//6C//

Growing up in a contemporary, privileged area, the notion that courtly love is something noble and far more meaningful than lust has been pushed onto me from all sides of society. Hollywood often portrays love as a conqueror above all, pulling on the heartstrings of viewers. Pop music often reflects on unrequited love of another. Last but not least, Shakespeare’s works are shoved down our throats in school, one of his most famous works of course being “Rome and Juliet”.

So what merit is there to “courtly love” when compared to plain and natural lust? First of all, there is a code for chivalry, giving it a sort of organized nature in contrast to lust’s primal and chaotic characteristics. Another bit worthy to note is that courtly love is not to change based on the fulfillment/consummation of the lover’s desire, when lust ultimately has one clear goal. Yet, aside from the stated differences, courtly love still wears quite the heavy albatross around its neck: the fact that acts of courtly love often pertain to acts of adultery.

I suppose that it is significant to note that courtly love began really only among the aristocracy during medieval times, as the aristocracy can be said to have far too much idle time to be up to any good. Naturally, adultery had long been rather commonplace in history; however it is with courtly love that something becomes amiss. The fact that the highly-educated aristocracy was the group to enact the code of chivalry combined with the notion that the aristocracy was likely also the group to record the events and history of the time seems to be an awfully suspicious two-some to me. Though it has survived in its ideals, I do not believe that courtly love can be held as any more morally acceptable—effectively only making lust more socially acceptable, as the plebes will follow the patricians.

B

Love, or thinking something is love is not an easy thing experience, or write about. Love is a lot of things and comes with a lot of complications. It is nearly impossibly for a relationship to be perfect one hundred percent of the time. No matter how good of a person the two people are in the relationship, there will always be something, or someone in the way that makes things more difficult than they need to be.

Pain wouldn't be pain if it didn't come from something significant. For example, if a relationship never mattered or reached that intense level, then a break up usually shouldn't be too much to handle. But if it were the opposite, and the relationship was considered "true love" then it no doubt would have a negative, painful impact on the two partners.

But through my experiences, you don't quite have to be in love to experience this pain. As long as the other person was an important part of your life for quite some time, almost the same amount of pain can come through. Specifically for me, it was thinking that you're in love and having both sides in the relationship say it and pretend it, while probably just hoping the constant thought and words would turn it into actual love at some point. This was painful and confusing due to how significant the relationship was to me. But the argument could also go both ways in the sense that the relationship was a significant part of my life because it was painful. So in reality both make sense, but I think "pain because of a significant experience" comes first.

B

Love is a really confusing subject because it is such a complicated emotion. This is perhaps because love is not a single emotion but a combination of many different emotions. Love is what causes the greatest happiness, joy, and, best of all, the feeling that someone wants you more than anyone else in the world. However, it also causes the worst emotions. The person who you love is the person who can hurt you the most, make you the most sad or angry, and cause you the most pain. Because love is such a strong emotion, the person who you love is the person who holds the most power over you. So to say that your experience with a certain person is more significant because of the pain doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems that the only reason your lover is able to cause you so much pain is because they are so significant to you that they have complete control over your emotions. Therefore, I believe that the cause of the pain of love (which is different than other kinds of pain because emotions that are caused by love are stronger than other emotions) must be the experience not the other way around.

Question 6B

Even though loving a person in the end can hurt, it is not the paine that a person feels that measures if what that person actually felt was love or how significant that love was. The amount of emotional pain that people feel is a result of love and not the other way around. People feel emotional pain after a realationship ends because they put themselfs out there on the line for the sake of love and for the person that they really cared for. They create this fantasy of what love is or could be even if they are a gernerally realistic person. Then when the loving realationship ends, unlike in all of those romantic comedy's they have seen so many times before, they feel the emotional pain. It is not the act of loving a person that ends up hurting them but, the emotions and time that you put into the realationship that ended up just being a waste of time and effort. Overall love can cause much pain but, its the love and feelings that cause this not the paine measuring the amount of love.

