As we saw in classes, the Romantic movement was a response against the Enlightment ideals, since Romantic poets emphasized and believed in individualism, imagination, wild nature, rebellion, among others. This kind of poetry was focused on displaying emotions passionately and gave less importance to reason.
One of the features of this movement that I want to point out is related to emotions. Here, the most important thing is to free oneself through the overflow of emotions that go beyond the boundaries of logical reasoning, in which, the major inspiration would be pain. That is why, in a way, there is this stereotype associated with Romantic poets, in which they are showed as tortured and melancholy people.
One of the most remarkable poets of this era is John Keats. Besides, it was very well-known his relationship with Fanny Brawne.
It really caught my attention the way Keats felt towards Fanny. As we saw in classes, probably this love was unconsumated, and very intense. Actually, Fanny was the object of his intensity. In addition, as Brawne was a cold woman, for Keats, this feeling towards her was not very positive, because, as Keats loved her with passion and intensity, even if Fanny answered to that, it would not be in the same way.
I could not help but make the connection between Keats and his relationship with Brawne and with Jean Paul Sartre's point of view regarding to be in love. According to Skye Cleary, in an article called "Jean-Paul Sartre's Philosophy of Romantic Loving Relationships", Sartre's existencialism can be described as the following:
"We are abandoned in the world, without a god and without reason for being. If existence is absurd, then it makes sense that in the absence of anything else, lovers choose to make each other the reason for their existence".
We can clearly see that for Keats, Fanny became the center of his existence, and he gave himself up to her fully. Let's take a look to one of letters sent from Keats to Brawne in 1820:
Here we can see one of the aspects that Sartre mentions in his philosophy, in which, when you are in love, you want to become the absolute ends for your lover, "to be their whole world". We can notice that Keats' love for Fanny goes beyond the love he feels for himself, we could even say that he loses himself.
Following this idea, Cleary says: "Basically, loving is a deception as Sartre formulates it because it is to want and to demand to be loved. However, reciprocity is important in Sartre’s philosophy because the more you value the other, the more they are likely to value you". And one of the problems that the author mentions is: "there is no guarantee of mutual reciprocity."
All in all, this made me question myself if what we think it is to be in love, is it really to be in love? Is it healthy for oneself to fully lose yourself to your beloved and put your lover at the center of your existence?
What do you think?
References:
Cleary, S. (2008). Jean-Paul Sartre's Philosophy of Romantic Loving Relationship. Retrieved September 1, 2014 from http://www.philoagora.com/content/view/177/106/
Harvard College Library. (2012). "I shall ever be your dearest love", John Keats and Fanny Brawne. Retrieved September 4, 2014 from http://www.hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/exhibits/keats/in_italy.cfm
Buzzle. Romantic poets characteristics. Retrieved from September 3, 2014 from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/romantic-poetry-characteristics.html
A brief guide to Romanticism. Retrieved September 4, 2014 from http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/brief-guide-romanticism
It really caught my attention the way Keats felt towards Fanny. As we saw in classes, probably this love was unconsumated, and very intense. Actually, Fanny was the object of his intensity. In addition, as Brawne was a cold woman, for Keats, this feeling towards her was not very positive, because, as Keats loved her with passion and intensity, even if Fanny answered to that, it would not be in the same way.
I could not help but make the connection between Keats and his relationship with Brawne and with Jean Paul Sartre's point of view regarding to be in love. According to Skye Cleary, in an article called "Jean-Paul Sartre's Philosophy of Romantic Loving Relationships", Sartre's existencialism can be described as the following:
"We are abandoned in the world, without a god and without reason for being. If existence is absurd, then it makes sense that in the absence of anything else, lovers choose to make each other the reason for their existence".
We can clearly see that for Keats, Fanny became the center of his existence, and he gave himself up to her fully. Let's take a look to one of letters sent from Keats to Brawne in 1820:
"Upon my soul I
have loved you to the extreme. I wish you could know the Tenderness with which
I continually brood over your different aspects of countenance, action and
dress. I see you come down in the morning: I see you meet me at the Window - I
see every thing over again eternally that I ever have seen... .If I am destined
to be happy with you here - how short is the longest Life - I wish to believe
in immortality - I wish to live with you for ever... Let me be but certain that
you are mine heart and soul, and I could die more happily than I could
otherwise live."
Here we can see one of the aspects that Sartre mentions in his philosophy, in which, when you are in love, you want to become the absolute ends for your lover, "to be their whole world". We can notice that Keats' love for Fanny goes beyond the love he feels for himself, we could even say that he loses himself.
