sartre also said that all emotions have finality, or purpose. thus we choose our emotions on purpose and have a purpose to choosing them.
how do we define our emotions? are they really emotions we feel or the perception of emotions as defined to us by others and our past?
how much does our ability to perceive and *feel* emotions affect the way we see the world day to day? sartre used the example of the fox and the grapes from aesop's tales. when the fox couldn't reach the grapes, instead of considering himself a failure, he began to believe that the grapes were sour anyway. in this way, our emotions fill in as ways for us to avoid, and make excuses for, reality - our transformation, and our escape, of the world.
falling in love, in sartre's skepticism, makes us foolish and irresponsible. we choose love as an excuse to act irresponsibly. love also makes difficulties in life disappear while we are behind our giddy emotion of love. he said love is an engagement in an impossible project in which those who feel incomplete use another to feel complete - to be loved. it is a futile process.
one of the places i wanted to visit most in paris was cafe du flore, where sarte and de beauvoir spent hours sharing philosophies, writings and..... what sartre called "an essential love". their "love" was existential where jealousy was an "enemy of freedom", marriage was never considered and affairs (including some long term threesomes that usually left the third an emotional mess) were not only shared but encouraged.
can there be a greater love if, unlike the two, honesty permeates and it is held in its truest form?
in theory it is ideal, but ideally is it only theoretical?
i know there is no cohesiveness to my rambling because i am doing exactly that..... just thinking and typing :)