Love drives us mad, but madness rescues us from ‘horrible sanity’

By David McElroy · February 15, 2022

“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.”
— Edgar Allan Poe, in a letter to George W. Eveleth

I had just spent most of a year wanting to be rid of a woman I had been dating for three years. I broke up with her one time but I felt so guilty that I changed my mind a few days later. I wanted her to decide I was right — that we had no future. After months of this waffling from me, the day finally came.

She was giving up on me and moving on. Suddenly, I felt hurt and stricken. I had made a terrible mistake. I wanted her back.

I was in my first year of working full-time after college. My work suddenly suffered. There was one day when I didn’t show up for work until halfway through the day. I was a basket case.

A co-worker had the perfect solution for me, though. She said I needed to pretend to be seriously ill, enough to get put into a hospital. I don’t recall the details, but she had a very serious plan. She was sure this would bring my ex running back in fear that I was dying.

Although I didn’t seriously consider her plan, this has always stood out to me as the height of love’s insanity. People in love can be desperate. They can do insane things.

But I’ve had crazy thought. What if these periods of love-driven insanity are the very best parts of life? What if it’s the period of “horrible sanity” that make life unbearable? Without the unbearable insanity of love, does life have any meaning?

I’m of two minds about this, of course. One part of me knows it’s nonsense. The desperate and crazy feelings that come when we want someone can feel dangerous. We can feel as though we’re just one step short of breaking down. I’ve felt that way before.

I’ve written about that more than once. In fact, there’s no other subject that brings as much email response to me. I’ve noticed that things I’ve written about missing someone or feeling desperately alone get the highest readership very late at night. And I often get emotional emails from heartbroken people who write to say they feel the same way.

More than one person has written me to say that he or she thought that nobody else in the world felt as he or she did on the inside — about loving or missing someone — but that I had expressed what this person felt deeply inside. Some of these people write just because they’re hurting and lonely. Others write to ask for advice.

I try to give people reasonable advice when I can, but maybe I’m the last person who should be giving advice. After all, I’m just as alone as they are. My choices about love have left me hurt and alone, too.

When I do give other people advice, I give them a rational analysis of whatever situation they tell me about. I can see their situations clearly and objectively in a way that they can’t. For the most part, they can’t see the people they love any more objectively than I can see for myself.

In some of the cases I’m asked about, there are clear and obvious solutions. Most of the relationships that people ask me about sound as though they need to end. Many of them sound as though they never should have started. But even as I’m giving people reasonable and rational advice, I know they’re unlikely to listen.

People who are in love mostly want to hear that they should hold onto love, even love they have for people who don’t love them anymore. Even love they have for people who abuse them. People who’ve hurt them. People who they no longer trust.

People who are truly in love don’t typically act like rational people. In fact, if you’re not acting at least a little bit insane — as a result of the love you claim — you’re probably not really in love. And that contradiction sounds insane to me, but it’s true.

I was driving home from work one evening recently when a phrase hit me out of nowhere. I was thinking about love and its effect on me. I was thinking about how love can limit my choices and keep me from pursuing things I might otherwise pursue. Out of the blue, I heard these words in my mind.

Love constrains me, but it saves me, too.

I wasn’t entirely sure what I meant by that at first, so I pondered it for the rest of my drive home. By the time I pulled into my driveway, it seemed to make sense.

Love is what I live for. Love in all its forms. I don’t love as widely as I wish I did. I wish I could love more people, but that’s hard for me. When I do love, it’s something that causes me to be unreasonably devoted. Desperate. Determined. Blind, even.

When I love, it’s not just words. It’s a fierce fire that burns brightly inside me. It’s a blazing fire that’s almost impossible to put out. If I love a woman, I’ll do anything for her. This isn’t so unusual. It makes me willing to sacrifice anything and everything — if she will just love me in return.

If love didn’t exist, I’m not sure I would find another reason to live this human life. If I could live for another thousand years — but I would experience no love along the way, only limitless pleasure — that wouldn’t be a life I would find worth living.

On the other hand, even a short life with the right love would mean everything. I recently found myself so overwhelmed by a particular love I was feeling that I thought something odd. If I were told that I could have just one year with this love — and then I would die, giving up the rest of my life — I knew I would gladly accept. It wouldn’t even seem like a sacrifice.

Is that insane? Probably. But it’s the sort of thinking and feeling which can make life feel completely meaningful to me. I need to love and be loved. I need that more than I need life itself.

Love is a power source for me. Even though it can be insanity, it’s that flame of absolute love that might save me from the nihilism of “horrible sanity” which life would be without love.

Note: The art above is from 19th century French painter Gustave Courbet’s self-portrait called “The Desperate Man.”

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts