La postura de Malebranche ante el amor puro

Abstract

El presente estudio analiza la postura de Malebranche en la polémica del desinterés del amor, protagonizada por Bossuet y Fénelon en el s. XVII. En su «Tratado del Amor a Dios» Malebranche salió al paso de la interpretación que Lamy hizo de su doctrina a favor del amor puro. Desde el motivo que lo anima todo amor debe considerarse interesado, lo que no excluye su desinterés en razón de su finalidad: la plena identificación con la voluntad divina. Malebranche justifica así su noción de desinterés, pero -sobre todo- ofrece una fundamentación definitiva a su doctrina sobre la voluntad integrando sus dos definiciones: como deseo de felicidad y como amor al Orden. Desde sus presupuestos metafísicos Malebranche justifica su noción de desinterés, al tiempo que salva la derivación hedonista de su doctrina; sin embargo, para quien no los comparta, la insuficiencia de su teoría causal y de su antropología arruinan la validez de su empeño. Al margen de esto, sus reflexiones sobre los distintos momentos existenciales del hombre abren paso a una peculiar postura en la cuestión de las relaciones entre libertad y gracia

Malebranche was aware of the polemic between Bossuet and Fénelon about loving God unselfishly, but he did not express his opinion on it until Lamy used his works to support Fénelon’s ideas about pure love. In his «Treatise on the love of God,» he voiced his opinion, resorting to his own definition of will –as a desire for happiness– to justify the impossibility of loving God completely selflessly. He argues that love, because it is moved by the desire for happiness impressed in the human spirit, is always a selfish love. However, it can become selfless love when one’s aim is identification with God’s will. His opinion, based on the distinction between motive and aim in his interpretation of pleasure and in causal theory, justifies an analysis of his doctrine on will, revealing the harmony between his notions of will and the possibility that the desire for happiness may lead us to God’s love. According to Malebranche, the union between his notions of will would be possible if order was established as a formal motive for the obtention of happiness. Malebranche and Fénelon understand unselfishness differently. For Malebranche, it means the subordination of the desire for happiness to the love of order. Moreover, Malebranche’s writings show his reflections on the different situations in a human being’s life, and the relationship between freedom and grace.