I think I have done a bad job with my previous post but anyway its over and done with. Today, I wish to reflect on a Milan Kundera's definition of love. Kundera, in his novel entitled "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting", defines love as:
".... because love is a continual interrogation. I don't know of a better definition of love."
Although I enjoyed most of his novel, this was a definition that I found it hard to accept. A couple of days ago, I was having a conversation with my friend Ericia on why I disagree with Kundera on this matter. First and foremostly, we have to begin on equal footing on the definition of interrogation. Accordingly, the Cambridge Dictionary, defines interrogation as:
"to ask someone a lot of questions for a long time in order to obtain information, sometimes using threats or violence"
It is easy to realize from here that, Kundera's definition of love uses the verb "interrogation" and has a negative point of view to it . It is, at least to my impression, that since love requires the coercive use of force and power to maintain it's position, that I felt largely disheartened. Additionally, let me argue on the concept of love from a universal approach, that is to say, based on the general concept of religion. Assuming that God (I take no bias on what religion is correct) exists and that he created the world, it should be safe to optimistically presume that God, at least to a certain degree, has some love for the people he created. What than would it mean if this God fails to "interrogate" or question us? If Kundera's definition of love is true, indeed, this world would have been living in a big black lie and the very foundations of what we truly believe based on faith and the very laws that governs society would be rendered useless. I say this because, the system and laws we are currently binded in, have been largely influenced by religion. Take the legislation of Britain as an example, which have been molded by the influence of the Catholic.
Ericia on the other hand, believed that constant questioning between, say a couple is necessary for love to exist. As I try to the best of my ability to describe her feelings, you may notice that there is a huge disparity in the field of thought between a male and a female (I will come to that later). Ericia believes that for a couple, it is inevitable for both parties to be constantly questioning one another to things like:
"Does he/she love me?"
"What have he/she been doing today?"
"Have he been cheating behind my back?"
so on and so forth.
I do not disagree on this since, for any relationship to exist, I strongly believe that there must be a minimum level of interest on the side of two parties and thus there is always a constant questioning with one another. On a side note, you may have noticed here that females tend to use their of emotions and personal feelings to critique and voice their opinion. Whereares I on the other hand, have tried to maintain a neutral position and argue base on logic and reasoning.
Anyway, what left me confused is that Kundera, from his works is widely known to be a highly educated and respected novelist. Thus it would be logical to assume that he chose the word "interrogation" for a reason. He could have used the word "questioning" or "prodding?", of which both words has a neutral ring to it. I allowed myself a few days to think this through and have finally came up with an answer to this question. Firstly, I have to stress that I do not believe that Kundera's perception of love has a clear right and wrong answer to it (nor does my own). It all boils down to the environment he/she was exposed to. Kundera according to a little research I made, was born in the Czech Republic, formally known as Czechoslovakia in the 1920s and thus his writings, have been largely influenced by World War II and the German occupation.
This reasons in the differences in our opinions towards love is further exemplified by how Kundera describes his thoughts in another book entitled "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" Kundera says:
"We can never establish with certainty what part of our relations with others is the result of our emotions—love, antipathy, charity, or malice—and what part is predetermined by the constant power play among individuals."
I believe that this quote is the missing link to the answer that I was seeking. From his quote, Kundera has given us an important hint to his perception of love- That there is no way to know whether our relationship is built based on our feelings (emotions), or through a constant power play among one another. It is my own personal bias that I believe that Kundera feels that people show best their feelings of love to one another through the use of force or threats (the power play) as a form of constant questioning. (A friend once told me of a boy she once knew who said to her that he will be unable to know who the people he truly loves until the moment before he dies. Maybe this is exactly the ambiguity in a human relationship that Kundera describes.)
Ericia also says to me that she feels that a couple's love is different from the love of a family. The difference being that a couple's love requires constant questioning, and the love of a family requires unconditional love. In any case, I have a different view regarding this field of thought. Call me a cynic but whatever the case I shall be using reason to justify my thoughts. I disagree with Ericia because once a couple gets married, they become a family. The problem is that, love as much as we may like it to be, is not a matter of choice. Isn't that why we call it "falling in love?" Since we do not choose to fall in love, is it possible for us to choose to give unconditional love? I believe unconditional love is merely an ideal that we can only hope to achieve, that exists in fairy tale or through our faith in God. Even if we are able give this unconditional love, in reference to Ericia's family love, in the scenario of a parents' love towards their children, it is never enough. According to Eliot Pearlman in the 7 types of Ambiguity, besides love, a child requires apart from love from his parents alone, understanding or empathy at the emotionally level. Love and empathy are entirely two different things altogether and a relationship build on love alone without empathy is bound to fail and vice versa.
So what than you ask, is my definition of love? I believe in and will likewise end this post with my favourite definition of love as quoted verbatim from 1 Corinthians of the Bible.
"Love is patient,
love is kind.
It does not envy,
it does not boast,
it is not proud.
