Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving

The Art of Loving begins with an attempt to determine what  is our  most basic  need  in  life.Many great thinkers have tried to answer this question and they have come up with many different answers.  Erich Fromm  feels that man’s greatest necessity  is to find union, or togetherness,  in order to escape  from the prison of  his loneliness.The experience of separateness, Fromm feels, is the fundamental cause of anxiety and despair.People  have  tried  many  different  ways  to  satisfy  this  need  for  togetherness.However, the only way that has ever been completely  successful  is through the  act of love.It is the  most fundamental passion; it  is the force which keeps the human race together.Without love  humanity could  not exist  for a  day..These  are strong words, but  if we think seriously about  it, most of us will agree  that  this  is true.   We sometimes tend to dwell on those  things with separate us such as war, hate, selfishness and greed, without realizing the underlying power of relationships.  The very fact that humanity continues to exist on this planet, in spite of all the destructive forces which divide it, is proof of the unifying power of love.
In order to determine why this  is true and how  it works, we  must examine some of the practical  aspects of  love.The  first of these  is the  fact that love demands something of us.Loving  is a  skill which  must be  learned and practiced  in  an active  fashion.Many of us  have grown up with the  idea that  it is our right to be  loved.  We therefore have a tendency to wait, passively, for someone to love us, and then we feel unjustly  treated  when  nobody  seems  to  care.However,  in  order  for  love  to  exist, someone  must act; someone  must do  the  loving.And that brings us to the second practical aspect of  love which  is that, since  love is active rather than passive,  it is also basically  giving.   This  is a point which  is often  misunderstood.Many people  interpret  this as  meaning that  love  is  “giving up,” that  it means  sacrificing,  or  being  deprived  of  something.First, love is not limited to giving in a material sense. The most important aspect of giving  is that we give of ourselves, of that which  is alive  in us, of our  joy and our sorrow,  our interest and our knowledge, our understanding  and our concern.Then, secondly, giving ourselves  in  love does not, as some people  fear,  mean sacrificing our freedom  as  an  individual.
               In addition to these basic aspects of love, Fromm also discusses other elements of love which are care, responsibility, respect and knowledge.  After talking about  these aspects of  love—giving, care,  responsibility, respect, knowledge and  faith—Fromm goes on to discuss the different  types of  love which are: brotherly love, motherly love, fatherly love, self love and erotic love. As he begins to discuss brotherly love, Fromm makes a rather startling statement.He says that unless we  love everybody, we don’t really  love  anybody.   This  is of course part of what is behind the difficult commandment that we must not only  love those who love us, but we must also love our enemies.  Real love  is based on an attitude, a way of thinking or  feeling, which  is directed toward the entire world and everything  in  it.  If I have developed the capacity  for  love, then I can’t help  loving  my  brother.  If a person says that he loves just one other person, or one group of persons, and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, this is not real love. Speaking of  motherly  and  fatherly  love  from the point of  view of the child,
He says that  in the  beginning the child  loves primarily  in response to being  loved.  He senses that he  is the object of unconditional  mother love. Another important  type  of love is self-love.It  may seem strange  to  talk  about self-love, since it appears to contradict much of what has been said about love being open and all  inclusive.Fromm  has  more to say about love, but  last point that  I want  to mention  here  is the importance of love in present-day society.

