Sounds like a pile of reductionist bullshit to me. Just this sentence
from the author's site: "Every one of these people [an arbitrary list of
people "irrationally" in love made up by the knowing author] is
suffering from a temporary mental illness, designed to ensure their
genes are safely passed on to the next generation" is vitiated by crude
("mental illness", "designed to ensure") assumptions that are not even
supported by the author's own text, where he also writes about "this
metaphor of mental illness" as handed down from antiquity - is it a
metaphor or a scientific fact? Make your mind up, Tallis. What about
all those aging or sterile persons who fall in love? And those who don't
fall out of love? The consciously cherished unrequited love? Homosexual
love? As for the idea of "wrapping up" Sappho or any other love poet...
Another quote: "People keep on having children - and they are usually
two people who say they are in love." In fact this has probably been the
exception rather than the rule in human history. How about simple lust
or the conscious desire to propagate one's family name as reasons for
having children, whether in or out of marriage? - Over to you.
mj
Douglas Clark wrote:
> This is the most wonderful book. He has read and understood everything
> under
> the sun about love from Sappho to the evolutionary psychologists and
> wrapped
> it up in 288 pages. After finishing reading it just now I cant think of
> anything on the subject of love which is not contained in this book. A
> marvellous achievement. His website is
> http://www.franktallis.com
>
> I suppose I should say that he sees love as a necessary mental illness.
> Perhaps I should send a copy to Paris.
>
> Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
> http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com
>
|