IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp695.html

The Logic of Love

Author

Listed:
  • Aviv Keren

Abstract

This philosophical work lays the groundwork for a game-theoretic account of (romantic) love, substantiating the folk-psychological conception of love as 'a unification of souls'. It does so by setting up an appropriate universal framework of cognitive agency, that accommodates such unifications and motivates them. This framework applies the genes eye view of evolution to the evolution of cognition, integrating it with a distributed, dynamic theory of selfhood and the game-theoretic principles of agent-unification that govern these dynamics. The application of this framework to particular biological settings produces love as a theoretical evolutionary prediction (unveiling its rationality). Through this, the connection of the strategic normativity to love's real-life behavioral and phenomenological expressions is systematically explored.

Suggested Citation

  • Aviv Keren, 2016. "The Logic of Love," Discussion Paper Series dp695, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp695.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Bacharach, 2006. "The Hi-Lo Paradox, from Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory," Introductory Chapters, in: Natalie Gold & Robert Sugden (ed.),Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, Princeton University Press.
    2. Unknown, 1992. "Newsletter Fall 1992," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt9b58d3pn, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    3. Francesconi, Marco & Ghiglino, Christian & Perry, Motty, 2009. "On the Origin of the Family," IZA Discussion Papers 4637, IZA Network @ LISER.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maya Bar-Hillel & Cass R. Sunstein, 2019. "Baffling bathrooms: On navigability and choice architecture," Discussion Paper Series dp726, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Radzvilas, Mantas, 2016. "Hypothetical Bargaining and the Equilibrium Selection Problem in Non-Cooperative Games," MPRA Paper 70248, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    3. Dirk Bethmann, 2011. "Marriage Regimes," FEMM Working Papers 110029, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    4. Wynn C. Stirling & Teppo Felin, 2016. "Satisficing, preferences, and social interaction: a new perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 279-308, August.
    5. Marek Hudik, 0. "Equilibrium as compatibility of plans," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    6. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Does collective meditation foster trust and trustworthiness in an investment game?," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 63(4), pages 379-392, December.
    7. Gueye, Mamadou & Quérou, Nicolas & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2020. "Social preferences and coordination: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 26-54.
    8. Elsenbroich, Corinna & Payette, Nicolas, 2020. "Choosing to cooperate: Modelling public goods games with team reasoning," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    9. Ermanno C. Tortia, 2024. "Dividend-Based Labor Remuneration and Tradable Shares in Worker Cooperatives," Risks, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Alessandro Sontuoso & Sudeep Bhatia, 2021. "A notion of prominence for games with natural‐language labels," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 283-312, January.
    11. Guilhem Lecouteux & Ivan Mitrouchev, 2022. "Preference Purification in Behavioural Welfare Economics: an Impossibility Result," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-31, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    12. Marek Hudik, 2020. "Equilibrium as compatibility of plans," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 349-368, October.
    13. Dekel, Sagi & Fischer, Sven & Zultan, Ro’i, 2017. "Potential Pareto Public Goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 87-96.
    14. Stefan Penczynski & Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2020. "Compound games, focal points, and the framing of collective and individual interests," Working Papers 305138214, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    15. Giovanni Di Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2019. "The Effects of Physical Activity on Social Interactions: The Case of Trust and Trustworthiness," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(1), pages 50-71, January.
    16. Brishti Guha, 2012. "Gambling on Genes: Ambiguity Aversion Explains Investment in Sisters’ Children," Working Papers 33-2012, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    17. Zhixin Dai & Jiwei Zheng & Daniel John Zizzo, 2019. "Theories Of Reasoning and Focal Point Play With A Non-Student Sample," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-05, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Marek Hudík, 2015. "A preference change or a perception change? A comment on Dietrich and List," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(2), pages 425-431, May.
    19. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    20. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2017. "Mindreading and endogenous beliefs in games," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 318-343, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp695. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.