The Art of Loving

"The Art of Loving" is a masterful work by Erich Fromm. His broad-minded scope on the human condition is such a breath of fresh air, especially in today's society. I really enjoyed how he linked capitalism to the failure to love, which is extremely true. In fact, I would like to expound upon the notion that capitalism kills (and is currently killing) love.

I've always been vehemently against polyamory and open relationships. After reading "The Art of Loving," it suddenly dawned on me that those types of relationships are nothing but by-products of our capitalistic society. When you think about it, it makes total sense. If capitalism is all about the market economy and the accumulation of wealth/things/profit, then a similar analogy applies to the acquisition of multiple partners. I fully blame capitalism as the root for engaging in those types of relationship patterns. At the basic core of it all, your partner is simply not good enough for you because YOU have a pathological problem..."more, more, more!" Polyamory is like a dating attention deficit disorder. People engaging in that behavior have no sense of focus, concentration, and discipline (principles that Fromm described as requirements necessary in order to practice the art of loving). Scattering your energies too broadly like that are seriously detrimental to self-knowledge and to the capacity to fully love a human being. In addition, technology is just making it worse with all these online dating websites and apps. When you combine the effects of capitalism AND technology, you have a recipe for disaster on the love front. This is exactly why I have never been in a relationship at all thus far in my life (and I'm 30 years old).

Aside from all that, I gave the book 4 out of 5 stars (just shy of being perfect). Here's why:

1) Quoting Fromm, "It's not I need you because I love you...it's I love you because I need you."

This quote really got under my skin. You should not have to NEED anybody when you love someone. If love is an art, which requires knowledge and mastery of theory as well as practice (according to Fromm), then the act of loving is a CHOICE, as is who you love. Love is more of a desire (a WANT) than a need.

2) Fromm made a parenthetical comment about homosexuality that REALLY upset me:

"The male-female polarity is also the basis for interpersonal creativity. This is obvious biologically in the fact that the union of sperm and ovum is the basis for the birth of a child. But in the purely psychic realm it is not different; in the love between man and woman, each of them is reborn. (The homosexual deviation is a failure to attain this polarized union, and thus the homosexual suffers from the pain of never-resolved separateness, a failure, however, which he shares with the average heterosexual who cannot love.)"

OK. Right off the bat, it's clear that Fromm's thinking of homosexuality was a product of the times (1950's). It really amazes me how such an intelligent, broad-minded thinker can be so narrow-minded on this topic. He really shot himself in the foot with this one, that's for sure.

Firstly, it's not a deviation. Secondly, a polarized union is indeed attained among homosexuals if they're enlightened enough to realize it. Every male has both male and female energies ingrained into his being (just like every female). Because of this fact, it is VERY easy for two males to unite those polarities and achieve pure fusion. In fact, this is also related to the polarity of dominance and submission. Males are by nature dominant, while females are submissive (with exceptions. of course). Now, it is much easier to transition from dominant to submissive than it is to go from submissive to dominant (like it's easier to go from love to hate than hate to love....same polarity principle). That explains why there's such a greater preponderance of male homosexuality than female homosexuality in today's society. It really is a man's world, folks, and it's definitely not going to change in the foreseeable future.

With that said, male homosexual intercourse transcends the mere biological fusion of a sperm and egg to produce a child. The sex act itself is indeed polarized, with one partner adopting the penetrative (male) role while the other adopts the receptive (female) role. There's the male-female polarity superficially expressed, and superficially is where that type of polarity stays. Underneath it all, through the male-male sex act itself, is a much greater fusion occurring: fusion with The One, the well-spring of what each male is made of (masculinity, the Universal Substance, what-have-you). The insertive partner is drawing from the masculine Source of where he comes from and what he's made of (symbolically represented by the receptive partner). As a consequence of steady and rhythmic penetration, the insertive partner ultimately achieves orgasm inside his male mate. The ecstatic release achieved upon orgasm symbolizes a "giving back" to that well-spring of masculinity/The Source. Male homosexual intercourse is truly the most divine aspect of love anyone can achieve in this lifetime. It's both a shared give-and-take situation as well as an act of divine fusion.

When it comes to homosexuality, Fromm really should have taken a few pages out of Plato's "Symposium," which is by far my favorite work about the subject of love ever created. Aside from that major hiccup he made above, Fromm really hit home about the nature of love and the art of loving. This book should be required reading for every human being, especially those in the Western world.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

This is a quite extraordinary slim little volume. I started to underline certain sentences and paragraphs as being particularly potent and insightful, (or particularly open to fierce debate) and soon realised I might as well annotate the whole book

Inevitably, in the West we have come to focus more and more upon erotic love, the dizzying though often illusory experience of falling in love, which Fromm contrasts with the maturity of loving itself, in a sexual relationship - which he calls 'standing in love'.

However this book goes way way beyond erotic love. He looks at love itself as an expression of life itself, and the act of giving, rather than taking.

The development of love is traced through key, primal experiences, firstly , that which he calls Motherly love - this is unconditional love, and if we are lucky, an experience which we have, that of being loved completely, for all we are, and taken care of. We need to do no more than BE, to inspire this kind of love. The second primal love is what he calls Fatherly love, which he sees as conditional. We earn father's love by pleasing him, by being most like him, by accepting, therefore, responsibility. The third love is Brotherly love - this is an equal love, recognising you as similar to me. It respects your autonomy as well as my autonomy, and that respect prevents 'Fatherly Love' from becoming about domination - its the recognition of the individuality of other. This 'brotherly love' also tempers the blissful but unearned experience of maternal love. Mother and child will separate, and the child needs to have their autonomy recognised. We cannot respect without the fourth part of loving - knowledge. This requires self-knowledge, in order to see the other (and ourselves,) deeply and clearly. And that knowledge of the other needs still to come from that place of care ('Motherly Love')

Fromm's background was in sociology, so he also looks at 'love' not just as it plays out in individual encounters, sexual love, parents and children, 'brothers' - peers and equals - but he looks at that idea of equality in societies, and condemns both Western Capitalism and Soviet Communism as equally, though differently, dehumanising our relationships. His own thinking is influenced by both Marx, and his own Jewish, Talmudic inheritance - he came from a rabbinical family. Although he was not, in the end, a theist, he traces, clearly, the positive (as well as the problematic) role that the development of religion had on society and on philiosophy and ethics, looking specifically at Old Testament stories, and unpicking them to find deeper meanings. He is in the end, most drawn to Buddhist thought, seeing this as a highly mature system, which properly incorporates the 'all is connectedness' bliss stage of motherly love (and falling in love, come to that!) the taking responsibility for oneself which is 'Fatherly' the respect for other and oneself and a deepening awareness of knowledge which can contain paradox.

He talks about the importance of practising 'the art of loving' examining our own attitudes, actions and relationships scrupulously, as an on-going discipline. Like many psychotherapists, he is also aware of the importance of self-love - not narcissistic self-regard which paradoxically often leads to behaviour which is destructive, both to oneself and others, because that sort of self love is often a veneer for self-loathing, hence the desire to make everyone else serve MY will, because I cannot bear to look upon my 'wrongness'. Proper self love, a pre-requisite for proper love of other, involves being able to own one's shadow, shame, guilt, and be compassionate, but not self-indulgent towards oneself. (Internalising 'mother' unconditional love and 'father' earned love) The theory is clear and even simple, the practice, of course, a struggle. But a vital one, for the individual and for the way society as a whole functions.

I feel I've barely scratched the surface of this tremendous book, and no doubt re-readings will yield more rich fruit.

There is, however, one cavil, and it is major. Fromm was born in the very early part of the 20th century. His thinking about gender and sexuality may well have been much more enlightened than many, at the time. (written in 1957) But his view of homosexuality as the result of a 'flaw' - inadequate relationship mainly with mother - and a certain rigidity in the roles of 'Mother' and 'Father' is disturbing, and flawed, half a century on. I found I had to read some sections tempering by twenty-first century awareness, and trying to see through the lens of half a century earlier. Reading in context, in other words

If you can set this aside, the rest, I think, is gold.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

FROMM'S MOST POPULAR BOOK - STILL A "CLASSIC"

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 118-page 1974 paperback edition.]

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi) He adds, "first I shall discuss the theory of love... and secondly I shall discuss the practice of love---little as can be SAID about practice in this, as in any other field." (Pg. 5)

He suggests, "That love implies CARE is most evident in a mother's love for her child... we are impressed by her love if we see her caring for the child. It is not different even with the love for animals or flowers... Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love." (Pg. 22) He adds, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... the logic of which leads exactly to the negation of this concept of God. The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God; he does not love God as a child loves his father or his mother... God becomes to him a symbol in which man, at an earlier stage in his evolution, has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for, the realm of the spiritual world, of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60)

He adds, "I want to make it clear that I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept, and that to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61) He states, "The disintegration of the love of God has reached the same proportions as the disintegration of the love of man... What we witness... is a regression to an idolatric concept of God, and a transformation of the love of God into a relationship fitting an alienated character structure." (Pg. 87)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love, he must be put in his supreme place... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it... To have faith in the possibility of love as a social ... phenomenon, is a rational faith based on the insight into the very nature of man." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist; in Europe, he was associated with the Frankfurt School. He wrote many other books such as Escape from Freedom,Psychoanalysis and Religion,The Art of Loving,Beyond the Chains of Illusion,Dogma of Christ & Other Essays on Religi,The Revolution of Hope | Toward a Humanized Technology,You Shall Be as Gods,Greatness and Limitations of Freud's Thought, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1956 book, "The reading of this book would be a disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy instruction in the art of loving. This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality, so as to achieve a productive orientation..." (Pg. xxi)

He suggests, "Love... is indivisible as far as the connection between 'objects' and one's own self is concerned... my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one's capacity to love... If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself, too; if he can love ONLY others, he cannot love at all." (Pg. 50)

He argues, "the belief in God to most people is the belief in a helping father---a childish illusion... the criticism of the idea of God, as it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct... [but] he ignored the other aspect of monotheistic religion... The truly religious person... does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God... God becomes to him a symbol in which man... has expressed the totality of that which man is striving for... of love and truth and justice... the logical consequence of monotheistic thought is the negation of all 'theo-logy,' of all 'knowledge about God.'" (Pg. 59-60) He adds, "I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept... to me the concept of God is only a historically conditioned one... But I believe also that the consequences of strict montheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other." (Pg. 60-61)

He concludes on the note, "important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon... If man is to be able to love... Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it..." (Pg. 111-112)

Fromm's proposals to simply "transform society" sound a bit implausible to modern ears, but much of what he says otherwise is still fresh and vibrant.

I read this book when I was young and looking for love, and all these years later, I received a copy as a gift and re-read it. I have to wonder what I took from it the first time. The idea that love required concentration, discipline and patience went out the window during the decade that followed the 1956 publication of The Art of Loving, but the book survived, and we should be grateful.

Fromm was perceptive about love, whose learning he compared to an art like archery or playing a musical instrument, rather than just a feeling. He distrusted activity for its own sake and deplored people's inability to be alone. He championed self-love. He also saw the negative effects of corporations and consumerism on people's lives. He was alarmed that smoking cigarettes signaled isolation from life and from other people, one of the possible benefits of stopping smoking rarely mentioned.

The afterword tells us that Fromm came upon this knowledge after relationships with two older analysts (one of them Karen Horney) and marriage to a woman his age who suffered greatly from an arthritic condition and finally killed herself. A Jew who left Germany ahead of the Holocaust, Fromm settled in the United States, lived in Mexico for a while, and over time rejected his family's religion in favor of humanism. He re-married successfully and became active politically against nuclear proliferation and for peace.

My only caveat is Fromm's perception of homosexuality as a deviation which results in a never-ending separateness. This was a common psychiatric assumption at the time the book was written and was only recently rectified, but I'd think twice before giving this to a lesbian or gay friend. In Fromm's view, we are all bisexual, but healthy people find partners of the opposite sex.

This a brief but remarkable work, and reading it was a reminder of the important contributions to psychology by those whom Hitler detested. Let's hope it's still in print fifty years from now.

This book is an argument for love. And it is a compelling argument.

I have to say honestly that all teaching for me is an attempt to make the “art of loving” real in the classroom.

Erich Fromm’s book “The Art of Loving” speaks to that purest part of yourself that wants to love in a way unsullied by ego, by those experiences that have hurt or crippled us, in a true selfless and unconditional way that fosters health and beauty in those who are loved, and, as a consequence, society as a whole.

Well worth reading, meditating upon, and putting into action.

There were many excerpts that struck me powerfully in the book, but here are some of them. Unfortunately, I do not have the time at this point to write reflectively on them now, but I hope that they will serve to convey the value of this book.

While I don't agree on his understanding of religion, his understanding of love is analytical and pure. He said so many things that I have felt deep in my heart--his writing doesn't let you pause in ego-veils.

“He who knows nothing, loves nothing. He who can do nothing understands nothing. He who understands nothing is worthless. But he who understands also loves, notices, sees….The more knowledge is inherent in a thing, the greater the love….Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries knows nothing about grapes.” Paracelsus

"Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an 'attitude', an orientation'' of 'character' which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one 'object' of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is a proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody else except the 'loved' person. This is the same fallacy which we have already mentioned above. Because one does not see that love is an activity, a power of the soul, one believes that all that is necessary to find is the right object--and that everything goes by itself afterward. This attitude can be compared to that of a man who wants to paint but who, instead of learning the art, claims that he has just to wait for the right object, and that he will paint beautifully when he finds it. If I truly love one person I love all persons, I love the world, I love life. If I can say to somebody else, 'I love you,' I must be able to say 'I love in you everybody, I love through you the world, I love in you also myself." (Erich Fromm "The Art of Loving" page 43)
"The most important sphere of giving....is not that of material things, but lies in the specifically human realm. What does one person give to another? He gives of himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his life. This does not necessarily man that he sacrifices his life for the other--but that he gives him of that which is alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of his sadness--of all expression and manifestations of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life, he enriches the other person, he enhances the other's sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving is in itself exquisite joy. But in giving he cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him; in truly giving, he cannot help receiving that which is given back to him. Giving implies to make the other person a giver also and they both share in the joy of what they have brought to life. In the act of giving something is born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life that is born for both of them. Specifically with regard to love this means: love is a power which produces love; impotence is the inability to produce love. This thought has been beautifully expressed by Marx: “Assume,” he says, “‘man’ as ‘man’, and his relation to the world as a human one, and you can exchange love only for love, confidence for confidence, etc. If you wish to enjoy art, you must be an artistically trained person; if you wish to have influence on other people, you must be a person who has a really stimulating and furthering influence on other people. Every one of your relationships to man and nature must be a definite expression of your ‘real, individual’ life corresponding to the object of your will. If you love without calling forth love, that is, if you love as such does not produce love, if by means of an ‘expression of life’ as a loving person you do not make of yourself a ‘loved person’, then your love is impotent, a misfortune.” But not only in love does giving mean receiving. A teacher is taught by his students, the actor is stimulated by his audience, the psychoanalyst is cured by his patient—provided they do not treat each other as objects, but are related to each other genuinely and productively.” (Erich Fromm “The Art of Loving” (23-24)
On speaking on “respect” as a component of love:
“Respect is not fear and awe; it denotes, in accordance with the root of the word (‘respicerre’=to look at), the ability to see a person as he is, to be aware of his unique individuality. Respect means the concern that the other person should grow and unfold as he is. Respect, thus, implies the absence of exploitation. I want the loved person to grow and unfold for his own sake, and in his own ways, and not for the purpose of serving me. If I love the other person, I feel one with him or her, but with him ‘as he is’, not as I need him to be as an object for my use. It is clear that respect is possible only if ‘I’ have achieved independence; if I can stand and walk without needing crutches, without having to dominate and exploit anyone else. Respect exists only on the basis of freedom: ‘l’amour est l’enfant de la liberte’ as an old French song says; love is the child of freedom, never that of domination.” (Erich Fromm “The Art of Loving” 26-27)
“Motherly love….makes the child feel: it is good to have been born; it instills in the child the ‘love for life’, and not only the wish to remain alive. The same idea may be taken to be expressed in another Biblical symbolism. The promised land (land is always a mother symbol) is described as ‘flowing with milk and honey.’ Milk is the symbol of the first aspect of love, that of care and affirmation. Honey symbolizes the sweetness of life, the love for it and the happiness in being alive. Most mothers are capable of giving ‘milk,’ but only a minority of giving ‘honey’ too. In order to be able to give honey, a mother must not only be a ‘good mother’, but a happy person—and this aim is not achieved by many. The effect on the child can hardly be exaggerated. Mother’s love for life is as infectious as her anxiety is. Both attitudes have a deep effect on the child’s whole personality; one can distinguish indeed, among children—and adults—those who got only ‘milk’ and those who got ‘milk and honey’. “ (Fromm “The Art of Loving” 46)
“….[O]ne must learn to be concentrated in everything one does, in listening to music, in reading a book, in talking to a person, in seeing a view. The activity at this very moment must be the only thing that matters, to which one is fully given. If one is concentrated, it matters little ‘what’ one is doing; the important, as well as the unimportant things assume a new dimension of reality, because they have one’s full attention. To learn concentration requires avoiding, as far as possible, trivial conversation, that is, conversation which is not genuine. If two people talk about the growth of a tree they both know, or about the taste of the bread they have just eaten together, or about a common experience in their job, such conversation can be relevant, provided they experience what they are talking about, and do not deal with it in an abstractified way; on the other hand, a conversation can deal with matters of politics or religion and yet be trivial; this happens when the two people talk in clichés, when their hearts are not in what they are saying. I should add here that just as it is important to avoid trivial conversation, it is important to avoid bad company. By bad company I do not refer only to people who are vicious and destructive; one should avoid their company because their orbit is poisonous and depressing. I mean also the company of zombies, of people whose soul is dead, although their body is alive; of people whose thoughts and conversation are trivial; who chatter instead of talk, and who assert cliché opinions instead of thinking. However, it is not always possible to avoid the company of such people, nor even necessary. If one does not react in the expected way—that is, in clichés and trivialities—but directly and humanly, one will often find that such people change their behavior, often helped by the surprise effected by the shock of the unexpected.”
To be concentrated in relation to others means primarily to be able to listen. Most people listen to others, or even give advice, without really listening. They do not take the other person seriously, they do not take their own answers seriously either. As a result, the talk makes them tired. They are under the illusion that they would be even more tired if they listened with concentration. But the opposite is true. Any activity, if done in a concentrated fashion, makes one more awake (although afterward natural and beneficial tiredness sets in), while every unconcentrated activity makes one sleepy—while at the same time it makes it difficult to fall asleep at the end of the day.
To be concentrated means to live fully in the present, in the here and now, and not to think of the next thing to be done, while I am doing something right now. Needless to say that concentration must be practiced most of all by people who love each other. They must learn to be close to each other without running away in the many ways in which this is customarily done. The beginning of the practice of concentration will be difficult; it will appear as if one could never achieve the aim. That this implies the necessity to have patience need hardly be said. If one does not know that everything has its change, and wants to force things, then indeed one will never succeed in becoming concentrated—nor in the art of loving. To have an idea of what patience is one need only watch a child learning to walk. It falls, falls again, and falls again, and yet it goes on trying, improving, until one day it walks without falling. What could the grown-up person achieve if he had the child’s patience and its concentration in the pursuits which are important to him!”
(Fromm “The Art of Loving” 105-106)
“…the main condition for the achievement of love is the ‘overcoming’ of one’s ‘narcissism’.

“Faith in oneself is a condition of our ability to promise, and since, as Nietzsche said, man can be defined by his capacity to promise, faith is one of the conditions of human existence. What matters in relation to love is the faith in one’s own love; in its ability to produce love in others, and in its reliability.” (Fromm 114)
“To love means to commit oneself without guarantee, to give oneself completely in the hope that our love will produce love in the loved person. Love is an act of faith, and whoever is of little faith is also of little love.” 118)

“One attitude, indispensable for the practice of the art of loving, which thus far has been mentioned only implicitly should be discussed explicitly since it is basic for the practice of love: ‘activity’. I have said before that by activity is not meant ‘doing something’, but an inner activity, the productive use of one’s powers. Love is an activity; if I love, I am in a constant state of active concern for the loved person… The capacity to love demands a state of intensity, awakeness, enhanced vitality, which can only be the result of a productive and active orientation in many other spheres of life. If one is not productive in other spheres, one is not productive in love either.” (118-119)

I chose kaiser springform pan based on a purchase of the same product several years ago. This pan does not appear to be as well made and sturdy as the old one I owned. I have used it once, the sides of the cake came out slightly burnt. I will give it a second try to seeif it performs better.

If you've been alive for even a second, there's a chance that you have experienced love at some point. Love is all at once ubiquitous and difficult to achieve. This book takes a profoundly philosophical and psychoanalytical approach to love. The Art of Loving is one of my favorite books, and Erich Fromm is an exemplary writer. In the book, he details all the different kinds of love, from infatuation to deep appreciation. It is a truly remarkable treatise on the ability of mankind to experience the depths of joy and connection. It is fascinating, hopeful, and something that can undoubtedly change the way you view love forever.

A book that has changed my perspective on happiness is 21 Things You Should Give Up To Be Happy. Written by Alving Huang and Chris D'Cruz, the book offers exactly what its title suggests: 21 unique things to let go in order to be happy. It's certainly ironic that a very popular quote suggests that "If you love something, let it go." While this book doesn't quite talk about love in as much depth or detail, it does offer plenty of information about how to achieve happiness on some level. In some cases, love is what is going to make you happy, and, in others, it is the thing you need to give up.

I've loved reading both of these books, and they are sure to bring some facet of enjoyment to anyone else who reads them. The Art of Loving is the most complete retelling of the story of love that I think I've ever heard. It combined science, medicine, and philosophy to produce one of the most touching and informative books on the intricacies of love. This is certainly a book I would recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about love and how it affects our brains and bodies.

Erich Fromm informs us that "love" must include a structured approach to relationships that include: responsibility, respect, care and knowledge. The gift to society from this book, is that it is a serious departure from ALL the long songs, art, poetry, advertising, etc that portrays love as a euphoric or erotic experience for the primary love object. If lovers would study this and practice the art that Erich describes BEFORE getting married, our 50% divorce rate just may radically change for the better.

In my book: "Trauma and Transformation: A 12-Step Guide", I fully explore the spiritual side-effects of trauma, and how the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous is a powerful systematic approach for the trauma survivor seeking a spiritual solution.

-Rivka Edery, L.M.S.W
Website: [...]
Author of: "Trauma and Transformation: A 12-Step Guide".
Available from: TRAUMA AND TRANSFORMATION 12 Step Guide

Because Fromm was not only a psychoanalyst, but a philosopher as well, I would argue that this book should be approached more liberally than one would if it were only a psychology. The Art of Loving is a work of theory, and while it lacks the kind of support it deserves, the ideas expressed are well worth consideration.

I like his concept of love as an ideal rather than as a mere emotion. It's sets a ethical and emotional standard that requires, in order to be considered mature, to fully recognize the Humanity of all people (and all that it entails) and by it to become compassionate, sympathetic, and Humane.

Fromm's analysis is generally based on an existential approach; however, some of his comments on heterosexual attraction and homosexuality do not live up to this standard. Bias is a detriment to any argument and to objectivity (obviously) and I was rather disappointed to find Fromm making the same mistake as Freud and others. The problem here is the failure to see beyond the relative expression of something to the underlying causes.

In his chapter on the theory of love he argues that heterosexual attraction is based on difference between the sexes, that a feeling of oneness is accomplished through uniting opposites. While this may very well be true to some extent, it is shallow compared against Fromm's ideal of love. It is true that when we love another person we feel "whole" but I think this feeling is more likely the result of resolving one's feeling of separateness than the fulfillment of sexual productivity.

Along with this comes the following statement,

"The homosexual deviation is a failure to attain this polarized union, and thus the homosexual suffers from the pain of never-resolved separateness; a failure, however, which he shares with the average heterosexual who cannot love."

Fromm strangely reduces heterosexual love to a matter of being complementary opposites, which contradicts his argument that love is based on the care of and for another Human being. Of course, the understanding of homosexuality in the 1950's was short-sighted and utterly biased, so his commentary on it was likely influenced by this general misunderstanding.

