HomeGroupsTalkMoreZeitgeist
Search Site
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Loading...

Los Limites Del Amor/ the Limits of Love (Spanish Edition)

by Walter Riso

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingConversations
1511,361,238 (2.33)None
To love is one of the most significant experiences of a human being. In the case of relationships between a couple, the complete giving of oneself, irrevocable and unconditionally, to the other, is seen as a marvelous and desirable ideal. But, who says that love justifies everything? Where did we come up with the absurd notion that to love implies renouncing oneself, annulling or sacrificing ourselves to the point of ignoring our interests and our fundamental needs? The renowned therapist Walter Riso teaches that the criticism of these harmful loves is that they support dependent relationships and attempts against the individual, personal dignity and self-esteem. The idea that someone would want to stay in a relationship that can be a source of violence, frustrations and humiliation, constitutes a distortion of the true meaning of love.… (more)
None
Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

ENGLISH: The book is framed in humanist philosophy, making a clear attack on Christian love. The love of the Gospel and the one described in this book are not the same thing. I'd say that Dr. Walter Riso speaks of relationships of convenience rather than love. The plot line of the book is opposite to what other great non-believing thinkers have expressed about love. We have the examples of Erich Fromm or Ghandi, who validated and accepted Christian love.

According to Riso, "love" is based on exchange and reciprocity. You have to make a balance between what is given and what is received to see if it is worth it. That is, a capitalist version of love, which is reduced to marketing. This exchange would be the engine of all emotional relationships. For believers it is the other way around: this exchange is the consequence of love.

For Riso, the sacrifice is overrated. It's only worth it as long as you don't give up on your "me." Catholics know that this is not so: "Christ renounced himself for love." It does not ask us impossible but it marks the right path, without limits. This is the difference: Christian love encourages you to strive, to overcome yourself. While Riso cuts off the wings of the only existential experience that is worthwhile. Isn't it sad and hopeless?

It contradicts my life experience: the best I have been able to achieve in this life has been with effort and sacrifice. And above all, true happiness is achieved when you serve others without expecting anything in return. If you only give someone who treats you well, you don't change the world. The real revolution is "love even your enemies". Only then you break the loop and the universe improves. Love is the only way to happiness, so it seems dangerous to distort it as the author does. With these types of limits, we will miss the best of the human experience.

It is as if you want to stimulate your child in the studio and say: "Strive, but only until you want to play your favorite video game, do not give up your fun. Sacrifice for the ideal of studying a career is overrated. The benefit we can getting with your university career is secondary. " Isn't it sad and hopeless?

On the other hand, the message of the book is nothing new or original. The proclamation of "not giving up on oneself" is clearly expressed in the Gospel at Mt 22, 34-40, where Christ says: "You will love your neighbor as yourself," that is, everything begins with oneself. The limits of love posed by the author are the equivalent of what Christians call "our cross." If you hurry, what the author describes in this book, would be the psychological mechanisms of this concept. Courtship is another concept that we Christians have to - precisely - rationalize the affective relationship.

I find it curious that in several parts of the book, the author collects Christian thoughts by linking them to non-believers. For example when he talks about "Loving others as oneself". Instead of quoting Christ, quote Unamuno! Or when he speaks of the absence of fear in love, citing a Buddhist leader, when the Bible makes it clear in 1 Jn 4:18. Or the "you reap what you reap," which St. Paul already made clear in Galatians 6, 7. Typically Christian concepts put into the mouth of unbelievers.

He describes as fanatics those who follow traditional love, as if they were stupid. Drawing such an adversary, it is very easy to fight. I don't think that neither are so extreme. Every person and relationship is a world. Suffice it to say that the societies that have implemented the model of Christian love have proved to be the most free and prosperous.

For the rest, it is a good book to get into couple psychology. You will learn the language and basic patterns of an emotional relationship. Several interesting cases are cited with clear and enjoyable language. The author's isolated quotes are practical and attractive. In my opinion, it would be a better book with a positive plot line. But it's up to you to decide on which side of the scale you are.

More opinion on this entry in my blog.


ESPAÑOL: El libro se enmarca en la filosofía humanista, haciendo un claro ataque al amor cristiano. El amor del Evangelio y el que se describe en este libro, no son la misma cosa. Diría que el Doctor Walter Riso habla de relaciones de conveniencia más que de amor. La línea argumental del libro es opuesta a lo que otros grandes pensadores no creyentes, han expresado sobre el amor. Tenemos los ejemplos de Erich Fromm o Ghandi, que validaron y aceptaron el amor Evangélico.

Según Riso, el "amor" se basa en intercambio y reciprocidad. Hay que hacer un balance entre lo que se da y lo que se recibe para ver si merece la pena. Es decir, una versión capitalista del amor, que se reduce a un mercadeo. Este intercambio sería el motor de toda relación afectiva. Para los creyentes es al revés: este intercambio es la consecuencia del amor.

