After reading Truman's post, I have been thinking about the rationality of love, or lack thereof.
According to Hegel's claim in the section on reason, "what is actual is rational and what is rational is actual," love must not be real. This is a very disturbing result to what seems an innocuous, fairly reasonable statement. For a hopeless romantic like myself, this is utterly ridiculous.
In the movie, Cloverfield, the protagonist and his buddies defy the military and return to the dangerous (ie. inhabited by the enormous evil monster) to rescue the damsel in distress. It's a pretty classic story, but it is in complete opposition to Hegel's claim. The characters know that to return to that particular area of the city is pretty much suicide, but they stand by the main character in is search for his woman. He wants to find her so he can rescue her, obviously, but also so he can tell her he really loves her (they had had a fight before). They survive a multitude of deadly situations, all so their friend can tell her, "I love you."
Not to ruin the movie for you, but they find her, with rebar through her chest no less, and they all run down about 50 flights of stairs (pretty amazing for a woman with a hole through her body). Despite their amazing survival skills, everyone dies at the end (except one lucky woman who gets whisked off in a helicopter) but the two lovers get their moment, and the viewer almost feels good at the end...almost.
This movie had little rational elements, but the ending was (kind of) satisfactory. Even though they died, their goal was accomplished. If the main character had been rational, he would have forgotten about his scorned lover and fled the scene with all of his friends. He could have found another girl, fallen in love, and been happy. This would have been rational, but he could not do it. His friends could have left him and survived, but their loyalty to him kept them with him. The irrationality of their actions is appealing, as they put virtues that we respect, like love and loyalty before rationality and even survival.
Thankfully for us romantics, Hegel's statement is completely baseless. It allows nothing for human emotion, love, or apparently Hollywood movies.
3 comments:
I think you reversed the Hegel claim: isn't it what is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational? I don't have my book handy but I'm pretty sure that this is the "startling" claim. And if so, then love (that exists) *is* entirely rational—and this is shown in your review of "Cloverfield," wherein you suggest that the main character rationally could have left the poor lady in distress...in order to fall in love again. So love *is* a rational option—just not in the "hopelessly romantic" way. Your review of this film is the first one that makes me actually want to see it; I just might.
O, I see what you are saying. I read it in an entirely different way. I guess I have dyslexic thinking.
This post posed as quite a surprise to me, as it brings about questions concerning the philosophy of love and reason. Reading this post which came from the voice of a "hopeless romantic" makes me wonder if the tone I use in my own posts seem too mechanical.
As for this comment, I shall purposely take on that mechanical tone to present my own thoughts of the rationality of love. Perhaps love isn't irrational at all, but only seems that way because we cannot currently comprehend it. In ancient Rome, it would be rational to believe in mythological gods. In mid fifteenth century Britain, it would be rational to believe the world was flat. Just because the rationality of love doesn't seem apparent, does not mean it doesn't exist.
In Cloverfield, the main character makes a decision to throw himself and his friends into great danger in order to save his loved one. Though certainly reckless, this decision may not be entirely irrational. Perhaps he was using reason to weigh out the risks and benefits of his actions. Perhaps the his own life seemed insignificant compared to the chance to rescue his lover. Being aware of the risks, he is also aware that what comes with the danger is the reward of being able to be with his lover. Using his reasoning of love, he is able to turn in the direction of the destruction and charge forward.
This is only my own narrow perception of love. Being a nerd who's knowledge of relationships only comes from TV shows and anime, I probably have a much different view of love than everyone else. Of course, the philosophy of reason and love is open to discussion or debate for anyone.
Post a Comment