Wise Men Never Fall In Love

I am sure we have all encountered someone who is convinced that omens speak in secret by sending messages through numbers [22:22 on a digital clock is an apparent premonition] or that the day one is born has some celestial significance that it can predict future events. There are those who associate human qualities to animals – their cat represents a woman – or even worse that there is some prophetic significance when a crow squawks and other forms of eclectic gobbledegook that these illusory concepts and highly imaginative impressions verify the depth of the human capacity to be self-deceptive. The sophistication of these regrettably tolerated superstitions amongst many other forms of entertainment – all encapsulated by globalisation and capitalist marketing – has become so stylishly refined that its persuasive techniques used to influence people to distance themselves from their own personhood is barely recognisable. In fact, though people are blindly following in masses, they ingeniously consider themselves to be an ‘individual’ and unique. How can we ascertain the necessary requisites that truly make an individual authentic and genuine? Following on my previous post, I finalised the blog with where are you O wise man capable of love??? to which a reader quoted “wise men never fall in love”. I intend to dispute this since I believe that it is only wise men who are capable of loving and as wisdom itself implies one who has reached a harmony applicable to those who are authentically aware of themselves, it is only in wisdom that one can attain moral consciousness and thus become capable of understanding what genuine love is.

Phenomenology attempts to understand consciousness and takes perceptions seriously and whilst historical insofar as its approach is descriptive, the person or individual is something concrete in a world where everything is interconnected through time and space. The mind is not isolated; every mental act is directed outwardly to the world and toward something or what is referred to as intentionality[1], and the first person experience or the way that we see and perceive the world plays a critical role in understanding the fundamental structure of consciousness and our shared social history. Many various problems in phenomenology are raised such as our awareness of death and an end we are unable to conceptualise since existence is not fixed, or further still existential themes such as whether we are radically free and that existence precedes essence, but I am particularly interested in authenticity, whether we are capable of separating subject from object – that is ourselves or our consciousness from the preconditioned structure of a shared social history – to begin articulating a discourse independently and authentically. Heidegger questioned what is ‘being’ Sein and he believed that people are living unauthentically; our understanding of the exterior world and ourselves may appear deceptively close to us but the actuality is that an authentic consciousness of ourselves and of our perceptions is incredibly distant from our reach. The primary focus is on intention and I do not want to ascertain our relationship with objects such as the magnificent and incredibly comfortable armchair I recently purchased for my bedroom but rather a descriptive analysis of human nature and of being itself; Dasein or the very experiences of a person as the way or direction toward understanding Sein or ‘being’ itself and our existence.

According to Heidegger, humanity contains a paradoxical schism of being both free and enslaved. We are geworfenheit[2] or thrown into the world, the facticity of human existence such as our family or our genetic makeup is not a choice but a given and something we have no control over. That is, while we are geworfenheit into this world and have no control over the initial and permanent conditions set for us – thus determined – there is another feature to consciousness that allows us to transcend this determinism, the faculty to be consciously free. He separates dasein into several temporal modes; the past or facticity, the present or forfeiture and the future or existentiality.[3] Our existence or ‘being’ in the present utilises the world as an instrument that unlocks this capacity to be conscious where we can control or dominate our environment, since the world of objects and things is vibrant, active and constant in its motivation and movement. However, humanity becomes inauthentic to their true nature when they are unable to successfully separate themselves and thus forfeit their nature by becoming subordinate to the world. They themselves absorb the same qualities of the objects of the world that they become an object or a thing. “Humans feel they are subjects and all other things are their objects… [l]imiting our perceptions to such distinctions causes us to become blind to Being and forfeit our chance to become Dasein and nurture beings into unconcealment.”[4] Humanity has become slaves to the tools of the world that were supposed to be used as instruments to facilitate our capacity to freely distinguish between the real and the non-real. Heidegger refers to this as das man or an inauthentic person who has conformed to the morality as dictated by an inauthentic world and thus escaped his own conscience and the emergent free will to commit the ‘original sin’ [Adam eating the apple because he followed the likes of Eve rather than independently choosing or understanding the difference between right and wrong]. We stop questioning and conform to the masses, losing our selfhood to enable the possession of what we desire.

