{"title":"Grief, Continuing Bonds, and Unreciprocated Love\n 1","authors":"Becky Millar, Pilar Lopez-Cantero","doi":"10.1111/sjp.12462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"a Bstract : The widely accepted “continuing bonds” model of grief tells us that rather than bereavement necessitating the cessation of one’s relationship with the deceased, very often the relationship continues instead in an adapted form. However, this frame- work appears to conflict with philosophical approaches that treat reciprocity or mutuality of some form as central to loving relationships. Seemingly the dead cannot be active participants, rendering it puzzling how we should understand claims about continued relationships with them. In this article, we resolve this tension by highlighting two fundamental aspects of paradigmatic loving relationships that can, and often do, continue in an adapted form following bereavement: love and mutual shaping of interests, choices, and self- concepts. Attention to these continuing features of relationships helps to capture and clarify the phenomenological and behavioral features of continuing bonds. However, love and mutual shaping must also change in important ways following bereavement. Love becomes unreciprocated, and although the dead continue to shape our interests, choices, and self- concepts, we predominantly shape their legacies mind science an emphasis on perception, emotion, and interpersonal and memories in return. These changes place important constraints upon the nature of our interpersonal connections with the dead.","PeriodicalId":46350,"journal":{"name":"SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12462","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
a Bstract : The widely accepted “continuing bonds” model of grief tells us that rather than bereavement necessitating the cessation of one’s relationship with the deceased, very often the relationship continues instead in an adapted form. However, this frame- work appears to conflict with philosophical approaches that treat reciprocity or mutuality of some form as central to loving relationships. Seemingly the dead cannot be active participants, rendering it puzzling how we should understand claims about continued relationships with them. In this article, we resolve this tension by highlighting two fundamental aspects of paradigmatic loving relationships that can, and often do, continue in an adapted form following bereavement: love and mutual shaping of interests, choices, and self- concepts. Attention to these continuing features of relationships helps to capture and clarify the phenomenological and behavioral features of continuing bonds. However, love and mutual shaping must also change in important ways following bereavement. Love becomes unreciprocated, and although the dead continue to shape our interests, choices, and self- concepts, we predominantly shape their legacies mind science an emphasis on perception, emotion, and interpersonal and memories in return. These changes place important constraints upon the nature of our interpersonal connections with the dead.
B stract:广泛接受的悲伤的“持续联系”模式告诉我们,与其说丧亲之痛需要停止与死者的关系,不如说这种关系往往以一种适应的形式继续。然而,这种框架似乎与哲学方法相冲突,哲学方法将某种形式的互惠或相互性视为爱关系的核心。死者似乎不可能是积极的参与者,这让我们很困惑我们应该如何理解与他们持续关系的说法。在这篇文章中,我们通过强调典型爱情关系的两个基本方面来解决这种紧张关系,这两个方面可以而且经常在丧亲之痛后以一种适应的形式继续存在:爱情和利益、选择和自我概念的相互塑造。关注这些关系的持续特征有助于捕捉和阐明持续纽带的现象学和行为特征。然而,在丧亲之痛之后,爱和相互塑造也必须在重要方面发生变化。爱变得无法得到回报,尽管死者继续塑造我们的兴趣、选择和自我概念,但我们主要塑造他们的遗产——心学——强调感知、情感、人际关系和记忆作为回报。这些变化对我们与死者的人际关系的性质产生了重要的制约。
期刊介绍:
The Southern Journal of Philosophy has long provided a forum for the expression of philosophical ideas and welcome articles written from all philosophical perspectives, including both the analytic and continental traditions, as well as the history of philosophy. This commitment to philosophical pluralism is reflected in the long list of notable figures whose work has appeared in the journal, including Hans-Georg Gadamer, Hubert Dreyfus, George Santayana, Wilfrid Sellars, and Richard Sorabji.