Existence precedes essence---Jean-Paul Sartre

Existentialism, a nineteenth- and twentieth-century philosophical movement that stresses the radical extent of human freedom and attempts to deal seriously with its consequences for people's day-to- day lives, is the tradition most frequently associated with Jean-Paul Sartre. Born in Paris, Sartre pursued university studies in literature and philosophy. He was teaching in Paris when World War II began. Sent to the front, he was captured by the Germans and imprisoned for nine months. When he was returned to France in 1941, he served in the Resistance.As Sartre developed his version of existentialism, which he took to be optimistic even though many of its critics did not, there were accents on freedom, the difficulties it brings to human existence, and the chances we have to overcome them.
"Existence," proclaimed Sartre, "precedes essence." This formula is basic for understanding his view of human existence and freedom. By emphasizing the negating power of consciousness in relation to being-in-itself, Sartre interpreted consciousness as a form of being that always seeks to transcend itself but never fully finishes its task. It seemed to Sartre that we humans move to leave behind what we have been and to become what we are not. We are always headed somewhere; we are never fixed, complete, and static. Short of death, there is a perpetual process of negation and a continuous movement into a future of possibility and uncertainty.What one will become is indefinite until consciousness determines it. We are what we become more than we become what we are. In that sense, our existence precedes the formation of our essence. Sartre identified the negating power of consciousness with human freedom. The fact that we can move beyond what we are toward that which we are not, he argued, signifies freedom. Whenever we act freely, there is a sense in which we leave something behind. We negate what we have been to try to become what we are not. Hence, not only does existence precede essence but, Sartre claimed, "freedom is existence." According to Sartre, a person's life is characterized by freedom, by choosing what one will be and how one will see the world one inhabits. The determination of what one is results from our individual choices and not from a series of determined causes outside of or even within oneself. Did Sartre go too far in describing the degree of freedom that men and women possess? Far from having lives permeated by freedom, most persons feel restricted on every side. Many cannot find enough food, shelter, or work to make a decent living. Sartre was aware of such difficulties. His account emphasizes that human existence is always situated in particular times and places, and it is specified further by the relationships we establish with other persons. Many of these situations are full of pain and tragedy. Yet Sartre contended that the structure of human freedom remains, because we keep seeking to make something of ourselves. We may be prevented from achieving what we want, but, in Sartre's view, any kind of human seeking fundamentally involves the freedom he has in mind.

Ultimately, Sartre argued, our seeking leads us to try to achieve a complete self-identity in which we comprehend ourselves totally and are no longer constantly at a distance from ourselves. To accomplish this task, he contended, would be to become God but no person can succeed in this undertaking. In fact, Sartre claimed, the idea of God is contradictory (an outcome that makes his existentialism atheistic), for consciousness excludes self-identity, and self- identity also excludes consciousness. Consciousness always has the quality of being stretched out ahead of itself. If you became completely self-identical and unchanging, you would not be conscious any more. Where our drive to become self-identical is concerned, then, we are forever doomed to frustration. It is in this sense that human freedom makes our existence "a useless passion."

A River

A. K. Ramanujan was one of India's greatest modern poets.This is a really beautiful piece of cynical criticism aimed at poets who force themselves to look only at the beautiful things in life,and mindlessly ape the same lines quoted by poets, they tend to ignore the unpleasant facets of life, they never cares to write about a pregnant woman and a couple of cows.The poet uses irony to express the callousness of old and new poets who romanticize the floods and ignore the human aspect of loss and suffering caused by the floods.The poet has come to the conclusion that both the groups of the poets are indifferent to human sorrow and suffering. Their poetry dose not reflects the miseries of the human beings. He has proved this point in the present poem. the poet has compared and contrasted the attitudes of the old poets and those of the new poets to human suffering.Both the old and new poets have mentioned these things in their poems. But the way they have described these things in their poems shows that they were not much alive to or sympathetic with human suffering.

In this poem, the poet refers to the river Vaikai which flows through the city of Madurai As a matter of fact, this city is the center of Tamil culture and learning. It is also a holy city full of temples including the famous Minakshee temple.We get two pictures based upon two different kinds of description. In the summer, the river is almost empty. Only a very thin stream of water flows. So the sand ribs on the bed of the river are visible. The stones that lie on the bed of the river also exposed to view. The portion of the river under the bridge has also been described. We get a vivid picture of the river in the summer season.The tone of the poem is based on sarcasm and irony.The structure of the poem has been in paragraphs and single lines. There are four longer verse paragraphs and a shorter one in the beginning. There are only two single isolated lines. This kind of structural arrangement contributes to the effect of irony. It also helps to grasp the main points clearly. Secondly, a word can be said about the language used in the poem. It is very simple on account of which the thought sequence of the poem is presented unmistakably and clearly.