My only other criticism is his use of the terms "motherly" and "fatherly" love. While Fromm acknowledges that these terms refer to relative archetypes and are not meant to suggest that all mothers and fathers love in strictly conditional or unconditional ways, it still uses these terms instead of merely referring to either types of love as conditional and unconditional.

With all this, I would recommend this book but also highly encourage any readers to take it into careful consideration, partly because it is a theoretical work (and there nothing wrong with this, as another reviewer seems to think) but more importantly because one should do this with any argument.

It was a very long winded, comfusing read. It gave many facts about different kinds of love. I found the book uninteresting and boring, with very little useful information. I stopped reading halfway through the book.

I particularly enjoyed the parts where he talked about sharing in one's own company. I didn't much care for his choice to lump in a weak critique of capitalism, blaming "consumption" on capitalism rather than narcissism. Some of it was very vague and wishy-washy, particularly when he chose to write about an "economy of love".

Since there is no option to give zero stars, I had to rate this item with one more than it deserves.

Having plodded only half way through before I could take no more, I can safely say the following: This book is nothing more than a lot of of pedantic rambling. The author (who by his very own not-insignificant credentials might be expected to offer something better) has assembled one hundred twenty-odd pages of inscrutable sentence structure and pretentious psychobabble to convey something that, even were it not pretty much common knowledge, could have been presented in fewer than a dozen pages of plain English. Skip this one.

I remember reading this work in my teenage years. It made a great impression on me then. One of Fromm's points is that we cannot really love others unless we love ourselves. This went against the notion I had at the time that ' self- love' meant ' selfishness only, and that one had to choose between loving oneself and loving another. I think Fromm's point here is a deep and true one.

Another important point Fromm made is connecting love with responsibility, care and concern. In other words as a young person there was a tendency to think that love is simply a ' romantic feeling' Fromm broadened the conception of ' love' I had. And this too through indicating that there are different kinds of love, depending upon the kind of relationship it is.

Fromm also, and this is another important point gave the sense that it is ' right to love' and that ' love is not a sin'. He gave a sense that love is an essential part of a meaningful life, and something each and every one of us is capable of.

His connecting love with truly understanding and caring for ' the other' is another major point. So instead of the instinctually driven, fundamentally sinful view of Man given by Fromm's teacher Freud , Fromm presents us with a fundamentally positive view of human nature and its capacities. This is an especially wonderful book for young people. It can give hope and strength to help them make better lives for themselves and those they love and are loved by.

This book was amazing, I think everyone on the planet should read it.

The two points he made that stuck out to me were:

1) in his piece about parenting, he talks about how (ideally) mothers have to love their children so much, unconditionally and in every circumstance -- and then *let them go.* He talks about differences in fatherly love [fathers discipline, give praise and love when you're successful], and concludes that at adulthood, people need to find a way to give themselves *both* fatherly and motherly love from the inside, regardless of how their childhood went...

2) he talks about concentration and attentiveness, and how it relates to fatigue and mental health. he speaks at length about what it means to really concentrate and not be scattered doing a hundred things at once, and how, when you've concentrated hard on something, you're tired and sleep well vs. when you are all over the place, focusing on one thing for two minutes and moving on, you feel tired but it's hard to fall asleep. This resonated with me and my terrible reading and Internet habits!

It is a beautiful book -- obviously some concepts are a bit out-dated, such as the ways in which he tries to incoporate gay relationships in his parts about love. But how amazing is it that he's trying to think through and incorporate gay men and women's experiences at all? I was impressed. He really spoke from a place of love and IMHO speaks the truth as it is.

This book was hugely popular when I was in high school. Many boys picked it up, thinking it was about something more graphic. Many girls read it, thinking it would validate what they were looking for in romance.

Actually the book is neither about sex nor the paperback pirate-ravishing-damsel-on-cliff version of romance. It's about true love - what it is NOT, what it IS - and how to build it in your own life.

Notice I didn't say it was about how to FIND love. Such a quest implies that love is an object or resides in an object - out there somewhere. And that's exactly the sort of sentiment that this book was written to correct. That's exactly what makes this book such an urgent antidote to our current conception of love and to the current tenor of our times.

Our 21st century society is characterized by breezy dismissals such as "I'm just not attracted to you," and "I'm just not that into you." Such attitudes reduce individuals to something less than full human beings. They reduce all players to mere chess pieces being maneuvered by some unseen power, against their will, on a chessboard. And even at that, the chessboard is just one of those miniature, magnetized toys you carry on long trips. Oops, the square lost its magnetism - I'm falling off! Good-bye!

Fromm's main purpose in writing this book was to re-awaken us to become fully active participants in creating the unity of love between two people. As he eloquently points out - love is not an involuntary magnetic attraction or any kind of irresistible impulse. It's a decision, a commitment, and ultimately an art. It calls for a genuinely active spirit and not just a churning busy-ness.

In the first chapters, Fromm distinguishes between true brotherly love, motherly love, fatherly love, love of God, and erotic love. There are a few archaisms along the way that show this book was first published in the 1950's. For example, Fromm implies a belief that homosexuality is a failure to achieve "polarized union," perhaps due to parental or societal imbalances.

Overall though, this man knows love. He ends the books with a brief chapter on how to practice the overarching love that encompasses all the rightful kinds he distinguished. The discipline starts with the practice of little gestures that might at first seem unrelated to the ultimate goal. The art of love turns out to be very like the practice of Zen or the practice of any Eastern religious art. Erich Fromm becomes a sort of Mr. Miagi by our side - "Wax on, wax off." Through this book, he can help launch all of us karate kids into a truer, more fulfilling concept of love.

This book is perhaps the basis of purpose in life, why we are, what we are.
It provides a Secular analysis on love and analyzes it's many forms in Theology as well.
It is a logical explanation for what love is and why we need it in our world. It feels like a primer, I wish there was more to it. It explains the faults of many economic systems in our pursuit of love and fulfillment. Faith and Control are opposites. One cannot have love without faith. Not necessarily faith in God, but faith in others.
And love, true love is not by chance, it is intentional and cultivated, involving elements of: care, respect, restraint and responsibility.
It requires concentration, listening and practice. Society cannot exist without love. And the more who love, who truly love, the happier we'll all be.

I have been a fan of Fromm's from reading his other books, and he didn't fail to impress me with this one. Here he talks about how our concept of "love" means that people put themselves on the "market" - that is, they are commodified and commodify others in search of a partner. He also talks about the orgiastic states in religious rites. Then he goes into detail about the negative aspects in our concept of love, especially in our relation to religion - that is of submission and masochism, and a parasitic relationship. Essentially, we are seeking union and to lose ourselves.

"Most people see the problem of love primarily as that of being loved, rather than that of loving, of one's capacity to love. Hence the problem to them is how to be loved, not how to love." -Eric Fromm, The Art of Loving

I picked up this book by chance at the Miami Dade County Book Fair. I had heard of Fromm briefly in my psychology class, and thought this little book (the actual text not more than 130 pages) would be a great companion to another book I picked up on love in Shakespeare's plays. Judging by his background psychology, I prepared myself for The Art of Loving to turn out like many other psychoanalytic books tend to be: a small book that would take an unimaginable amount of time to read. However, it was quite the contrary; what I encountered in this small book was an eye-opening experienced that made me aware of both my accomplishments and my failures in life. I found myself reading the book from cover to cover, flipping it over and starting again.

As I read (and reread) the book felt like Fromm was talking directly to me, as if he and I were sitting down and having an in-depth conversation on love's role in my life. Fromm touches on all forms of love from parental love, to brotherly (neighborly) love, to erotic love, to love of God, and to self love, which he specifically explains is very different from narcissism. He speaks of the problem in the Western world's concept of love as a temporary gratification and a purely selfish act and discusses how to rectify it by attempting to invert what is seen and practiced in the world by learning to live in love, hinging it on the art of giving of oneself.

However, do not expect, as Fromm states in the first section of this book, that you will find a step by step guide on `how to love'. This book is more of an awareness of what love is and how humanity does not love. It very much reveals yourself to yourself, and shows you how love is verb not a noun (thus an art and not a name). It is something you have to do constantly, not wait for it to come to you. As Fromm says, "What are the necessary steps in learning any art? One, mastery of the theory; two, mastery of the practice." For Fromm love is the answer to human existence and one must first learn to love oneself before he can attempt to love others. It is a self-changing experience.

