Kay asked:

I'm having some trouble after reading Nozick's Love's Bond. Is Nozick really claiming that love cannot
be for characteristics because such a love would be conditional and make the beloved replaceable? If
so, I don't follow his argument because isn't love conditional, and don't people "trade up" all the time?

============

Is it really true that all people "trade up" all the time? If it were, then perhaps Nozick's conclusion
would be that this is a loveless world. He intelligibly contrasts love for a personwith love for, say,
blonde hair. You want to say that love for qualities is just love, and as much love as there is. One
might be tempted to ask questions about your experiments and sampling here, but nearer to the
point, what you are engaged in here is 'persuasive definition'. That is, you have this word 'love', are
wondering what to do with it, and you make your proposal. Nozick is doing the same. You then claim
that a problem with Nozick's proposal is that his definition of 'love' can apply to no relationship. What
I'd say to that, on N's behalf, is: how on earth would you know that? I suspect you have a complete
rival theory of human nature here, rather than a specific empirical objection to Nozick.

David Robjant

47