Listening Skills

To receive the communicated message loud and clear,we have to be an active participant in the communication process. In the case of listening, this requires to understand and evaluate every spoken message, and to follow this with the appropriateaction – a response that confirms the spoken message. Unfortunately, what can happen is that, as listeners, we do the wrong thing, which is to actively work while the speaker is talking to us. Our thought speed is much faster than our speech speed, which can prompt ourr brain to start working ahead of the speaker. Perhaps we are simply considering the speaker’s next comments, or the answer to a question we feel certain will come up. Regardless of the cause,the outcome is the same: a miscomm -unicated message, which can lead to an inappropriate response or a wrong action - both of which can lead to serious trouble. Clearly, this also leaves the door open for unexpected delays setbacks even undesirable outcomes
The difference between hearing and listening comes down to semantics and listening is just the first part of the equation when it comes to customer service.Listening, if we will, is the preparation for hearing. Listening means we’re giving our attention – an excellent start. Listening means we’ve set up your modes of operation, and we’re receiving feedback. Hearing on the other hand implies a more deeper understanding – hearing is indeed processing that which we’ve just listened to.Anyone can listen. Many companies listen to their customers. They set up an “info@” email address, they invite comments on their blogs, they welcome letters sent through the mail and they provide toll free numbers where customers can leave messages. Technically, if we do all this as a company, you’re doing a good job of listening. But how’s our hearing?

Ok, so we’re listening. Great! But what are we doing with the comments our customers are making? Hearing involves giving true consideration to the conversation – regardless of who initiated it – we or our customer. we may know our product and our business inside and out, but our users, they are the ones we have to satisfy that everything is working right. Why? Because if they find a better product, they’re gone. If they love what you got they’ll shout it from the rooftops. But if they have issues, big enough that they’ve bothered to let you know about one way or they other and you don’t hear them…they’ll shout that from the mountaintops.I’m not saying we have to change our offering based on what our customers say. But if we don’t hear what they say, how will we know what may need some improvement? Opening lines of communication in the listening phase invites all kind of feedback – some worthwhile and some worthless. Part of hearing is weeding through it and picking out in a thoughtful way what is valid and what is not.Take away – listening is great. But really hearing what our customers have to say is what we should strive for, and more than that, making sure they know we’ve heard them is the key.

Two Great Philosophers

Plato and Aristotle are both great philosophers in their own regard. Both agree that the world has a purpose, and that it’s not just an accident. Both also hate materialists since in their (materialists’) interpretation of the world, value, choice, and freedom are not plausible outcomes, and so morality and rationality do not make sense. And both ask the same question, what does it take to be a good, moral person? Yet, even though Aristotle was a student of Plato, each philosopher develops his own view on things and a specific way of solving a particular problem. For example, Plato and Aristotle have quite different views regarding life. Plato is dissatisfied with sense and desire, which are nothing to him except a shadow of reality – his aim of philosophy is to die away from these things. The real, on the other hand, is unchanging, static, eternal. He aims to grasp the Forms and to contemplate the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, and to remain caught up in contemplation of these things. Aristotle has no such discontents, however. He likes life in this world, even though it is not perfect. He does develop his own view of the divine and how it is related to the world, but sees no reason why one would be driven to flee from life in the world. The various animals he studies are real things; philosophy to him is not to run away from them, but a way of comprehending them.

  Plato is committed to the idea that reality is ultimately rational. His Forms are definite realities made up and bonded together in perfectly rational ways, and together they make a perfectly systematic whole. For him, mathematics seems to embody the ideal of knowledge and reason is the only way to discover truth. But not even reason is sufficient – far enough up the hierarchy of Forms one has to “see” the truth with the “mind’s eye.” Plato is unable to describe what must be seen, so he explains what we cannot see through language using Myths of the Sun and the Cave. Aristotle has no problem expressing himself through language, however. He believes language is capable of expressing the truth of things, since that truth concerns the sensible world, and our view of it (the world) begins with our senses, hearing, touching, seeing, etc. Although the senses themselves are not sufficient to lead to knowledge, they are the only reliable entities through which we can pursue it.  The two philosophers also differ on what human nature is. Plato is convinced that the real person is the soul, not the body. Souls that inhabit our bodies are there, but are not dependent on us for their existence. They have knowledge of the Forms before we are even born and by being virtuous we can enjoy unity with the Forms after death. Aristotle’s main theme on humans is simple – man is a rational animal. There is no separate soul from man; a person has a soul that is special, but a person is still one unified creature.