Para Riso, el sacrificio está sobrevalorado. Sólo merece la pena en la medida de que no renuncies a tu "yo". Los católicos sabemos que esto no es así: "Cristo renunció a sí mismo por amor". No nos pide imposibles pero nos marca el camino correcto, sin límites. Esta es la diferencia: el amor cristiano te anima a que te esfuerces, a superarte. Mientras que Riso te corta las alas de la única experiencia existencial que merece la pena. ¿No es triste y desesperanzador?

Contradice mi experiencia vital: lo mejor que he podido conseguir en esta vida ha sido con esfuerzo y sacrificio. Y sobretodo, la felicidad verdadera se consigue cuando sirves a los demás sin esperar nada a cambio. Si solamente das a quien te trata bien, no cambias el mundo. La verdadera revolución es "amar hasta a tus enemigos". Sólo así rompes el bucle y el universo mejora. El amor es el único camino hacia la felicidad, por eso me parece peligroso desvirtuarlo como hace el autor. Con este tipo de límites, nos perderemos lo mejor de la experiencia humana.

Es como si quisieras estimular a tu hijo en el estudio y le dijeras: "esfuérzate, pero sólo hasta que quieras jugar a tu videojuego favorito, no renuncies a tu diversión. Sacrificarse por el ideal de estudiar una carrera está sobrevalorado. El beneficio que podamos conseguir con tu carrera universitaria es secundario". ¿No es triste y desesperanzador?

Por otro lado, el mensaje del libro no es nada novedoso ni original. La proclama de "no renunciar a uno mismo" está claramente expresada en el Evangelio en Mt 22, 34-40, donde Cristo dice: "amarás al prójimo como a ti mismo", es decir, todo empieza por uno mismo. Los límites del amor que plantea el autor, son el equivalente de lo que los cristianos llamamos "nuestra cruz". Si se apura, lo que describe el autor en este libro, serían los mecanismos psicológicos de este concepto. El noviazgo es otro concepto que tenemos los cristianos para - precísamente - racionalizar la relación afectiva.

Me parece curioso que en varias partes del libro, el autor recoge pensamientos cristianos vinculándolos a no creyentes. Por ejemplo cuando habla de "Amar al prójimo como a uno mismo". En lugar de citar a Cristo, cita a ¡Unamuno! O cuando habla de la ausencia de miedo en el amor, citando a un líder budista, cuando la Biblia deja esto meridianamente claro en 1 Jn 4:18. O el "recoges lo que cosechas", que ya lo dejó claro San Pablo en Gálatas 6, 7. Conceptos típicamente cristianos puestos en boca de no creyentes.

Pinta como fanáticos a los que siguen el amor tradicional, como si fueran estúpidos. Dibujando un adversario así, es muy fácil pelear. No creo que ni unos ni otros sean tan extremistas. Cada persona y relación es un mundo. Baste decir que las sociedades que han implementado el modelo de amor cristiano, han resultado ser las más libres y prósperas.

Por lo demás, es un buen libro para adentrarse en la psicología de pareja. Aprenderás el lenguaje y patrones básicos de una relación afectiva. Se citan varios casos interesantes con un lenguaje claro y ameno. Las citas aisladas del autor resultan prácticas y atrayentes. En mi opinión, sería un mejor libro con una línea argumental en positivo. Pero eres tú quien decide en qué lado de la balanza te sitúas.

Más opinión en esta entrada de mi blog.
( )
  jesuserro | Jan 9, 2020 |
no reviews | add a review
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
People/Characters
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Epigraph
Dedication
First words
Quotations
Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Blurbers
Original language
Canonical DDC/MDS
Canonical LCC

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English

None

To love is one of the most significant experiences of a human being. In the case of relationships between a couple, the complete giving of oneself, irrevocable and unconditionally, to the other, is seen as a marvelous and desirable ideal. But, who says that love justifies everything? Where did we come up with the absurd notion that to love implies renouncing oneself, annulling or sacrificing ourselves to the point of ignoring our interests and our fundamental needs? The renowned therapist Walter Riso teaches that the criticism of these harmful loves is that they support dependent relationships and attempts against the individual, personal dignity and self-esteem. The idea that someone would want to stay in a relationship that can be a source of violence, frustrations and humiliation, constitutes a distortion of the true meaning of love.

No library descriptions found.

Book description
Haiku summary

Current Discussions

None

Popular covers

Quick Links

Rating

Average: (2.33)
0.5
1
1.5
2 2
2.5
3 1
3.5
4
4.5
5

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 203,243,067 books! | Top bar: Always visible