6B

Is pain from the significance of love? Or is the significance of love because of pain? Both are true in different ways. Let's start with the first question. Pain can some from love in many different things. Love is a strong commitment and it puts out feelings, thoughts, and desires in the open for two people to share. By doing that it instills a lot of trust in the other person, who can easily betray the other's trust by using that against them in a painful argument or betraying those feelings by lying or cheating on the spouse. So basically, pain can stem by what your spouse can do to betray the other's trust and feelings that have been instilled in the relationship. However, pain from love doesn't always come from spouses cheating, lying, and betraying each other. It can also come from the opposite, like significantly caring for him or her and constantly worrying about him or her. It also comes from caring more about the spouse than he or she cares about you and even unrequited love. There are many different ways like that where pain stems from the signifiacnce of love. However, the significance of love can come from pain too. If a couple goes through a really hard time with lots of loss and lies and get through it together while remaining strong, that makes love really significant and it's stemming from pain. Also, losing a spouse is another reason why the significance of love comes from pain. Grief can overwhelm someone, but also help them realize how important the spouse was to their lives. And as I mentioned before, if a spouse betrays the other by cheating, lying, or fighting him or her, that not only agrees with how pain can come from the significance of love, but how the significance of love is from pain. So both sayings go either way because love is pain. You put in a lot of trust, hard work, and commitment to keep the love going. Even if the spouse does nothing wrong to betray the other, it is still pain because the spouse is always worrying and caring for the other, and in fear of the pain that would occur if something bad were to happen to the other. Despite that both sides of the argument are true, I think I agree more with that pain comes from the significance of love because it seems that with so much effort put into a committing relationship, there is bound to have a lot more pain that comes with the effort.

B - "Caught in a Bad Romance"

Pain and love always go hand-in-hand, but the bigger question is whether our love is significant because of the pain we feel, or do we feel pain because the love was significant? That sentence, however, sounds very awkward and confusing, so here is an example. Lets say your married and your wife leaves for 6 months for a trip to Florida and you're left alone in your house. You will probably miss her a lot. You could feel that your pain of missing her is because your love for each other is so strong and significant OR you could feel that your love is sufficiently great because of the pain you feel when she leaves.

Love requires you to open your soul to another person, which in turn gives them the ability to hurt you, by say, leaving you or cheating on you. And if you do experience this let down, you will obviously feel pain. Some people may say that the reason you are feeling this pain is because your love was significant. In a serious relationship or marriage, each person puts a lot of effort into the relationship. The relationship also brings you happiness and you experience great things with your loved one. Other people may say that your love was so significant because you are feeling pain now that it is gone. Once the person has hurt you, you feel pain because the love and experiences you shared with each other have disappeared. This suffering that you go through is supposed to illustrate the significance of your relationship.

It is hard for me to decide which side I agree with because of the complexity of love itself, but I would say that I think we feel pain because the love was significant. Love is an extremely powerful emotion, with the ability to consume your thoughts and actions. It can even change your entire mind-set and way of thinking. When you are in love, you also share many special and significant experiences with your partner. Once that feeling and those experiences are ripped from you, you will most definitely feel extreme pain. And if your love had no significance in your life, wouldn't you not feel any pain once it ended? I also feel that if pain makes your love significant, that means pain is always a part of love, and that is untrue for those couples that "live happily ever after."

Question B

Emotional pain and suffering is and will always be a part of love. It truthfully makes no difference whether that love be a lifetime, head-over-heels commitment or a seventh grade crush; emotional pain will always be part of the package. The interesting part is that it makes perfect sense; when you care about someone and put forth energy and emotions into your love for them, pain is inevitable because so much risk is involved. There will always be the chance that your lover does not feel as strongly for you as you do for them. There will always be the chance that they will fall in love with another person instead. They might not be attracted to you or they might not share the same goals in terms of relationships as you. It is possible that they may have ulterior motives for the relationship or they may take advantage of you in some way. The risks involved are countless, however we all seem to take them when falling in love. This is a universal statement that most of us can agree on, what we can't seem to figure out is whether this pain exists due to the significance of love or if the love is significant because of this pain.