Following this idea, Cleary says: "Basically, loving is a deception as Sartre formulates it because it is to want and to demand to be loved. However, reciprocity is important in Sartre’s philosophy because the more you value the other, the more they are likely to value you". And one of the problems that the author mentions is: "there is no guarantee of mutual reciprocity."
All in all, this made me question myself if what we think it is to be in love, is it really to be in love? Is it healthy for oneself to fully lose yourself to your beloved and put your lover at the center of your existence?
What do you think?
References:
Cleary, S. (2008). Jean-Paul Sartre's Philosophy of Romantic Loving Relationship. Retrieved September 1, 2014 from http://www.philoagora.com/content/view/177/106/
Harvard College Library. (2012). "I shall ever be your dearest love", John Keats and Fanny Brawne. Retrieved September 4, 2014 from http://www.hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/exhibits/keats/in_italy.cfm
Buzzle. Romantic poets characteristics. Retrieved from September 3, 2014 from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/romantic-poetry-characteristics.html
A brief guide to Romanticism. Retrieved September 4, 2014 from http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/brief-guide-romanticism
Valeria,
ResponderEliminarI clearly see the point you have made with Keats's vision of what means to be in love and his connection with Sartre's conceptualization of love. Actually, it was one of the main aspects of him that called my attention.
I remember one class in which Mr. Villa talked about how reciprocity in love is something we will never achieve. Nobody loves someone in the same way he or she loves you. It is inevitable for me to think about couples discussing the degree of love each one has for the boyfriend/girlfriend. An useless and unanswered question that pretends to reflect how much they love each other but in the end,does not reflect anything.
Regarding your final questions, I would say that for our society being in love is to be always paying attention to your beloved, to live and die for him/her, to merge and become one, and to even sacrifice your time, sleep or dreams to see your beloved happy. If you do not do so, "you are not really in love" or "you do not know what love means". I reckon that we are wrong. For me, being in love means company, to have my own life and make him part of my projects in the same way I expect him to include me in his. What is the point of being one? I believe being able to combine your personality, traits and ways of thinking with another person's characteristics makes love something real, almost permanent and thus, beautiful. I also believe that it is not healthy to make your beloved your priority leaving yourself aside. You become in an empty existence who does not have anything to offer.
I reckon most of us have experienced somewhat this problem with love at least once and I also believe years give you the perspective to see things in another perspective. That reminds me of Keating in Dead Poet Society :)
Finally, I think Keats's conception of love has lasted until these days. The idea of abandon yourself in love is something present in our society. This time, I have to disagree and say that I do not like to consider love in that way.
Valeria,
ResponderEliminarI really liked your entry, I considered it very thought-provoking. Additionally, the way you used Sartre's philosophy concerning love was also original and useful to clearly see the point you wanted to make.
Regarding your question, I'm more into an existencialist position about love: Love (or what we commonly know about that "feeling") is a sort of cosmic unballance, something that is chaotic and extremely violent, since love is the act of picking something up, in this case a completely fragile individual, and give him/her preference over everything else (Zizek, 2005).
Puting it in that way, Keats' feelings for Fanny were exactly what Mr. Villa or Zizek stated: love is this sort of unballance that can be extremely chaotic and, in some cases, violent. And to clarify this point of view, we have to read again this quote: "there is no guarantee of mutual reciprocity."
I strongly agree to the position that I mentioned before, that love is a point of your life where you just jump to a void without have certainty of what you can find at the end of the fall.
One of the things that I believe makes an artist is the ability to express certain emotions that for the common man are not relevant or important. That is what sets them apart from others, therefore when they love they do it with their entire body and essence and with an intensity that cannot be matched. Having that in account, I believe that for artists it is difficult to love at the same intensity and level that a normal persons does, so they are doom to be the one that suffers in the relationship. The good thing is that they can use that pain and create masterpieces that would last much longer than their infatuation with someone or something.
ResponderEliminarWhen it comes to common everyday relationship, I have my own theory of how things work. Though normal relationships lack the intensity and profoundness seen in Keats’ relationship with Fanny, there is still a sense of unaccomplishment when it comes to reciprocity. There is always someone that is going to love the other a bit more, that is going to miss the other a bit more, and that is going to need the other muchmore. Even though not as strong as in Keats’ situation, it does happen and I suppose it is because of the different personalities and characters of the ones involved in the relationship.
Your post and discussion in class regarding Keats were so thought-provoking that I strengthen my idea of love, in which I must disagree with the Poet since although I respect him and understand his influence for romantic movement, I dislike his vision of love because he only sees it as suffering, in other words, it is like you cannot be yourself and cannot be fully happy if you are not with your significant other, which I wholeheartedly believe is not true due to the fact that I believe we are all individual souls who must love themselves enough so they can love somebody else.
ResponderEliminar