Certainty vs. Assurance

Is it more important be know one exist, or to have one affirm you exist? The difference between the question exercises two different parts of the person. To know with certainty one exists engages an exercise of the mind, but to be assured of one's existence requires a body (Marion cites this as "flesh" in The Erotic Phenomenon from where the philosophical ideas originate.) Each exercise is important at different times in one's life, and times of joy, boredom, or fear will question our existence and why we're here at all. At these times, Descartes and Heidegger become useful case studies because they ask the essential questions of being. But this is not always a sufficient answer for existence questions. Because there are times that we ask something greater than whether we simply exist as a "thinking thing" (Descartes, Meditations). This meditation creates an isolated existence because it finds the existence of a self outside the self, or hidden inside the body in a surreal mind, which even at the end of the Meditations, it's extremely unclear what the mind looks like, though the essence of thinking is clear.

But sometimes human persons need more than this certainty. Sometimes we all need to have others affirm our existence as a good, as being loved by others. Without this affirmation (Marion cites this as "assurance"), life becomes lonely. The next question one must ask is whether certainty of existence is enough. Is it enough to live life alone, but be certain of one's existence? Common experience would tell us this answer is no. A life alone means that one is not assured in the good of their existence, and thus is not really loved. People who don't have love in their lives start losing themselves, others, and their mental certainty of their existence.

So the next step, is asking how to promote love in their lives? How can people find a love which satisfies them and also deal with the risk of not receiving love in return? This is Marion's best point so far in his work "The Erotic Phenomenon". He moves between two stages of love which are commonly seen in society. The first he labels "reciprocity" meaning a love which seeks exchange, doing things and interacting with the other but not stepping out of one's way unless it's either convenient at that moment, or there is an expected return in some way. This is a common way of relating with people, we see it in businesses, acquaintances, and many sectors of life. People are objects in this stage because people are useful but not really lovable. The second stage of love is the one which requires more risk, because this is the stage where one steps out, even if there is no person to love. A person in this stage becomes the lover, and starts to act in a manner which does not care about reciprocal action. The lover slowly finds a beloved and the beloved becomes a person (namely, the person becomes real, the person is always a person with certainty but the person does not seem a real person because in the first stage of love people are focused on what they can get out of the other person, and don't see the person behind when they are doing so.)

With a paraphrase of Marion's work (this is all Marion's idea if this post hasn't made it clear already), now let's apply this a bit. What do we phenomenologically see in being in response to this philosophy presented above? And also, what do we do in response?

The first thing which is noticeable is that there are so many friendships that never get out of the first stage of love. Culture and society does a lot to encourage this first stage of love, because there are bar scenes, dance clubs, movie theaters, sports games, etc. where people can meet each other in a social setting. In a large group setting, it's hard to get to know a real person, all one can see is maybe, "I have fun with this person, this person does x and y and z, which is fun." But do we know the other real person besides I have fun with this person? At this stage, one cannot say that; however, most people do not move out of this stage, even in their most intimate relationships, and we see this based on what happens when people are a little different.

When there are those people who do not like the massive social setting, and begin to ask people about themselves and what they think about life, it ruffles feathers. Most people do not want to engage the deeper questions of life because it can cause anxiety and challenge people's beliefs. But real love grows from intimate conversation, because that is where a real person becomes apparent. Until there is real conversation, then love cannot form at least in the sense of having a deep, personal love. Hanging out in a social setting is easy for many people, and it creates a social atmosphere where a lot of people can have fun in a short amount of time, but these times do not last, when the burdens of life come and one needs someone who is really there for them, the friends you have fun with at massive parties tend not to be the ones to whom you go if there are difficulties. (Unless you've gone outside the massive social group setting.)

However, the difficulty in this thinking comes with how society seems. Many people do not see not having this deeper love as a problem. Many people don't see the difficulty in not having real people in their lives. This causes difficulties for people who want that deeper love because they have to navigate a market of people in order to find the kind of deep friendship they want, whom many just want for the sake of their talents and not their person. In doing this, there is a serious risk of emotional damage for people who are sensitive to being treated as something different than a person. So what's the joy of risking oneself in love when there are so many emotional hazards and an overall culture who does not want love. Eventually, when one finds that love, they find a treasure they can cherish, especially when one finds the stability of a real love. To get there though, one has to take the risk and become "a lover" (Marion). Without this risk from any individual person, our world (I'm including Church and secular society, this is a problem in both) does not find that real love, and the best example of that real love is the witness of Christ.