What exactly is this desire that we seek to possess? It is to overcome the anxiety of our separateness, the ‘split’ or halving of our nature that Aristophanes deliberates in the Symposium. Aristophanes purports that there exists an emptiness within us and the search for wholeness – the yearning for love – is the remedy that by intimately joining with our counterpart we find completeness. “Zeus split them into two separate parts, condemning them to spend their lives in search of their other halves.”[5] Plato’ approach to this yearning or search for our other half is not through the senses but through the motivation to attain love, love being the desire for ‘good’ or the beautiful. That is, preceding the desire for completeness is the motivation to attain what is “the perpetual possession of the good”[6] and therefore what is beautiful. Beauty is not limited to nature as in fleeting physical beauty or other objects of the material world as we currently observe – reality to Plato is not what our senses perceive – but rather beauty is harmony and it is achieving harmony that results in the attainment of the Good as it becomes the eternal form that perpetually directs the person toward the best possible end. Since all things strive for this harmony, it is eternal and thus singular or ‘higher’ in that the Good or Beautiful is the ultimate form. Platonic forms is only available in the transcendent world where, unlike the material world, consists of a reality that contains perfect ideas; there is a court, a judge and a jury, which is a part of our physical world, but Justice itself is a form. “Platonic form is thus an abstraction from a world reality from the perspective of those within that world and a ‘descended idea’ from the perspective of those outside of it.”[7]

We are in the world, an essential part of it and our relations with the world and others are fundamental to our existence, but the harmony – the authentic possession or consciousness of love – is attainable when we have overcome the Das Man and begin to think freely. Heidegger would agree that those who dedicate themselves to the question of their own being and to live a life studying themselves will be enabled with the faculty to live an authentic life and his final temporal ecstases, namely that to be authentic, the ‘future’ or existentiality is the frame of mind that has evolved beyond what objects do. This ‘supreme possibility’[8] begins when we reflect on the nature of our existence through death. The premise is that our freedom produces a subjective anxiety since we become aware of ourselves and our separateness – please note that when I personally say separateness, it is not the Cartesian ‘separate’ but rather the experience of our capacity to dominate and control our environment and therefore to become conscious of our free will – and it is at that point that the individual reaches a choice between embracing this angst-laden freedom or to conform to the masses. This ‘mood’ of angst or dread is an emotional anxiety caused by the realisation that one is drawing away from everything that they assumed was real and where their sense of significance becomes thoroughly unfamiliar or unheimlich. Fear in the material world is usually directed to something in particular, however this angst produces a feeling directed to something that the person is not aware of and thus an express encounter with ‘nothingness’ or that very emptiness that we feel being a genuine individual and having real freedom. To overcome this is only possible when we confront our own death or the finitude of our existence and by acknowledging our individual death, we realise our individuality. Embracing anxiety seems contradictory to reaching a harmonious state but it is quite the reverse; conformity to the masses is accessible and appealing though at the expense of our own independence and becomes a trick to escape the angst since it merely preoccupies the individual away from the authentic position of his humanity with false distractions. By confronting our own death, we become conscious of our individuality and our independence and overcome this very angst since the awareness of death – the ‘white horse’ – is not necessarily confronting the violence of death, but rather the death of this subjective and elusive fear. Since this inner anxiety is the causal factor that encourages humanity to submit or conform, eliminating the anxiety and in turn the fear solidifies the subjective harmony to enable a person to begin living authentically and to be motivated by a moral consciousness. To attain moral consciousness is the only way to correctly understand love.

However, if it is our desire to possess or yearn for love that is eternal in its completeness or perpetual possession of the good, reflectively would that mean our desire is for the immortal and unchanging? If humanity is motivated by the attainment of love being the eternal Form of Good or the Beautiful, singular in nature and harmonious, humanity must therefore ultimately be seeking God since God stands as the absolute perpetuity, the ultimate reality and though by our very nature our limited senses restrict the facility to perceive the magnitude of this singular [that we falsely interpret as a figure of a man on a cloud], our motivation for the eternal attainment of Good is to strive to get closer to God within ourselves and thus bringing us closer to immortality. The futility of this motivation is clear since we are in a physical world, we are being in time and space. When I was young, I said that I will never be with a man unless he loves God more than he loves me and I have yet to meet such a man, but being non-religious and completely independent, what I asked was for a man who attained the motivation to strive toward God as it stood as the motivation to continuously and consistently better himself. Confronting our death thus provides two benefits; the benefit of overcoming the angst that compels us to conform to the masses and thus avoid leading an authentic life, and the other is the futility of our own existence and that we can never ourselves become God, thus becoming humbled in a manner that would epitomise the requisite for wisdom.

As we are – being in the world – incapable of ever attaining the senses necessary to reach a perception of ultimate reality, we reconstruct it in our limited capacity; romantic love and procreation satisfy our desire to attain a material sense of this immortality and wholeness. What that means is that romantic love must present the same qualities required of the authentic individual. If wisdom implies a man who has overcome the angst and attained the independent motivation to think with moral consciousness and thus lead a life continuously seeking Good, a woman must equally have the same motivation since Aristophanes’ eulogy on love is seeking out our other half to find ultimate wholeness. This is continued Biblically with “[t]hat is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” thus having attained this wisdom we choose our partner who like ourselves must be authentic and morally conscious. As the masses are motivated by sex and appearances, money or social position, one must transcend the material world and choose a partner that they admire for the qualities that they possess and in doing so will share in the same agenda of perfecting Harmony.