I have finished reading "Art of Loving" by Eric Fromm just yesterday. It is a good book but more based on psychoanalytical studies. It does gives a very good information on the art of loving but less life based examples and more researched material. The description of the kind of love father, mother, son, daughter, and others have is amazing Or rather I would say much well researched. The book does not at any word inspires you to love but just tells you what love is. It does not ask you to start loving but rather gives you the meaning of what love stands for. It is a very good and well written book. In fact to be more precise a well researched book. It is definitely not meant for any of those people who think that reading it will be fun, because it has such profound studies incorporated in it that the book requires definitely a very high sense of understanding and concentration. It is one of those kinds of books which have only hundred pages, but each page is so strong that sometimes it takes two days to understand what the author wants to tell through that page's writting. I would definitely recommend you to read this book as it not only gives the view points of the author but also of the others whome the author has met and read. It is a researched material where the author not only discusses his view points but also every now and then tell and discusses each topic with others opinions and then later comes to the cumulative conclusion. Most of the teachings and the thoughts are though very personal but then that applies to most of the authors writtings and thats okay.
I hope you all will enjoy reading this book as I did.
Happy reading!

In a world of fuzzy love epitomised by trashy love songs whichbrainwash young people into thinking such things as 'I can't livewithout you' and 'I love you more than life itself', this book offers an invaluable perspective on just what it is you might be feeling when you 'fall in love' with someone. Indeed, Fromm questions the whole concept of 'falling in love'. One will conclude that there is more 'falling' than there is 'love' in the whole process. He argues that we are better served by 'standing' in love. And how true. While practice makes perfect, and no book can compensate for that, Fromm's enlightenment is sure to raise an eyebrow of awareness among anyone who has ever loved or been loved. While we older, and perhaps wiser, folk may say 'yes, indeed' to Fromm's lucid and thought-provoking work, surely it's the teenage generation which needs this map of the one emotion which is perhaps most prominent in their minds. If you have ever experienced the pain of love, this book will change your attitudes towards the whole emotion, for ultimately you will conclude that where there is love,ie. the real honest variety, there is no pain and there can be no pain. Excellently written, like all Fromm's work, you will want to read it in one sitting.

Erich Fromm frequently uses paradox to get his points across. In The Art of Loving he begins by talking about how competition in a capitalist society tends towards uniformity and mediocrity. As Emerson says, in his essay on Self-Reliance, "Conformity is the rule. The world whips you with its displeasure for non-conformity." And, "He who would be self-reliant, must be a non-conformist." In any case, Fromm says that most people want to be Loveable. We wear dark sunglasses so no one can see our eyes, in order to appear "different". We must have the whitest teeth, the darkest tan, the best clothes, so that we become "attractive" and then we become like commodities in a market. We want to make the "best deal", that is, get the best mate, trading our qualities for those of another person, while "getting over" on the other, that is, we want better than we offer. What is called a "bargain".
Instead of becoming Loveable, Dr. Fromm suggests that we become more Loving. He defines Love as involving four things: care, knowledge, respect, and response-ability. Think about it, how much can you love someone if you don't really know them? And if you care about someone, you surely want to be able to respond to them. Love without care, or careless love is famous, as there is a song about it. In any case, over the millenia we have heard of different kinds of love and Fromm spends time going into the different kinds.
From love of your enemies, to love of yourself, to love of others, and from selfish love to self-less love, Dr. Fromm runs the gamut.
For a discussion of Diotema's Ladder of Love, see a different book, by James Diefenbeck, Wayward Reflections on the History of Philosophy, which covers Plato's Symposium on Love.
However, Plato is limited, in a way, by his place in history. Dr. Fromm also includes a discussion of Taoism in The Art of Loving.

dr

Erich Fromm's work remains a vital commentary on our culture, its discontents, and its untapped potential. In this fine volume, he delves into the concept & nature of Love. As other reviewers have noted, don't mistake this for a shallow self-help book! Instead, it's an intelligent, humane exploration of what we mistake for Love, and what Love actually is (or can be). It will make you stop & reconsider the cliches you've been fed by our mass-market culture, cliches we've all absorbed from an early age without ever really examining in depth. This slim volume does just that, explaining complexity with clarity, while challenging the sound-byte mentality of our culture, which reduces everything to simplistic slogans & superficial thought.

Let me also note that Fromm's socialist humanism has absolutely nothing to do with the straw men of crude communism, groupthink power culture, or political correctness that some mistaken reviewers have called it. His analysis of the alienating power of mass capitalistic culture remains accurate; and it's clear from his entire body of work that he holds tyranny & oppression of any ideological bent in deepest disdain. He was & remains a champion of human freedom, not only politically, but emotionally & spiritually. Most highly recommended!

When I first read the title I thought "wow, that is a very bold title for a book".
I wasn't disappointed. Fromm begins by defining 'love', then offers an incisive, analytical, and eye opening look at love among humans.
One of my favorite reads, and definitely changed me.

Many books have been written and are being written on love,romance and spirituality. In todays world that is either fighting on the name of religion without any real spiritual quest or qenching it in hedonistic ways, I feel there is a major need to learn about love and cultivate it than never before. Spitituality as I see it is but a question- " we are born without our will and we die against our will. And things in between seem to happen without me having to say anything much. So, what am i doing here?". Well, there is no real answer to this question, but there is a solution, and that is to feel at home here in this world from the day we are sent to this world untill that day we are forced to call it off. And love for ourselves and for this world is what we need to achieve that state of restfulness. All dogmos and ideologies are nothing but theoretical derivations out of the above mentioned axiom, and problems arise as people stick onto the derivations without really understanding the basic problem, that is, " how to love?". All the spiritual texts put great emphasis on love, but, they associate great sins with the failure to achieve love, and so it is looked upon as a virtue of saints and monks that is not a necessity for ordinary people . But as that is the very problem this whole humanity is trying to answer without really understanding it, no one can really feel peaceful and call himself spiritually matured without mastering this art of loving. And to my knowledge, this is the only book that says love is an art that can be mastered by anyone and everyone by cultivating three simple virtues namely patience, perseverence and practice. With all my heart i recommend this book for anyone with real spiritual quest, for anyone who is interested in finding his place in this world. I suggest you read the last chapter in this book titled " The practice of love" before reading the other chapters.

I have a better understanding of what love is after reading this book. In the modern society, people in general seem to know the meaning of love very well. Most think that love is simply a male and a female getting together happily, just as what they can usually see in the films. But I can tell you it is not so simple. Love is more than that!
In the beginning of the book "The Art of Loving", Fromm first carries out several premises behind the attitude of people treating love. These are about the problem of how to be loved, the object to love as well as the confusion between the initial experience of falling in love and the permanent state of being in love, which has a great impact on me to think about what love is.
Fromm then talks about the theory of love. It is really true that love is an activity. It is primarily giving, not receiving. Moreover, love is not just to a specific person, the "object" of love, but to the world as a whole. There are different kinds of love toward different objects: brotherly love, motherly love, erotic love, self-love and the love of god. All these will be covered in the book. And at last, Forrum puts these theories into practice. With the capacity to love our neighbor as well as true humility, courage, faith and discipline, the satisfaction in individual love can surely be attained.
In the "polluted" world, love is indispensable. We should try most actively to develop our total personality, in order to achieve a productive orientation. "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
It is appreciated that Forumm tries to use non-technical language to avoid unnecessary complications. Still, there are some areas that are difficult for me to understand. Besides, it focuses much on the theory, making it a little bit boring. Overall, the book is worth reading.
How can I know if the theory works? Put it into practice!