 Plato seems to be very concerned about relativism and skepticism and devotes a lot of writing to proving those beliefs wrong. He thinks that skepticism and relativism killed Socrates, not the members of the Athenian jury. The views they have come to hold – that every opinion is as good as another’s, and that if one thinks something is good for them really is good for them – makes the case of Athens thinking it is right to condemn Socrates right for Athens. Plato knows condemning Socrates is wrong; so he knows that there must be standards that are more conventional. The Forms, the dialectic about Justice, and the subordination of everything else to the Form of the Good all reflect his view against relativism and skepticism. For Aristotle, though, such a problem never existed. One reason why could be because Plato did such a good job in proving the relativists and skeptics incorrect, so there is no reason for it to be done again. He sees the foolishness in believing that anyone’s opinion is equally accepted. So as a biologist he performs research and writes up the results, which constitutes knowledge in the sensory world. His only problem is to analyze the processes by which we attain knowledge and to set out the basic features of the realities disclosed.  On ethics Plato thinks that we are able to obtain the same kind of certainty in rules of behavior as with mathematics. According to him the ultimate vision of the Form of the Good will provide a single standard for deciding practical questions. Unfortunately only the few individuals who can make the hard journey through the Cave will be able to give a solution for all questions of value. Aristotle does not have the same view – according to him, we should not ask for more certainty than the subject matter allows. A normal person is able to make good decisions and to live a good life; one need not be an expert in ethical knowledge to practice it.

Gitanjali

The book, Gitanjali opens with the image of a ‘frail vessel’ which suggests the empty and destitute life of a man. The empty vessel of man longs for the rain of love, grace and sympathy of the Omnipotent God so that the empty vessel may overflow with new the fresh life: “This frail vessel thou emptiest again and again, and fillest it ever with fresh life.” Through this image the poet means to suggest that life without the grace or rain of God is as worthless as a pitcher without water. Unless God showers love to this empty pitcher, we cannot gain perfectness; we cannot see him face to face. Commenting on this opening image, lyengar observes: “The human body is the temple of the soul, the human soul is the temple of God. The human soul is naught unless it is inhabited or `filled’ by the spirit. Birth and death are but the feeling and the emptying of the soul by the spirit, and the individual-insignificant as he may seem to be-verily partakes of God’s endless life. His immortality.” The music that flows on the lips and breathes through the flute is nothing but God’s grace and love. It is God who provides this perennial source of music to the poor flute: “This little flute of a reed thou hast carried over hills and dales, and hast breathed through it melodies eternally new.” The image of flute reminds us of Lord Sri-Krishna who used to shower the rain of melodies on the bank of the river, Yamuna.

This book shows, apart from many other things a fine use of apt symbolism which is a unique blend of mysticism and music, religion and poetry. Suffused with mystical imagination and aided by the free flowing movement, the book creates a universe of haunting beauty that expresses God’s finite love and humanity’s deep compassion for all things beautiful. Though the poet is amply influenced by the rich symbolism and profound thoughts of the Vedas and the Upanishads, this thought had “its root in the ancient wisdom of his land, but it is as different from the roots as the blossom is from the roots of the tree on which it appears.” K.R.S. lyengar has also rightly observed: “The current coin of India’s devotional poetry is melted and minted anew by Rabindra Nath, but the pure gold shines, as brightly as ever, even though the inscription on the coin is in English. The image of lyre in Gitanjali is so beautifully woven into the fabric of the book that it always comes back and forth like that of Shakespeare.Tagore has used apt images and symbols to convey his thoughts and feelings.  W.B. Yeats observes ‘The work of a supreme culture, they yet appear as much the growth of the common soil as the grass and the rushes. Atradition where poetry and religion are the same thing, has passed through the centuries, gathering from learned and unlearned metaphor and emotion, and carried back again to the multitude the thought of the scholarand of the noble.’