If love is significant because of the pain it induces, that means all events that are painful are significant. I can't seem to fully accept this theory. Being stung by a bee is hardly a significant event during the summer, however it can certainly induce pain. Failing a spanish quiz is painful, but not significant. This list could continue on for some time. These casual, small events that caused pain were not miraculously made significant because they happened to cause pain, so why should love work the same way? Love is painful and love is significant, but this significance is not caused by the pain, I feel quite the opposite actually.

I believe that the pain we feel exists because of the significance of love. When someone has found love, it is an incredible emotion for them that can hardly be expressed. These overwhelming feelings of affection and passion are very significant in a person's life. Their behavior changes as well as their attitude and general outlook on life. There is a lot that changes once love is found because it is such a significant emotion. This incredible emotion has such a large size and significance that pain is inevitable. As discussed, before this pain is caused by the risks one takes when loving. In The Art of Courtly Love by Andreas Capellanus, it is suggested that pain often occurs because of the fear that those in love have that their love is not returned. This fear is painful and more so is the actual feeling of unrequited love. The pain resulted from these situations would not exist if these situations weren't of high significance.

Although the two sides to this question are separated by a very fine line, I am confident that the significance of love causes pain, not the other way around. If love was not significant, pain would not be an issue, however we all know that love is significant therefore pain is felt.

6B

Do we find love important and therefore feel its intrinsic pain, or does that very same pain cause us to value love so highly?

Firstly, this whole question is based off of the belief that pain is in fact a part of love, inseparable and constant. That's not to say that love is only pain; few people would say that when they kiss the one they love they do not experience some happiness. There may be, though, those who say that their love only causes them happiness. However, do they not experience some fear that they may lose their loved one? Even if they don't, by virtue of being utterly secure in their relationship, fear their beloved leaving them, they must fear some external force separating them: Death, for example. Therefore, at the very least love leads to fear, which is a type of pain.

However, does love only lead to pain? Does pain itself not lead to love? If a person feels love, they want the object of their affection. In fact, they act towards their loved one very much like another may act towards a cherished or sought after material good. Perhaps, then, people feel pain when wanting another person, and seek requited love as a relief for that pain.

But, why do people feel pain, why do they want that person? In the tale of the Lady of Astolat, the lady dies from the pain she feels, from the love she feels for Lancelot. Where did this pain come from? It could not have appeared for no reason, from no cause, with the only relief coming from Lancelot's affection. No, the Lady of Astolat's pain must have come from her regard for and love of Lancelot.

Still, that doesn't answer the question of if pain causes love to be valued, or if the high value of love causes pain. If we take the Lady of Astolat's tale to hold truth in its core, then we must conclude that the intensity of her love, the importance it held for her, caused her to feel pain when it was unrequited. Somehow, though, that answer feels incomplete. Why did the Lady of Astolat need so badly for Lancelot to requite her love?

Perhaps it is because the answer is that the value and pain of love both cause each other; neither one is the first of the cycle as they are, in fact, the same. Loving someone doesn't just cause pain. Loving someone *is* pain; love is the need to have them by you, and that need is a need because you fear losing that person or being deemed not good enough by a person whom you hold in the highest esteem. And yet, you so fear because you need. Pain comes from the importance we place on love, but that very importance comes from the pain and intensity that is inseparable from loving another person.

6b

b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?

I believe that we feel pain because the experience is significant, not that the experience is significant because we feel pain. In every relationship, youre going to feel some kind of pain. Whether it's when it ends or something that happens during the relationship, youre going to feel pain at some point. I could see how people would think this though because in some relationships, you feel more pain then others. This is probably an indication that the relationship was special or something but I think that the other way is more indicative of a special experience.

The better experience you have in a relationship, the more painful it will be. If you love someone, youre emotions involving that person become a lot greater. When something happens that can cause pain and its more painful then normal, then thats when you know that the relationship that youre in is significant.