After reading it I was inspired to write a poem:

Fromm The Art Of Loving

Love is an action
Not the slave of a passion

Love is the joy of giving
Not a wishful receiving

It is "standing in"
Not "falling for"

It is not a fear of loneliness
not justice to be done

It as an active concern
Respect, Mercy, and Care

Un libro facinante, por su claridad y contundencia de conceptos. Describe muy bien los problemas actuales del hombre como individuo y como ser social para amar, y como ha ido compensando esto con formas de pseudoamor. Me hubiera gustado que profundizara mas en el último capítulo con respecto a la diciplina y la concetración pero me imagino que ese no era el proposito del libro. Tambienme quede con ganas de mas ejemplos de neurosis debido a los conflictos paternos y como evitarlos, pero ilustra muy bien los ejemplos que da. Un análisis serio del amor como sentimiento y responsabilidad sin caer en cursilerias o formulas hechas muy recomdable para adolecentes y jovenes.

Back in the 60s everybody was reading this guy. I met a young psychology professor the other day and I thought I'd name drop. I mentioned Erich Fromm. He never heard of him. I was shocked. But a week before that I was at a law library and the law student behind the take-out desk never heard of Clarence Darrow. You know there are young people who don't know who Bob Cousy is?
In any case, this is a very intelligent book. I still have Erich Fromm sitting on my night table. Right now I am reading the Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. The Art of Loving was one of my favorite.
I took psychology in college because I liked so many of Erich Fromm's books. Unfortunately psychology was all about rats, monkeys, dogs and ginney pigs. Erich Fromm was all about people. I could never figure it out.

Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:

"A Summer with Charlie"

Easily the most profound book on Love that I have ever read. Nothing like the pop-culture self help books that saturate the market (t.v/lit/radio/web). I enjoyed his commentary on how conformity pulls us further away from love. And his idea that Equality does not mean lack of individuality. Our desire to be the same fogs our pursuit for true love because we don't recognize love in all its forms when it is presented to us.

This man was a genius and this book was written at an interesting turning point in Western Civilization- focus from family to money.

I didn't expect anything from this book so I was extremely pleased. I am now reading everything else he has written.

This book is a product of the 1950s and does contain some outdated attitudes about gender roles and sexual orientation. That being said, it is a remarkably thoughtful and penetrating examination of the theory and practice of loving. Many of Fromm's observations are astute, and his concerns re narcissism and consumerism in the search for a mate are even more cogent today (witness reality TV's "Who wants to marry a millionaire" and "the bachelor", e.g.). Most people I know could learn something from this book. Be forwarned, though...it is not a quick or easy "self-help" read, and Fromm's advice, which is to behave altruistically, is not easy to follow, either.

This is a great book that it tells you different kinds of love for father,mother, son, daughter, religion and so on. It give us a clear and detailed meaning for these loves.

Sometimes, we think that we did love our family, friends and lovers very much, we did try everything for them and contribute all what we have to them, but we don't know why they still don't satisfy with us. After reading this book, you may found out the answer and you may have different idea about what is love .
This is the book introduced by my friends, they tell me that from this book , you will not only share the opinion from the expert-Erich Fromm, you could also found the answer for you questions, so I try to read this book. I think this is definitely a good book to make me know more about what is love, and what is the right way to love people.

Although Fromm covers theoretical territory best left to his other books, he produced a useful little guide for everyone who wishes to cultivate a larger understanding of the psychology of love. (However, I still think that for the majority of readers, it's actually more difficult to be love, to accept love, than it is to give love--the reverse of what the author maintains.) Good social commentary on why love is so lauded, and so seldom approached, in our capitalistic and consumeristic Western civilization.

I echo the sentiment that this is not a self-help book. If you're Joe Six Pack looking for some quick-fix PowerPoint presentation style solution to your marriage problems, you won't find that solution here. If that's your lot, just find a therapist who can set you straight in person. This book is a good old-fashioned Marxist-style critique, complete with denunciations of the connection between love and capitalism. In some ways, this book is more about capitalism than it is about love. I just wish Fromm were still around to write a book about Internet dating.

Differentiating all kinds of love and its meaning is essential to achieve true love. Supreme love is the realization of love based on loving yourself as you love your neighbors. Erich Fromm provides in depth analysis of the meaning of love. Mother's love is differentiated to explain , selfish and unselfish love which impacts the live of children. This book must be a required reading to understand, love as the most powerful force to improve our lives, love ones, family, leaders and nations.

Everyone should read this book. It resonates at a very deep level in the human psyche. Love as a self-directed activity instead of the "whats in it for me" mentality is huge. Current American thinking is the exact opposite of what Fromm was trying to say about love being a self-directed activity. The books explanations show the reader why our current culture is so miserable, thankless and disloyal. We are taught to love passively instead of actively and its progressing more toward self-centerness everyday.I highly recommend this book, especially if you are sick of being miserable.

Very moving, insightful and illuminating. I felt so many emotions stirred by the Authors explanations of self, and feelings. He predicted so much of Societies issues, and their impact on the individual.

Well written, well worth the read.

Dee

"The Art of Loving" is an essay on all sides of love. The style is that of an analysis, studying love from a theoretical angle most of the time. This makes the text a bit dry and somewhat demanding, but it is full of insight. Among the kinds of love treated are motherly, brotherly, erotically and religious love as well as negative and positive self-love (narcissism vs. "loving your neighbour AS YOURSELF"). Love is seen as the basis for human life, individually and culturally. One could say that the book enlarges on why "love makes the world go around"!
One stylistic point continued to annoy me: The author seems unable to use the word "she". It is purely stylistic - the book is equally about male and female sides of love, and the author is no chauvenist. Probably this style has to do with the fact that the book dates back to 1956. But it is annoying and in some places confusing.
The bottom line: If you want a "how-to" book this is not it. If you want new insight in love and its implications this book should be on your list.

The title for this book is very misleading as, in today's world, it conjures up images of Dr. Phil and Oprah. In fact, Dr. Fromm wrote an outstanding work about what it means to live a passionate, engaged existence. It's short and my copy is filled with two different kinds of ink from my circling at least 25 quotations over a couple of readings.

In order to love, we must appreciate, and in order to appreciate, we must know. A person without seriousness and focus is worthless. We must work and make the most out of the time that we are given.

As far as romantic love is concerned, Fromm was quite perceptive when he wrote that the lack of polarity between the sexes meant the death of love. In order for men and women to have harmonious relationships, they cannot be exactly the same. Without "viva la difference" there can be no eros.

The first time I read The Art of Loving I did not fully comprehend the Marxist bend to Dr. Fromm's criticism. Now I do unfortunately. It is a distraction but it in no way undermine's the work's message. He was a member of the Frankfort School and they supplied us with the evil cancer that is political correctness, so it is rather predictable that a critique of capitalism is included in these pages. Fifty years have made these political asides and observations trite. If man is a cog in the capitalist machine what would he be in a bureaucratic socialistic one? Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Castro teach us that under socialism man exists to be endlessly trampled by the heel of a boot (ala Orwell).

Regardless of politics, Fromm understands better than most commentators what we should be doing with our lives on this earth and I respect this work immensely. Fromm truly challenges the reader in the text and it is the thinking man's self-help guide. And unlike all of the garbage on tv and in the bookstore, is actually helpful.

I read this book when I was in college given as a gift from a guy who later on proposed to me and got turned down and became a psycho.

As a Buddhist, there is a lot of Buddhism Fromm included in his book and he wrote it in the language that's accesible to Western people. I wouldn't say that his ideas weren't entirely original but I enjoy it so much even as a Buddhist. Sometimes, religious books/doctrines kind of give you a sense of boundary and restrictions but a psychological book like this doesn't.

A lot of the time we see people do and say things we don't understand or feel uncomfortable about. There is always reasons for that, and Fromm here gave a lot of very good examples that penetrate the the truth and insights of their actions and behaviors.

What he recommends are truely practical and useful techniques in terms of building a healthy 'self' before you spread your healthy and loving self to others. At least, these are what Buddha said. I am practicing it and hopefully is on the right path and would like to share this with you.

Erich Fromm, the author, was born in Frankfurt in Germany in 1900. He claims that love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problems of human existence. However, most people do not bother to develop their capacity to love. Learning to love requires practice and concentration.
Dr. Fromm discusses romantic love and all the wrong notions that surround it as well as love of parents for children, brotherly love, erotic love, self-love and the love of God.
The book is filled with challenging observations about a complicated subject that the author treats in a lively, human and extremely interesting manner. This is a must read for anybody who desires to expand their ability to give and receive love.

