Love’s Bond – Robert Nozick

slams Bond Robert Nozick In this writing assignment I go forth be giving a detailed interpretation on Robert Nozicks writing, Loves Bond. First I give do an explanation on Nozicks account of the nature of warmth. Secondly, I will rationalise why Robert Nozick believes that in have it off there is no craving to trade up to a nonher partner. Lastly, I will also explain why he says that it is in consistent to ask what the set of savor is to an various(prenominal) some mavin. The nature of love according to Nozick is the desire to form a we with the mortal you feel romantic love for, the desire to become hotshot with the love one.When dickens individuals are mutually in romantic love with one another, they both desire to form a we with each other. Once two romantic partners form a we they subconsciously agree to shit animation decisions together because now they are one and what affects one affects the other equally. whatsoever type of life make upt good or bad that a ffects one psyche affects the other mortal equally because once they form a we they are like one. Nozick explains that when two individuals form a we they share a new identity. jibe to Nozick this new formation wholly takes over of the individuals and they become something new, something modify in a way. This desire to form a we with another is something brilliant and great. He explains that, the desire to share not only our life tho our identity with another marks our fullest openness. To Nozick, forming a we is a really life-size deal. Forming a we is a complete transformation of what a person use to be when they were and individual. According to Nozick, when a person is in love, they do not drive home desires to trade up to a different partner.Nozick says, In the wad of a person who loves someone romantically, there couldnt be allone else who was get around as a partner. This quote gives support to his idea that a person in love would not desire to trade up. The perso n in love does not believe in their heart that anyone could be soften than the person they are in love with. According to Nozick the thought of concern up to a different partner would not even cross the mind of a person who is in love. Nozick goes on to explain that a person in love might sometimes want to make a few changes on their mate however, this does not imply that the person in love wants a different mate.Nozick believes that a person in love loves very proper(postnominal) qualities in their mate. For this reason, even if a person in love wanted to make their loved one fail this would not mean they want a different person. To the person in love no other person could have precisely those traits therefore, any imagined person will be the same mate (perhaps) somewhat changed, not somebody else. Nozick believes that when a person is in love, they love the very specific ways that their partner radiates a specific traits, not the trait itself.They love the person, for his or her own particular and non-duplicable way of embodying such general traits, a person in love could not make any coherent sense of his trading up to another. According to Nozick a person who is even considering trading up is a person who is no longer in love. He does not feel that the thought of trading up is a thought that an individual in love could even think about. Nozick feels that it is garbled to ask what the value of love is to an individual person because there is no individual when you form a we there is this new identity.Like the example that was given in class regarding the sperm and egg, once the sperm and the egg have joint, you do not ask how the sperm is doing because it no longer exist. In the same way it does not make sense to ask the value of love to an individual because the individual no longer exists once the we is formed. According to Nozick when two individuals join and form a we this new identity completely takes over and creates a new shared identity. To Nozick, it would be completely ludicrous to even think of the person of an individual and to ask what the value of love is to them.It is something that is just not possible when a person has formed a we with another. In conclusion, I have given my complete interpretation on Robert Nozicks writing, Loves Bond. I have explained to the scoop out of my knowledge the nature of love, the reason why in romantic love there is no desire of trading up, and lastly why it is illogical to ask what the value of love is to an individual. Works Cited 1. Nozick, Robert. Loves Bond. Philosophical Perspectives on energise & Love. New York Oxford UP, 1995. 231-39. Print.