantic A ideal. version of dismissed loved the objection that is less to the possibility points may be tempo? properties

ties may include a voluntary even to care for the beloved

honest,

are temporary, but love d) Properties should be forever out that, ideally, "love Nozick points a floor it under your well-being; places provides blows."18 insurance Love can in the face of fate's initially to be but "if we continue by properties, then the love the characteristics loved for seems change do."19 Love conditional, or disappear should that might something as the characteristics be motivated

easily that our

lost, not in a single rarily or permanently traumatic episode, but through our normal as we grow and change. What development security lovable I've should over erties are we offered against reasons losing our we us properties? offered

already

expect our partners time and to love us for the new that we acquire. Perhaps, to assume

why to influence

that we be something can count on, regardless of how the world treats us and especially when we are at our lowest

is overly changes romantic

in It is when we are most points. of a need of the support and reassurance lover that we are, from an objec? romantic If tive point of view, at our least lovable. as then it sounds is for properties, we must at our best in be always though order to be loved, and this is not at all what love we seek in a romantic this objection surface, us consider the possibility Let that, due or emotional to some physical perhaps we are for which the properties trauma, loved are lost. To deal with such situations, love from romantic Delaney distinguishes is "an endur? which commitment, that is both commitment ing interpersonal in and sustained by the lover's grounded to the beloved."20 attachment romantic When by an accident, ease or old age, our lovable properties we are stricken dis? may a loving relationship. is quite compelling. On the

optimistic that we undergo within will be of no relationship itself. Romantic

prop? it though, that all an ideal threat lovers

to the relationship be affected might

in different ways by the react in differ? of loving, or might process or might ent ways to shared experiences, that be changed by the other into something the other the cannot love. As sense Ellen subversive of humor develops that Alan that lost.

has brought to the surface, the empathy be she once shared with Alan may Outcomes think would be but in an ideal are made

like this are not of the sort that I likely romantic

they possible relationship, In is truly open-ended. when a relationship a love that is discerning to affirm enough both your worth as a person and in which partners are open to change, is unlikely, but by no means Princeton University the end of love impossible.21

HOW DO ILOVE THEE?LETME COUNT THE PROPERTIES/ 173 NOTES

1. The view presented
for a man or a woman. consistent nor neither

in this paper is supposed

In an effort systematic. to avoid any

to be applicable
suggestion to the

to the love of a woman

contrary, my use of

or a man
is

pronouns

in his "Romantic Love and Loving project is the same as that described by Neil Delaney aModern American Philosophical vol. 33 (1996), Commitment: Ideal," Quarterly, Articulating owe much to Delaney's discussion. pp. 338-340. As will become clear, I 2. My 3. Kate Chopin, 4. See Delaney, 5. Delaney, The Awakening p. 343, for more (London: Penguin discussion Classics, 1986), pp. 136-137.

of this point.

pp. 343-347. "Love's Bond," in The Examined Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989),

6. Robert Nozick,
p. 75. p. 75-77.

7. Nozick,

8. J. David Velleman,

"Love as aMoral

Emotion,"

Ethics,

vol.

109 (1999),

p. 365.

view may also be compatible, in theory if 9. Michael Nelson has convinced me that Velleman's not in spirit, with my properties view. Itmight be thought that to love someone is to respond to her value as a self-sufficient end, but that you are justified in loving her because she possesses such properties as allow you to see through to her intrinsic value. An axe-murderer, you might end, but his contingent properties are such as to think, has incomparable value as a self-sufficient make that value very hard to discern. p. 74. pp. 365-370. p. 343. p. 344.
p. 349.

10. Nozick, 11. Velleman, 12. Delaney, 13. Delaney,

14. Delaney,

can be seen as sources of personal transformation 15. The idea that close personal relationships is and Jeanette Kennett in "Friendship and the Self," Ethics, vol. 108 Dean Cocking explored by The account of romantic love that I offer in this section shares much with (1998), pp. 502-527. and Kennett's Cocking theory of friendship.
16. See Nozick's p. footnote 370. on p. 76.

17. Velleman,

18. Nozick, 19. Nozick, 20. Delaney, 21. Thanks for helpful

p. 71. p. 75. p. 350. to Stuart Brock, Harry Frankfurt, comments. Jeanette Kennett, Michael Nelson, and David Sussman