This is not an easy find, hence the where are you of wise man capable of love??? But only a wise man – that is an authentic man – is capable of loving.

[1] Hubert L. Dreyfus, Mark A. Wrathall, A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism, John Wiley & Sons (2011) 73
[2] Peter Eli Gordon, Continental Divide, Harvard University Press (2010) 33
[3] Paul Roubiczek, Existentialism For and Against, CUP Archive (2009) 134
[4] Christopher A. Sims, Tech Anxiety: Artificial Intelligence and Ontological Awakening in Four Science Fiction Novels, McFarland (2013) 31
[5] Plato, The Symposium
[6] Gregory Vlastos, Platonic Studies, Princeton University Press (1973) 20
[7] David A. Ross, The Poetics of Philosophy [A Reading of Plato], Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2008) 40
[8] Michel Haar, Heidegger and the Essence of Man, SUNY Press (1993) 12


  1. You have some great thoughts and I understand that judging an artist based on their life is risky, but Heidegger? Here is one of the most acute minds of the 20th Century who at 36 years old was married, and yet he had a torrid love affair with his pupil, 19 year old Hanna Arendt, who was also one of the top thinkers of the last Century…their love spanned 40 years. I read that she understood his weakness, his cowardliness.

    Love must go beyond wisdom. To be in love is to be beyond reason, beyond virtue…it is its own truth, it has its own dimension, a bridge over the abyss and away from the herd. A shared life, which when it’s good it’s great, and when it sucks it hurts to the core. I’ve loved and lost, but I’ve never regretted the time I spent loving.

    I like the idea about authenticity. Do you think an evil person can be authentically evil? Authenticity is, unless you consider it ruled by the normative, neither moral nor unmoral It is action coherent with one’s being…I think.

    Or how do you understand it?

    Perhaps, “Wise men never fall in love” (it was Epicurus) because they can’t.



    1. This is a great difficulty for me, this but Heidegger? fallacious guilt by association. Whilst it is understandable that the individual must exemplify the practical possibilities of a given philosophical thesis through proofs of their own doing, if they fail and Heidegger failed, it does not change the validity of the argument. I do not agree with everything that Nietzsche writes but there are some parts of his arguments that are valid; so am I to deny Nietzsche completely – even his valid points of view – only because other areas of his thinking were flawed? Am I to deny him because of his failure to live a life representative of his ‘superman’ or because he had a nervous breakdown? We must view the philosophical argument as a stand alone, eternally and like a Platonic Form. I merely use these pieces of arguments from various philosophers as they – aside from the writer – explain my point adequately.

      Wisdom breaks down these categories, these ‘boxes’ that we are put into as part of our communicative discourse and I am forced to adhere or ‘work around’ this by making spatial concessions in an attempt to communicate my point to an audience fixed on flawed assumptions. For instance, I follow no religious institution, have no affiliation to a group setting, but I believe in God and the strict development of my own moral principles and consequently I have been categorised as being religious; if I accept a Muslim telling me ‘praise be to Allah’ or a Christian saying ‘glory to Jesus’ it does not make me a Muslim or a Christian. If I quote Aquinas, I am not suddenly Catholic. Knowledge itself is simply breaking down these communicative barriers and eliminating prejudice or bias. The eternal structure of wisdom enables the person see things for what they are.

      Which returns back to my point.

      You view love in this categorical way. If I say that I love you, there are a multitude of layers to this expression that requires deconstruction to interpret what I exactly mean when I say this and further still whether it is genuine or merely a performance. Do I love you because I am lonely or do I love you because I admire your eternal qualities? Do I love you because I have become dependent on you? Do I love you because you are popular and I want to be popular too? Our interpretation, the discourse that we articulate vis-a-vis love or the form of love is flawed and only through wisdom, that is the capacity to see things as they are authentically via the removal of all bias and prejudice, will enable us to translate a coherent understanding of the concept. It is only a wise man who can ascertain the difference between his sexual desire because of fleeting beauty and feelings of intense affection due to the admiration of eternal qualities, for instance. Wanting to be with someone in the physical and wanting someone to connect with in the eternal. No experience is regrettable as we form a language as part of our understanding that enables us to be coherent in our expression of love, but reaching that state is reaching that wisdom.

      I think evil is not authentic but a product of our failure to be autonomous; as mentioned earlier, when an individual becomes aware of himself, the ensuing angst compels him toward the choice of being either a nihilist or the philosophical non-conformist. The former is a ‘signal of the despair’ of the individual, for their failure to break away from the herd. This leads to a ressentiment, someone who has ‘awakened’ but has chosen to be ignorant and subjectively this failure is a form of emasculation that he begins to hate himself but his ego attempts to empower him from ever facing the emasculation, leading him to commit acts of evil. It is ignorance but the most depraved kind.

      As you say, one can never regret the experience love; it is the lack thereof, a person who can turn away from love that is truly a great evil.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s