Ouch... That Was Significant

Is a relationship significant because it hurts us, or are we hurt because our relationship was so significant?

It depends on who you're asking. A man who recently got dumped by his girlfriend for his best friend (whom she had been cheating with) will probably say that the relationship played a significant role in his life because he got hurt so bad by it. In other words, he would claim that the relationship would not be significant at all because it was hardly a "relationship". However, if you ask a man who had a wife that loved him as much as he loved her after she tragically dies in a car accident what he thinks, he would probably say that he is hurt because their relationship meant the world to him.

According to Andreas Capellanus' The Art of Courtly Love, suffering can result from love in another situation. This situation is when a man devotes his time going after a woman who doesn't love him back. He says that this is the most painful situation (similar to the first example i proposed) because "his efforts are accomplishing nothing". If nothing is accomplished, then obviously no real relationship is ever established. Because the experience ends in "nothing", how can the experience be significant. By this it seems evident that Andreas Capellanus feels that an experience with love is significant because it hurts us because, ultimately, he thinks that love will always bring somebody pain at some point.

I, however, do not have much experience with love. The only real relationship I ever had though left me very hurt, and I ended up with a similar mindset that that portion of my life was significant only because it hurt me so much, and i could learn from it. From that experience, I convinced myself that investing too much emotional attachment to once person just sets you up for greater suffering when that person goes away. So, I decided to put off love for a while. Maybe in the future though, I will meet somebody that can change my ideas of this.

6C

Courtly love seems to be much more socially acceptable than eros, or lust. It seems much more polite, refined, and meaningful. But are the two really all that different?

There do seem to be many elements of courtly love that make it different than eros. Most obviously, courtly love is not necessarily consummated, as the man’s devotion is to an unattainable lady, so there may not even be a sexual side to the relationship. It also emphasizes restraint in conduct so the man does “nothing disagreeable that might annoy” the lady (according to Andreas Capellanus’s “The Art of Courtly Love”). This means that the man must be obedient and humble towards his love, constantly attempt to do what will please her, and avoid spending too much time with her (especially in public)--not exactly conducive to advancing a sexual relationship. Most significantly, courtly love claims that “character alone…is worthy of the crown of love,” not physical beauty (as with lust), and that love is held for one woman alone (whereas men can lust after many different women).

But let’s look a little more closely at these differences. Lust does not need to be acted upon to exist--so the first two differences don’t really prevent courtly love from being eros. And it turns out that all Capellanus means by “character” is social class (and acting in a manner befitting one’s social class)—all that really needs to be there is good breeding. So courtly love may focus on a little more than just good looks, but not by much. And besides this, courtly love does deal in a large part with physical beauty--it is supposed to spring from “the sight of and excessive meditation on the beauty of the opposite sex” and the desire for physical contact (sounds an awful lot like lust). So much for a sparkling personality and great sense of humor. How much more meaningful can that kind of focus be than lust’s?

These “differences” seem less like real deviations from lust and more like limitations imposed upon lust. For example: Take eros’s fundamental character, a love based on sexual attraction between two people. Now say the relationship might not be consummated, tell the man he has to act a certain way towards the woman, and say it only applies to one woman of a high enough class. These rules limit eros, to be sure, but they do not change its fundamental nature--and if followed, they turn it into courtly love. Courtly love is therefore not a completely new, legitimate form of love, but a way of imposing limitations upon eros to make it socially acceptable.