I read Erich Fromm's book many years ago, when I was in college in the late 60s/early 70s. It subtantially changed the way I viewed the world and to today influences what I believe and do.

I just bought a copy of the volume for my daughter who is working her way into adulthood, on the hope that it can help her the way it helped me.

I don't think there is any other work I have recommended to others more in my life and I recommend it to you. It is a short, wise book.

William J. Trinkle----

I read Erich Fromm's book many years ago, when I was in college in the late 60s/early 70s. It subtantially changed the way I viewed the world and to today influences what I believe and do.

I just bought a copy of the volume for my daughter who is working her way into adulthood, on the hope that it can help her the way it helped me.

I don't think there is any other work I have recommended to others more in my life and I recommend it to you. It is a short, wise book.

William J. Trinkle----

Here is a book about various kinds of love (between persons only) taking the old, but to me still valid stance of the world as the union of opposites (contemporary homosexual culture, for example, challenges it to some extent, as Fromm points out). I read it after having come separately to very similar conclusions, so for me it mainly systematized clearly a series of ideas. But given its convincing insightfulness and its accessible, although by no means simple, and highly theoretical, approach to the topic, I can imagine its impact on people who have not come close to its ideas by themselves but are in fact searching for them. It is an utterly heuristic book. Fromm has the rare faculty of going straight and quickly to the core of the problems, without many words. I found however a few oversimplifications in some details. For example, by far not all Western philosophy is based on Aristotelian logic or is Western religion just a "thought" (i.e. logical thinking) experience. I am not convinced by his survey of the religion evolution of man. Fromm dismisses the techniques of good marriage preached by modern therapists, but isn't it them we see at work in truly loving couples? He means not to use them without feelings, but I think the form (the technique) may create the content (the feelings), and not only the other way around -- or, better to say, the form and the content continuously interact. Finally, I am not sure, but I think he implies true erotic love should last forever, and I am not sure this is the case. Fromm does not discuss the both conditional and unconditional character of erotic love, which includes aspects of all other types of love, without being their sum. These are however details and do not diminish the powerful discourse of the book. A more serious shortcoming is, I think, the fact the Fromm does not discuss the very important relation between thought and action in the learning and practice of love. Isn't thought a form of action as well? He stresses the insufficiency of the "right thought" (logical conclusion), but then he speaks of the necessity of "reason" (the faculty of thinking objectively) and of theoretical knowledge (of which the book itself is a proof). How are thinking (objectively, but not simply logically) and action related to each other? I would have liked to read more about this, especially because thinking tends to be poorly appreciated when we come to the discussion of emotions or feelings. In any case, a book to love.

I think that the real progress of humanity is not in technology,
in scientific knowledge, in wealth or anything like that, but is in the always greater awareness that the only reason of life is LOVE. Maybe today many people think to know this, but they really don't know, 'cause love isn't just finding a man or woman to spend life with. And this book will help them understand what's really about it. And, hopefully, it will convince people who think life's purpose is somewhere else.
OK, knowing is not enough, as Fromm teaches, but it's the first step, and I hope we all will do it someday...

"Love," says Fromm, "is the only satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence." Poets have written that, "Love conquers all," and to "surrender to it." Urging one to surrender implies resistence to Love, but why?
Fromm asks, is Love an art, or is Love a pleasant sensation or feeling which to experience is a metter of chance, i.e. something one, "falls into," if one is lucky. Fromm asserts that Love is an art, and says that to truly Love, in all its forms, one must possess: Maturity; Self-Knowledge; and Courage.
"Object," or "faculty,": Many people pursue objects or affection, or objects to love, and correspondingly treat them as possessions. Fromm asserts that Love is the faculty or ability to Love in its different forms: brotherly love; romantic love, etc. Since Love is an art to be practiced, Fromm asserts that it can only be practiced in freedom with one another. In other words, people cannot treat others as objects or possessions to be controlled for ones own egotistical or selfish purposes. Such behavior to result in certain destruction and never to attain true Love.
"Love," vs. "falling in Love/Infatuation,": People speak of falling in Love, with new people they meet. Falling in Love is not necessarly Love, but infatuation, e.g., strangers meet, they break down social walls between one another, they feel close/as one. This new experience, infatuation, Fromm describes as "one of the most exhilarating and most exciting experiences in life. However, Fromm argues astutely, that this initial infatuation feeling slowly and naturally loses its miraculous character more and more with time, as the two people get more acquainted and learn more and more about eachother - flaws, character defects, etc. Fromm says the problem all-to-often arises when people confuse infatuation feelings (exhilaration/excitement) for proof of the intensity of their Love. As the infatuation feelings naturally subside, it results in the wish for a new conquest, a new "Love," with a new stranger. Again the stranger is transformed into an "intimate" person, again the experience of falling in love is exhilarating and intense, and again it slowly becomes less and less, and ends in another wish for a new conquest - a new "Love," always with the illusion that the new "Love," will be different from the earlier ones. Fromm says this is not Love. These illusions are greatly helped by the deceptive character of sexual desires. Sexual desire aims at fusion, says Fromm. It can be stimulated by the anxiety of aloneness, by the wish to conquer, by vanity, by the wish to hurt or even to destroy, as much as it can be stimulated by Love. Because most people associate sexual desire with the idea of Love, says Fromm, they are easily misled to conclude that they Love each other only when they want each other physically. Fromm asserts this is not unlike a drug addiction, when people constantly seek out the exhilaration/excitement of infatuation. Fromm cautions that if the desire for physical union is not stimulated by Love, if romantic/erotic Love is not also coupled with other forms of Love, that it will never lead to union in more than an orgiastic, transitory sense.
An implication of this that when this happens, i.e., when one finds new infatuation, the other one on the losing end gets scarredm then after a few times of getting burnt will begin to actively destroy or sabotage Love in the nascent stage when it occurs in the future, in an effort to avoid the past painful feelings associated with Love gone wrong or to avoid feelings of vulnerability and/or to maintain control -- in essence to not surrender to Love.
Fromm describes what he calls the essential components that need to be mastered, for all forms of Love: Care (the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love); Responsibility (to be able, willing and ready to respond to the psychic nneds of the other); Respect (concern that the other person should grow and unfold as he/she is on their own, to be aware of her unique individuality - freedom); and Knowledge(a desire to discover what makes the other "tick," an active penetration of the other person).
Fromm concludes that Love is not just a feeling, it is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. To love means to surrender and commit without guarantees. Love is an act of utter faith says Fromm.

This book was very impressive and I learned a lot about the subject of love and myself. It would be nice if every couple who are deciding to get married would read this book. If they did, perhaps they would understand going in that there is a lot more to it than 'what is in it for me.' Perhaps the sad divorce rate in our country would dissipate some extent. This book belongs on the top shelf with the other books I consider master works. I plan on reading the rest of Fromm's works.

This book was published in 1956, but it speaks to issues that should be addressed by thinking individuals in today's society. Some of it is a bit confusing, but still enlightening.

I highly recommend this timely book on the human condition.

I have reread this book more than any other that I own, partly because it's short, but mostly because Fromm is such a lucid and perceptive writer. I simply cannot recommend this book highly enough. I don't agree with all of it -- his take on homosexuality, for instance, which may or may not be attributable to the day in which it was written -- and many readers may not care for the way he frames behavioral patterns in psychoanalytic terms. That said, you can read right past those stylistic elements, because his prose is positively oozing with compassion. I don't think it's overly dramatic to say that it would take me longer to convey how excellent this little book is than it would take you to read it.

Everyone should read this book at least once. I'm going to reread it for sure, study it and practice some of its insights.
He was an educated man who wrote a book that can be read in a few hours by anyone. I hope some day this will be mandatory reading at school around the world.

The Art of Loving was the first book I ever read that I can still remember and my original copy travelled with me to the US and back. Recently, I have rediscover it among my other books in my library and can't help but pick it up to read again. It reminds me of how I discover my love and lost and retain the memories of those I lost and still love. I recommend this book to readers who are experiencing or discovering love and seeking love one.

A book everyone should look into at one point of their life or another. Definitely a mature and practical, as well as theoretical and historical, view on love. It is not a how-to book. It is dedicated to love as a life maturing process. There are some books I just read, and then there are some books I read and grow from. This is definitely one of those books.

