The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm Read Online (FREE)
 Cf. a more detailed study of sadism and masochism in E. Fromm, Escape from Freedom, Rinehart & Company, New York, 1941.
 Cf. a detailed discussion of these character orientations in E. Fromm, Man for Himself, Rinehart & Company, New York, 1947, Chap. III, pp. 54-117.
 Compare the definition of joy given by Spinoza.
 “Nationalökonomie and Philosophie,” 1844, published in Karl Marx” Die Frühschriften, Alfred Kröner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1953, pp. 300, 301. (My translation. E. F.)
 I. Babel, The Collected Stories, Criterion Book, New York, 1955.
 The above statement has an important implication for the role of psychology in contemporary Western culture. While the great popularity of psychology certainly indicates an interest in the knowledge of man, it also betrays the fundamental lack of love in human relations today. Psychological knowledge thus becomes a substitute for full knowledge in the act of love, instead of being a step toward it.
 R. A. Nicholson, Rumi, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London, 1950, pp. 122-3.
 Freud himself made a first step in this direction in his later concept of the life and death instincts. His concept of the former (eros) as a principle of synthesis and unification is on an entirely different plane from that of his libido concept. But in spite of the fact that the theory of life and death instincts was accepted by orthodox analysts, this acceptance did not lead to a fundamental revision of the libido concept, especially as far as clinical work is concerned.
 Cf. Sullivan’s description of this development in The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1953.
 Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1952, p. 117.
 The same idea has been expressed by Hermann Cohen in his Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums, 2nd edition, J. Kaufmann Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1929, p. 168 ff.
 Paul Tillich, in a review of The Sane Society, in Pastoral Psychology, September, 1955, has suggested that it would be better to drop the ambiguous term “self-love” and to replace it with “natural self-affirmation” or “paradoxical self-acceptance.” Much as I can see the merits of this suggestion, I cannot agree with him in this point. In the term “self-love” the paradoxical element in self-love is contained more clearly. The fact is expressed that love is an attitude which is the same toward all objects, including myself. It must also not be forgotten that the term “self-love,” in the sense in which it is used here, has a history. The Bible speaks of self-love when it commands to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and Meister Eckhart speaks of self-love in the very same sense.
 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by J. Albau, Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, Philadelphia, 1928, Chap. 7, par. 4, p. 622.
 Meister Eckhart, translated by R. B. Blakney, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1941, p. 204.
 This holds true especially for the monotheistic religions of the West. In Indian religions the mother figures retained a good deal of influence, for instance in the Goddess Kali; in Buddhism and Taoism the concept of a God—or a Goddess—was without essential significance, if not altogether eliminated.