Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Allyson Hamilton
Googlephile public accountant with a passion for seeking out and spreading truth and meaning.
Googlephile public accountant with a passion for seeking out and spreading truth and meaning.
About
Allyson's posts

Post has attachment
Photo

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
Shamelessly reposting for the morning +'ers. ;)
We're discussing Nozick's "Love's Bond" in my Philosophy of Love and Sex class this week.

My brain is slightly twisted around by the union/joint identity concept of romantic love. On first reading, I wanted to like Nozick's account from an idealistic perspective (although from a jaded real life perspective I found myself scoffing at a few parts). After reading this chapter a few times and skimming a few critiques I think his theory has a few key flaws, although I'm not sure how eloquently I can state them:

1. Can/does one really desire to assume all of the ends of another as their own? If one then fails to achieve an end, have they failed the other since the ends of one are the ends of both?

2. Does the theory leave room for retention of a self-identity? I think if you take Nozick's account to the full extent, he's left very little room here.

3. Can reciprocity, self-sacrifice, and concern for the other for their own sake function within a joint identity by Nozick's account? I think these three conditions are both necessary and sufficient in romantic love, and I don't think Nozick's account allows for them.

Interested to hear your thoughts - whether you're familiar with Nozick or not.

If you're interested in discussing topics like this, I've got a "Philosophy of Love and Sex Circle" that I'd love to add more voices to.

We're discussing Nozick's "Love's Bond" in my Philosophy of Love and Sex class this week.

My brain is slightly twisted around by the union/joint identity concept of romantic love. On first reading, I wanted to like Nozick's account from an idealistic perspective (although from a jaded real life perspective I found myself scoffing at a few parts). After reading this chapter a few times and skimming a few critiques I think his theory has a few key flaws, although I'm not sure how eloquently I can state them:

1. Can/does one really desire to assume all of the ends of another as their own? If one then fails to achieve an end, have they failed the other since the ends of one are the ends of both?

2. Does the theory leave room for retention of a self-identity? I think if you take Nozick's account to the full extent, he's left very little room here.

3. Can reciprocity, self-sacrifice, and concern for the other for their own sake function within a joint identity by Nozick's account? I think these three conditions are both necessary and sufficient in romantic love, and I don't think Nozick's account allows for them.

Interested to hear your thoughts - whether you're familiar with Nozick or not.

If you're interested in discussing topics like this, I've got a "Philosophy of Love and Sex Circle" that I'd love to add more voices to.

Post has attachment
I always forget how much I love Fiona Apple and then I hear a snippet of a song and I go on a binge. Can't get enough of this song this week!

Post has shared content
I'm looking for more people to add to a circle to discuss philosophical issues around love and sex. Let me know if you want in on the discussion.
I'm taking a Philosophy of Love and Sex class right now and I'd love to explore and discuss some of the topics in greater depth and with a wider group. I'm going to create a circle for this rather than posting my thoughts to my public stream so if you're interested in being included in the discussion please comment or +1 this post.

I'm taking a Philosophy of Love and Sex class right now and I'd love to explore and discuss some of the topics in greater depth and with a wider group. I'm going to create a circle for this rather than posting my thoughts to my public stream so if you're interested in being included in the discussion please comment or +1 this post.

Trying to read a philosophy paper on why prostitution should be decriminalized should probably not be attempted at 11pm when you've been up since 8 and have to be up again at 7... o_O

Post has shared content
That people listen to Rush Limbaugh, on any topic, is terribly baffling and depressing. To pontificate, as he does, on topics about which he so clearly knows nothing at all is the absolute height of irresponsibility. The corporation that stands behind him and his listeners should all be ashamed.

Post has shared content
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” - Desmond Tutu
CITIES JOIN WALL STREET IN SUPPORT ...

"Cities supporting the Occupy Wall Street resistance are national and
worldwide: Madrid, Spain; San Francisco, California; Los Angeles,
California; Toronto, Canada; London, England; Athens, Greece; Sydney,
Australia; Stuttgart, Germany; Tokyo, Japan; Milan, Italy; Amsterdam,
the Netherlands; Algiers, Algeria; Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel; Portland,
Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois.
Photo
Wait while more posts are being loaded