In “The Practice of Love,” Erich Fromm argues that the same rules which apply to the practice of any art, apply to the art of loving. According to Fromm, these rules are discipline, concentration, patience, and a “supreme concern” with mastering the art in question. ‘Discipline’ refers to not being lazy about one’s practice, i.e. being consistent about it and not doing it only when the mood strikes. ‘Concentration’ refers to a type of focus and stillness that entails being present in the given moment, with an attunement both to oneself and to others. ‘Patience’ refers to a recognition that instant gratification is not the only ideal, and that faster does not necessarily equal better. Finally, ‘supreme concern’ refers to devoting one’s whole life to the art in question, i.e. fully dedicating oneself to its mastery.
Fromm writes that “to be concentrated in relation to others means primarily to be able to listen” (p. 105). This is …show more content…
However, i am not entirely clear on the terminology Fromm is using, both in regard to ‘humility’ and to ‘objectivity.’ As i understand it, Fromm’s conception of objectivity is more like trying to see the world without a particular/specific point of view. Is this correct—it’s not ‘stepping into someone else’s shoes,’ but rather putting on an ‘ideal form’ of Shoes? Is humility, then, stepping into a specific ‘someone else’s’ shoes? Fromm’s definition of humility entails being able to recognise that “I” am not the centre of the universe; wouldn’t that make humility, rather than objectivity, the opposite of narcissism? i suppose it doesn’t really matter, because either way, the practice of seeing outside of yourself is conducive to better social relations (and/yet still, i want to understand the language
Fromm writes that “to be concentrated in relation to others means primarily to be able to listen” (p. 105). This is …show more content…
However, i am not entirely clear on the terminology Fromm is using, both in regard to ‘humility’ and to ‘objectivity.’ As i understand it, Fromm’s conception of objectivity is more like trying to see the world without a particular/specific point of view. Is this correct—it’s not ‘stepping into someone else’s shoes,’ but rather putting on an ‘ideal form’ of Shoes? Is humility, then, stepping into a specific ‘someone else’s’ shoes? Fromm’s definition of humility entails being able to recognise that “I” am not the centre of the universe; wouldn’t that make humility, rather than objectivity, the opposite of narcissism? i suppose it doesn’t really matter, because either way, the practice of seeing outside of yourself is conducive to better social relations (and/yet still, i want to understand the language