love and liberalism

1. If I may be allowed to return for a moment to Chloe's shows, I should mention that the revelation of their purchase did not end with my negative yet privately formulated analysis. I confess that it ended in the second greatest argument of our relationship, in tears, insults, shooting and the right shoe crashing through a pane of glass on the pavement of Denbigh Street. The sheer melodramatic intensity of the event aside, the matter sustains philosophical interest because it symbolizes a choice as radical in the personal sphere as in the political: the choice between love and liberalism.

16. A few days after the shoe incident, I went to the newsagent to pick up a paper and a carton of milk. Mr Paul told me he'd just run our of the milk, but that if I could wait a moement, he's get another crate in from the storeroom. Watching him walk out towards the back of the shop, I noticed Mr Paul was wearing a pair of thick grey socks and brown leather sandals. They were spectacularly ugly, but curiously enough, spectacularly inoffensive. Why could I not remain simlarly composed in the face of Chloe's shoes? Why could I not enjoy the same cordiality with the woman I loved as with the newsagent who sold me my daily bread?

20. We are back to the choice between love and liberalism, a choice because the latter only seems truly practical in a distant relationship or once indifference has set in. The sandals of the newsagent did not annoy me because I did not care about the newsagent, I wished to get my paper and milk from him, but no more. I did not wish to bare my soul or cry on his shoulder, so his footwear remained unobtrusive. But had I fallen in love with Mr Paul, could I really have continued to face his sandals with such equanimity, or would there not have come a point when [out of love] I would have cleared my throat and suggested an alternative?

from essays in love, Alain de Botton.

this book is amazing. witty, funny and amazing. it's so deeply philosophical about the littlest things in life, but the most significant.
whenever i read a marvellous book like this, i wanna tell everybody about it, shout it out and pull them into this world within those pages. but how could i even start to explain or illustrate its marvellous-ness. it's like the non-representational theory by nigel thrift, where he says, if I could represent it, I wouldn't have to dance it.