It is not rude,
it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails"
".... because love is a continual interrogation. I don't know of a better definition of love."
Although I enjoyed most of his novel, this was a definition that I found it hard to accept. A couple of days ago, I was having a conversation with my friend Ericia on why I disagree with Kundera on this matter. First and foremostly, we have to begin on equal footing on the definition of interrogation. Accordingly, the Cambridge Dictionary, defines interrogation as:
"to ask someone a lot of questions for a long time in order to obtain information, sometimes using threats or violence"
It is easy to realize from here that, Kundera's definition of love uses the verb "interrogation" and has a negative point of view to it . It is, at least to my impression, that since love requires the coercive use of force and power to maintain it's position, that I felt largely disheartened. Additionally, let me argue on the concept of love from a universal approach, that is to say, based on the general concept of religion. Assuming that God (I take no bias on what religion is correct) exists and that he created the world, it should be safe to optimistically presume that God, at least to a certain degree, has some love for the people he created. What than would it mean if this God fails to "interrogate" or question us? If Kundera's definition of love is true, indeed, this world would have been living in a big black lie and the very foundations of what we truly believe based on faith and the very laws that governs society would be rendered useless. I say this because, the system and laws we are currently binded in, have been largely influenced by religion. Take the legislation of Britain as an example, which have been molded by the influence of the Catholic.
Ericia on the other hand, believed that constant questioning between, say a couple is necessary for love to exist. As I try to the best of my ability to describe her feelings, you may notice that there is a huge disparity in the field of thought between a male and a female (I will come to that later). Ericia believes that for a couple, it is inevitable for both parties to be constantly questioning one another to things like:
"Does he/she love me?"
"What have he/she been doing today?"
"Have he been cheating behind my back?"
so on and so forth.
I do not disagree on this since, for any relationship to exist, I strongly believe that there must be a minimum level of interest on the side of two parties and thus there is always a constant questioning with one another. On a side note, you may have noticed here that females tend to use their of emotions and personal feelings to critique and voice their opinion. Whereares I on the other hand, have tried to maintain a neutral position and argue base on logic and reasoning.
Anyway, what left me confused is that Kundera, from his works is widely known to be a highly educated and respected novelist. Thus it would be logical to assume that he chose the word "interrogation" for a reason. He could have used the word "questioning" or "prodding?", of which both words has a neutral ring to it. I allowed myself a few days to think this through and have finally came up with an answer to this question. Firstly, I have to stress that I do not believe that Kundera's perception of love has a clear right and wrong answer to it (nor does my own). It all boils down to the environment he/she was exposed to. Kundera according to a little research I made, was born in the Czech Republic, formally known as Czechoslovakia in the 1920s and thus his writings, have been largely influenced by World War II and the German occupation.
This reasons in the differences in our opinions towards love is further exemplified by how Kundera describes his thoughts in another book entitled "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" Kundera says:
"We can never establish with certainty what part of our relations with others is the result of our emotions—love, antipathy, charity, or malice—and what part is predetermined by the constant power play among individuals."
I believe that this quote is the missing link to the answer that I was seeking. From his quote, Kundera has given us an important hint to his perception of love- That there is no way to know whether our relationship is built based on our feelings (emotions), or through a constant power play among one another. It is my own personal bias that I believe that Kundera feels that people show best their feelings of love to one another through the use of force or threats (the power play) as a form of constant questioning. (A friend once told me of a boy she once knew who said to her that he will be unable to know who the people he truly loves until the moment before he dies. Maybe this is exactly the ambiguity in a human relationship that Kundera describes.)
Ericia also says to me that she feels that a couple's love is different from the love of a family. The difference being that a couple's love requires constant questioning, and the love of a family requires unconditional love. In any case, I have a different view regarding this field of thought. Call me a cynic but whatever the case I shall be using reason to justify my thoughts. I disagree with Ericia because once a couple gets married, they become a family. The problem is that, love as much as we may like it to be, is not a matter of choice. Isn't that why we call it "falling in love?" Since we do not choose to fall in love, is it possible for us to choose to give unconditional love? I believe unconditional love is merely an ideal that we can only hope to achieve, that exists in fairy tale or through our faith in God. Even if we are able give this unconditional love, in reference to Ericia's family love, in the scenario of a parents' love towards their children, it is never enough. According to Eliot Pearlman in the 7 types of Ambiguity, besides love, a child requires apart from love from his parents alone, understanding or empathy at the emotionally level. Love and empathy are entirely two different things altogether and a relationship build on love alone without empathy is bound to fail and vice versa.
So what than you ask, is my definition of love? I believe in and will likewise end this post with my favourite definition of love as quoted verbatim from 1 Corinthians of the Bible.
"Love is patient,
love is kind.
It does not envy,
it does not boast,
it is not proud.
It is not rude,
it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails"
1 comment:
Loved this post. 💜💜💜
Post a Comment