MY PERSPECTIVE ON Lacanian Perspectives on Love
“I love you but what I’m loving you is that my love of myself seeing ‘me’ in you.” Does the typical belief of ‘what love is’ still co-exist with the stance that Lacan is trying to pursue unto his discussion of ‘what it truly is’? Can there be an agreement that love gets its single definition? Can there be one great unity as what our civilization is attempting? The article I’ve just read suggests that the answers are NO.
The lover and the love of this lover are elements of love. Their desire to be together to preserve each other’s life describes Sigmund Freud’s Erotic Instinct whereas it claims that attachment can eventually be destructive. It contradicts the idea that love is about wholeness and harmony for this must consist the differences between the elements in order for it to be true. Then, is there a love that is false? Inauthentic is how it has been termed. A displacement occurs where there is a case of mistaken identity; and this is what the Lacanian theory talks about- that transference love is an imaginary passion that becomes an obstacle to the analysis.
When the elements of love focus on the feeling of sameness instead of the difference, the relation deems to be narcissistic whereas the subject sees the perfection of himself/herself to the object; and the subject becomes an object worthy of love. This creates the illusions of “falling in love” which is not real because it only reflects the reality of an ego that is imaginary. Freudian idea of love is self-love: We love the one who harbors response or the response to the question ‘Who am I?’ Lacan used to say that Jacques-Alain Miller depicts that to love is to give what you haven’t got. In the subject of emptiness, the lack of one’s being is recognized and is given to the Other.
“To really love someone is to believe that by loving them, you’ll get truth about yourself.” Passionate love produces ‘psychological catastrophe’ and it is a mistake because adverse effects will soon emerge. It is a ‘deceptive feeling that should be overcome’. It is only when the true nature of love is realized and when one is freed from its affects that the ego will be healthier and more mature.
Aside from being imaginary, love is also characterized by symbolic register which illustrates that it is impossible to express such love without the use of language: People do not love if they don’t talk about love. There is no love if there is no speech and if one does not speak, he/she does not love- because it has turned to be a demand from the fundamental desire of a subject for the other. Ego is altered as there is something to be shared upon; while the Subject appeals to the Other and this Other responds to that Subject.
Based on specificity and particularities, I love you but because I love you that which is not you; I mutilate you– subject says. The object itself is ruined just as how love itself is lacking and inadequate. Can the search for wholeness by finding the one who would fill the gap or lack of human being be called love? It is within Lacanian perspective… that love is the subject’s perception of the object of desire and its sublimation. Love relies on what other lacks and not on what the other has concludes that ‘oneness is an impossibility’. The love which many people believe that they feel and experience does not actually exist for it is only a form of compensation when the sexual relation finds its deficiency.
As for my point of view, I can assert that Miss Darlene Demandante, the writer of the article (and speaker in the symposium), has made such a substantive compilation on how the thinkers who are mentioned earlier have been philosophizing on love. The ideas have varying degrees of greatness to an extent that apprehension can still be comprehensive for it does not insist on agreeing upon a collectivized official meaning of love. It does not necessarily require that all of the people who will ask about the essence of love shall come up with one idea and be contented about it.
What the texts are trying to say grant me the knowledge to broaden my horizon that I may deeply understand that love is a complex matter. It can be explained by anyone yet nobody can fully achieve its definition. To some philosophers, love is a problem that needs to be resolved. While romance doesn’t care about the technicalities, scholars continue to seek for contemplation, and commoners are persistent to inquire about it… I will remain consistent with my belief that love exists. There are reasons and results just like how causes and effects work together. Explanations may arise; I still believe that love exists for majority of us know that while it is here, we can possibly endure what pains us; because at the end, it’s our mindset that really matters. Faith has its stronghold that binds things in the most undeniable form.
Perhaps I have high respect to those intellects who have critically scrutinized their topic. I can decide whether or not I will fully believe to that matter they have just explained. The discussion is quite commendable yet there are instances that cross the borders of what I think are already covered by the off-limits. Yes, it is true that human emotions can change the course of analysis because it is immeasurable. This may sound so simple of a factor to consider but to humanity, it plays a great role that no man or woman has discovered yet.
That is why it is called “perspectives”, isn’t it? It is based upon a particular standpoint. Defying the locks that imprison the notion of love inside a mystical cell is like attempting to discover when the death is approaching, to defeat an enemy that is not even there, to spend a lifetime exploring about what has really been making sense and if it is even significant at all.
Where do you stand? Have you even tried positioning yourself? Have you even asked what is it with love that we allot our time thinking about it when in fact, not everyone is sure if it really exists as how we ought to feel, experience, and believe it in our own ways?