C

There are so many ways to interpret the rules of courtly love. There is evidence to support both ideas; that these are the rules of legitimate love or that it is simply there to make the lustful feel better about there actions.
On one side, one could say that this was a true guide book of how people truly act when they are in love. It would be an ideal love for all people involved if people were to love for the measure of one’s character and not be overly devoted to the care of one’s body, even though attentiveness to personal health and hygiene are of importance and do not go unaddressed in this book. It is also a base for true love that if you truly love someone, that you can’t lust after other people at the same time. It is true that people who through there love around are no better than a shameless dog. Toying with other people’s emotions is never something to be handled lightly and is rightfully looked down upon in this text, further proving its legitimacy on the subject of love. It also provides a truthful insight that people generally act more kindly and of better character when they are in love, and that is an important part of true love because you can’t be in love with someone and be a jerk to them at the same time. It just wouldn’t be true love.
On the other hand, this book contradicts the ideas of true love in that the man must constantly bending over backwards to ever get the love of the one whom he is devoted to. In the first place, he contradicts himself when he says that love is attained by the meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex, when later he says that it is the measure of someone’s character which should constitute love. Also it is ridiculous to think that the man should always be on his knees because he is afraid that he might lose the one he loves, because if it were true love, the woman would never consider lusting after another. He also goes on about how a man can never marry a woman “lower” in social status than himself, which angers me to no end because true love transcends all differences (or so I am led to believe) and money and social status should be much less important than love. It is also added that the man must go strutting around like a peacock because he does not want to seem unfit to fight to others when, once again, he had said before that it is but a measure of one’s character which should count.
Had he not made so many contradictions to the idea of true love which I hold, I would have said that it were a very good book in depiction of love. However I cannot accept the importance on which he places outward appearance and how hard the man must work to keep a fickle girls love.

B: The Painful Significance of Love

Is love significant because it's painful or is it painful because it's significant? Saying love is only significant because of pain gives love a negative connotation while saying love and pain come toegther, which is significant, gives love a more romantic and idealized connotation. If love were only significant because of pain, wouldn't love be a total tragedy? Pain as a result of love can come in many forms, such as missing someone or simply feeling overwhelmed with love love love. It seems that pain is always present where love is present. But, in these cases pain comes from a love that is very abundant and seems to be just a side effect. It seems that the pain involved in unrequited love is different, since its accompanied by feelings of rejection. Unrequited love seems to be the most painful, since the pleasure of returned love is not pleasant. The pain in the other cases seems much more bearable, since while there is pain, there is also a feeling of comfort and excitement, and sometimes hope. These different types of pain come from different types of love. In both cases love is significant because of the radical emotions it evokes. One of these emotions is pain, so does that mean love is defined by the emotions it evokes? And since it evokes pain does that mean love is defined by pain?

Maybe the memory of love is significant because it has had an impact on who a person is, and remembering is painful. In this case, it would seem that the love itself was already significant and pain comes with thinking about it. The process of loving could have shaped one's life because of the lessons it taught or the maturity it brought, in which case it would be significant but not because of pain. In this case, love would be significant because of how it effected a person in terms of who he or she truly is, not because of pain. Many great things are associated with love, and why would we be so in love with love if all it was was pain? Love isn't significant because it's painful, but the pain of love can be significant in one's life, and this pain can certainly cause significant changes. Even so, though, pain isn't what shapes love.

B

b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?

Eotional pain is alost always attached to love in soeway or another. Although many relationships occur and end without having that end result of emotional pain I believe that we know a relationship to be emotionaly painful because the relationship is important to us. The other side of the argument is that a relationship is significant because of the pain. Although pain does relate to significance I dont think they go in that order. This idea is saying that a relationship is only valid because we feel eotional pain, but when thinking about roamantic relationships I believe that they shouldnt be viewed that way.

Relationships are significant when the desire to be with another is so strong that they miss them at times etc, but this feeling is because of they strong bond and connection between the two people, the eotional pain itself doesnt make the relationship. Love makes the relationship and that is the concept that should be emphasized, the pain is due to the love. If pain makes you realize you love the other person then the love is still the thing making the relationship significant, not the pain. Pain and love go hand in hand yet pain comes from a significant relationship not the other way around.

Pain from significance or significance from pain: #6B

What a peculiar question.

Do we feel pain because of the significance of love or is love significant because we feel pain.