The most beautiful non-poetic description of love. Love, according to Fromm, is the conscious act of connecting with others in kind and compassionate fashion. In doing so, we overcome the primary fear we feel as humans, which is to feel alone. If more people understood that trule love is not about being loved, but about loving, this world would be a better place.

The reading of this book would be disappointing experience for anyone who expects easy in the art of loving. This book on th eocntrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment in wich can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturiy reached by him.

One of my preferred books all the time... easy to read, fun, enlightening, addictive.
A few ideas are outdated (a bit homophobic for my taste) but besides that it's a perfect book for those who looks for spiritual growth.

Very interesting philosophical as well as psychological look at all types of love. Just when I thought I disagreed with something, the next page would change my mind. The language and context is sometimes a little dated but it is easy to see how some of his ideas have proven to be true in later decades.

This book literally invaded the stage of the intelectual world in the sixties .

Fromm reflections about the nature of love are deep and wise . The ideas about the mature love are shown with meticulous mood through every chapter .

A must for you to read it.

trying to pitch this book to the people that need it most (if that's possible) is about as hard as trying to prove/disprove the presence of a higher being to somebody. they already know everything there is to know about this thing called love (in the western world at least) and they simply don't want to hear anything else about it. truth is just a tough currency to deal in i suppose.

There is not as much an analysis of loving relationships as I would have expected. Rather, it is a scathing critique of contemporary consumerism, religion and society; Written in 1956, but even more true today. On an abstract level, it is also a guide to living a fulfilling life.

As a young girl I read this book because I was searching for answers to life's oldest questions concerning true love. Now 35 years later, while searching for a book to give to my niece who is searching for the same answers to the same questions, I rediscover this incredible book. However, most amazing is the fact I now realize it probably shaped my ideas about life and love and without a doubt is responsible for the choices I made along life's journey in my marriage. I highly recommend this book be read by all young people in this generation and those to come. Thank you Eric Fromm....may God bles.

This book has enlightened all the corners of my humanness. It's not only a book to be read by lovers but by anybody who wants to know, understand and respect himself/ herself deeply and amourously. It is actually a book that every creature of the modern world should read to be a better person to oneself and consequently to others. Revealing, deep, enlightening, inspiring ... This is not a self-help book of recipes for life, this is a travel to the heart of humanity and a fire to illuminate life. I understand the world better.

Horrible book. I threw it out. I destroyed it before I threw it out, so that no one else might see it and read it. I couldn't even stomach thirty pages. It was so misogynistic. It dismissed the LGBT community. I understand that it is over fifty years old, but it was horrible. It reminds me off all this schlock that purports, you can find love if you are this type of person and do these sorts of things and act this sort of way. Ridiculous! Most psychology and new age mumbo jumbo is just as classist, myopic and as condescending as a fourteenth century pope and Erich Fromm proves it.
I am just glad I bought it used and it was cheap.

After reading several books by Fromm, and being his admirer (I find his insight into both the society and individual very clear and unburdened by personal agenda), I was dissapointed by The Art of Loving.
While providing some very valuable glimpses into the possibility of unselfish personal love, the author falls into the proscribed conditioning of his era (not very different from ours) that would turn off many that are looking for a non-judgmental and objective analysis.
From hard-nosed blanket statements (animals cannot experience love, the fantasy of "prehuman harmony" we have all somehow lost by the nature of being human, "homosexual deviation is a failure") to the uneasy mixture of the late 19th century mechanical Western Universe with only partially understood spirituality of Eastern philosophies, this is a study of Fromm's personal chip-on-the-shoulder more than a work about Love.
Recommended to a reader interested in Fromm as a person, not author, or one studying the society of the time. (I had great fun filling the margins of the pages with comments...)

Love- such an enigma- but Fromm helps us to discover what love might be in different types of relationships and, in the process, elucidates what healthy boundaries might be in our relationships. He also has interesting ideas on the effects of our consumer society on our ability to truely love.

This is the better book I have ever read. THere is a part, that I would never forget, and Fromm writes something like that: Our deepest fear is not , not to be loved,Is to love, because TO love is get a commimet with the hope to produce love in the loved person. I am so sorry because of my bad english, but, If you feel lonely and sad, please read this book.

I first read this book in the late 60's or early 70's having no idea how much it would influence me over the years. I recommend it highly to those who wish to understand themselves and those with whom they love and live. This book has the power to truly change your life!

Very interesting book. Nothing really new, but a lot of obvious stuff we normally don't think about. Will make you think twice about your current relationship, and whether it is worth being in one at all!

If you have some spare time and would like to know a side opinion about love - READ IT!

Great for the student psychologist, the practicing psychologist, retired psychologist and the lay reader!
*****5 Star Book.
I used this book in undergrad, grad school and now it lies on my desk at my private practice. Wonderful companion book. Also, read more of Fromm's books...they are all very insightful!
Corrie, Gainesville, Florida

Here is a book that talks about thoery, dinsintergration, and practice of love, but really says nothing. He uses vauge phrases like "the union of conformity...is insufficient to pacify the anxiety of seperateness" Does't help a person have a better relationship. Only creates mythical boxes for love such as "God Love, Brotherly Love, Self Love, and Motherly Love" which he describes in equally abstract language. Would recommend this book only for college students who need to write a report on love, but not for anyone with an interest in enriching their life.

THE ART OF LOVING purports to be a manual for the heart. Reading this book evokes within me feelings of irritation & frustration rather than love. Much of the irritation comes from his incapacity for logical thinking and consistency. Perhaps he disdains logic, but this is probably a symptom of my inability to empathize with his logical blindness.

It may be true that a loving person will sacrifice truth & logic at a moment's notice for the sake of love. if this is the case, Fromm is a very loving person. Fromm comes across as someone at a typewriter free-associating every possible statement he can make about love -- and many of the things he says are true.

For example, he says that romantic love is unlike parental or brotherly love in that it is exclusive and the other two are not. Yet, a parent has an exclusivity in the love for his/her child that is different from the love that is held for other children.

Brotherly love also has a level of exclusivity.

Fromm implies that exclusivity makes romantic love a less desirable form of love -- contradicting the more positive use of romantic love in the second premise and in the conclusion.

It's untrue to claim that the exclusivity of romantic love diminishes the love those lovers give to selected others. A happy lover usually feels more loving toward others in general because of that happiness.

Anyway, if you're reading this for any type of logical or step by step comprehension of love, this probably is not the book for you. If you're reading it as the "art" of being a loving individual, you may want to be prepared by having an appreciation for non objective abstract art.

Billy D Squires

BillyDSquires

Very thought provoking. Fromm uses visual imagery to guide the reader on a journey of self discovery. Thoughtful use of historical periods and analagies help the reader understand the ideas and concepts he presents.

this book explores love and what it means. Love is not defined here, and it is merely described. That's nice, but is narrowly defined as loving everyone and as part of a "loving personality." For some reason, it's not okay to love say, your girlfriend or your child or your mother more than anyone else... according to him, we must love everyone. Love is not a personality type just as much as excitement is not a personality type. Love is sometimes exclusive... isn't that why there is jealousy? It is a good read and a good text, and offers insight into human nature.

I am not able to say that Erich Fromm's book The Art of Loving really is about the art of loving. The only important message I was able to digest is that loving is something you do, not something which happens to you. I do not follow how this book could be labeled as practical when it does not really contain any program at all, rather, it contains a lot of unwarranted criticism of modern society.

The book contains many easy to disprove statements. Also, Fromm does not bother to explain how he came to his conclusions - it's like a mathematical textbook that contains theorems and claims without any proofs or defitions. In other words, there are not many lines of reasoning to be found. All in all, I am disappointed with the quality of Fromm's thinking.

I was really disappointed with this book, especially since it was so highly recommended by friends and in general. I guess perhaps when it was written the ideas Fromm expressed were new, or at least the way he expressed them were new, but I can't believe that any minimally self-aware person hasn't thought about at least 80 to 90 percent of these ideas themselves. Fromm seems to be the typical over-educated, intellectual psychologist/philosopher, who takes a simple idea (if you don't know and love and understand yourself and the world around you, you can't love another person) and over-analyzes it, giving historical and biblical examples. Just another 90-odd pages of psychobabble.