Love and Its Objects
DOI: 10.1057/9781137383310.0006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Between I and Thou On the Dialogical Nature of Love

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the philosophy of cognitive science, dynamic interaction has been taken to be central to our relationships with others (e.g., McGann and De Jaegher 2009; Candiotto and De Jaegher 2021) and empirical work has emphasized the involvement of mutual bodily regulation in our relationships (Hofer 1984; Atzil and Barrett 2017). Elsewhere within contemporary analytic philosophy, some form of reciprocity has been treated as a requirement for, or at least a very important element of, relationships like friendships or romantic partnerships (Rorty 1987; Nozick 1989; Cocking and Kennett 1998; Kolodny 2003; Foster 2008; Helm 2010; Krebs 2014; Bagley 2015; Nehamas 2016). Although our focus here will be on loving relationships, less important personal relationships may also be taken to require some form of interaction or mutuality (e.g., see Scanlon 2008).…”
Section: Grief and Continuing Bonds: A Problem For The Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the philosophy of cognitive science, dynamic interaction has been taken to be central to our relationships with others (e.g., McGann and De Jaegher 2009; Candiotto and De Jaegher 2021) and empirical work has emphasized the involvement of mutual bodily regulation in our relationships (Hofer 1984; Atzil and Barrett 2017). Elsewhere within contemporary analytic philosophy, some form of reciprocity has been treated as a requirement for, or at least a very important element of, relationships like friendships or romantic partnerships (Rorty 1987; Nozick 1989; Cocking and Kennett 1998; Kolodny 2003; Foster 2008; Helm 2010; Krebs 2014; Bagley 2015; Nehamas 2016). Although our focus here will be on loving relationships, less important personal relationships may also be taken to require some form of interaction or mutuality (e.g., see Scanlon 2008).…”
Section: Grief and Continuing Bonds: A Problem For The Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several answers seem promising. First, and perhaps most importantly, is the extent to which selfhood and self‐development is relational ; one is formed in one's interactions with other people (a key premise of the dialogical approach to romantic relationships; see Krebs, , ). Interpersonal relationships form a key part of the process of sustaining and informing one's sense of oneself over time, and for some, polyamory accords with our relational nature by permitting more important relationships to flourish in one's life (Brunning, ; Shotwell, ).…”
Section: Polyamorous Profunditymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This model considers the connection between the partners to be at the center of love. Dialogical lovers share emotional experiences and perform joint activities; feeling and acting together amplifies the flourishing of each lover as well as the flourishing of their relationship (Krebs 2014;. The Dialogue Model, which builds upon contemporary philosophical literature on collective intentionality (e.g., Bratman 1999;Gilbert 1989;Searle 1990), is a viable alternative both to the more common Fusion Model (or Siamese Twin Model; see Schnarch 1997, p. 109), and the Care Model (e.g., Frankfurt 2004).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%