Well, maybe if we define the pain associated with love, we'll arrive to some conclusions. Lovers are often very worried about each other. That hurts. Also, as Andreas Capellanus argues in The Art of Courtly Love, love is suffering because lovers fear that their love will not be returned. This fear causes woe to the mind and to the soul. This is a kind of paranoia that makes lovers do crazy things for each other.

So, lovers do crazy things for each other because they are paranoid of losing the other's love. And they are paranoid of losing the other's love because... love is significant.

That seems to make sense. Let me cover my bases here.

We feel pain from the worrying and the paranoia. But we feel the worrying and paranoia because we don't want to lose love; we feel that it is worth maintaining. It is worth maintaining it because it is significant.

But, what makes it significant? I have just gone through the steps to prove that we feel pain due to the significance of love, but maybe the inverse is simultaneously true.

Love is significant because... it is rare? I don't honestly believe that. I feel like love is a relationship achieved with commitment and hard work. So, it's a goal that can be achieved. Also, it seems like almost everybody accomplishes that kind of a relationship. So, I don't think that's why it's significant.

Maybe love provides something that nothing else can. Maybe it's the warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it's the fact that it provides something constant to hold onto.

Then again, other things can fulfill those desires: Drugs and a steady job.

So, is love significant because it is painful? A lot of the other important moments in life seem significant because they are painful. High school is painful. Losing a limb in a war is painful. Both of those things seem to significantly affect your life, whether in the immediate future or the long run. So, maybe love is significant because it is painful.

I think both statements are true, as illogical as it sounds. Love is significant because it's painful and it's painful because it's significant. What a dilemma...

(#6. A) According to The Art of Courtly Love, love is “a certain inborn suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex.” But when asked what is love? Men and woman stumble to find the words to this question. I think it is because we tend to look for words that everyone can relate to. But maybe, love can’t be descried in a straightforward definition. Maybe, love isn’t as simple as black or white or as day and night. Maybe, to every person love is different. Just maybe, Love shouldn’t be regulated by rules. I think one’s love for another is unique. The way one feels, who they feel it for and how they express it is different and I like that about love. But if we follow rules on how to love someone from a book would we all love the same? Would love still be unique? …I doubt it.
But, even if I did believe love can be simply defined and regulated by rules I still wouldn’t think courtly love is a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone. I believe some of the rules are a little extreme and outdated if we were to follow them in the twenty-first century.
For instance, in chapter 3: the writer states, “For when he thinks deeply of his beloved the sight of any woman seems to his mind rough and rude.” The idea of finding only one person in the world attractive is almost impossible. And the fact that if you find someone else attractive means you no longer love your love one is overdramatic. I think it is possible to love someone and find someone else attractive. In chapter 5: what persons are fit for love he opens with, “We must now see what persons are fit to bear the arms of love.” Anyone can experience love. Who is he to determine who can experience love or can not? He also tells readers a woman must change her last name to his. Now a days woman rarely change their last names and this action doesn’t necessarily mean you love your partner anymore then you do. But what also makes me object to this piece is his words in book two. He says a man should keep his relationship hidden; kept secret. But by keeping your relationship secret it may seem like you are ashamed of it.
Reading this I felt the author wasn’t thinking about how one should love another but more of how one should treat their partner in the society he lived in at the time.He sets rules rather then advice and love is one thing that shouldn't be based on rules, boarders, and regulations. Therefore, if one wanted to know what to do when they love someone courtly love wouldn’t be the ideal text to read.

Blog Post #6: Courtly Love

In light of our readings and discussions on courtly love (Capellanus’s De Arte Honesti Amandi and Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur), answer one of the following:

a. Reflect on the rules and customs of the courtly love tradition began in the Medieval period. Is courtly love a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone? You should make reference to at least one of the texts we’ve looked concerning courtly love.

b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?

c. Explain if you believe that courtly love is a legitimate kind of love or just a way of making eros or lust more socially acceptable. To do this, explore the aspects of courtly love that seem to separate it from eros.

POST DUE: Wednesday, March 24 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, March 26 by the start of class.