A Philosophical Study of Heartbreak

On heartbreak as a shared experience...

Can heartbreak ever be shared? Or is it individual?

And it does not necessarily need to be the heartbreak that comes with falling out of love or being cheated on. I mean the kind that lingers quietly — the disorientation when a friendship ends without closure, the ache of not getting a job you pinned your identity on, or the weird emptiness when your favourite notebook gets discontinued and you realise that, irrational as it sounds, it mattered. Heartbreak is one of the most common and least understood human experiences. It stretches far beyond romantic loss. It appears in every part of life — as a rupture, a shift, a kind of collapse.

Heartbreak is an interesting, all-consuming emotion. It is a rupture in how we know, how we live, and how we narrate the self. To take heartbreak seriously is to do philosophy — to explore how pain reveals what matters, fractures who we are, and reorients how we relate to time, others, and ourselves.

Because let’s face it, no one ever experiences the same feeling when heartbreak occurs. Your friend could be destroyed over the love of their life breaking up with someone, and your heart just does not feel the same way or does not understand the why someone is reacting in a certain way.

So how do we define the epistemic value of heartbreak?

Is heartbreak irrational?

Martha Nussbaum refuses the claim that emotions are irrational. In Upheavals of Thought and Love’s Knowledge, she argues that emotions are a form of appraisal. They are not random; they are cognitive. They tell us what we care about.

“Emotions are not just the fuel that powers the psychological mechanism of a reasoning creature. They are parts, highly complex and messy parts, of reasoning itself.”

— Martha Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought

Heartbreak, then, is not simply feeling sad. It’s a cognitive crisis. What you lost wasn’t a neutral part of your life — it was embedded in your value system, your sense of self, your view of the world. Heartbreak shakes that system. It unveils what was quietly holding everything up.

Nussbaum frames love and grief as forms of moral knowledge — as ways we become aware of vulnerability, of interdependence, of the limits of control.

“Grief is the price we pay for having cared about people, for allowing their well-being to matter to us in ways we cannot fully control.”

— Love’s Knowledge

So heartbreak, in Nussbaum’s view, teaches us not only about loss, but about the structure of our own commitments — how deeply entangled we are in others. There’s a kind of epistemic humility in heartbreak: a forced recognition that we are not sovereign beings, but open, porous ones.

Does heartbreak disrupt your identity?

For Sartre, our identities are not fixed — they are projects. We define ourselves through action, through what we choose and commit to. In Being and Nothingness, he argues that existence precedes essence: we are not born with a fixed nature; we become who we are by acting. I have explored this more in my introduction to existentialism.

But what happens when a relationship or goal we’ve built ourselves around vanishes?

“Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.”

— Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism

Heartbreak, from a Sartrean lens, is the destruction of a project. The person we loved was not just a presence — they were part of how we were making ourselves. Through shared plans, rituals, names, and habits, we built a self-in-relation. When that relationship ends, that self collapses too.

This opens a void: we must remake ourselves. But that task isn’t liberating at first — it’s terrifying. And it often invites what Sartre calls bad faith — a self-deception in which we cling to an old role or idea to avoid the freedom (and burden) of redefining ourselves.

In heartbreak, we may cling to the identity of “the wronged one,” or fantasise about getting back together — not because we want the relationship back, but because we don’t know who we are without it.

Sartre forces us to ask: what part of your identity have you outsourced to someone else?

Does heartbreak disrupt time?

Heidegger sees human existence as structured by temporality. In Being and Time, he writes that we are beings-toward-death — we always exist in anticipation, projecting ourselves into possible futures. Our sense of self depends on our orientation toward what is to come.

Heartbreak disrupts that orientation.

“Anticipation makes the meaning of a life transparent.”

— Heidegger, Being and Time

When we are in love, or attached to a vision of life, we project ourselves forward. The “we” has a future: shared seasons, shared plans, imagined rituals. Heartbreak collapses that forward projection. The future folds in on itself. The timeline is no longer linear; it loops, breaks, stutters. Time becomes unfamiliar.

This is what Heidegger calls a break in authenticity — when we are no longer living toward our deepest possibilities, but are stalled, stuck, fragmented.

Heartbreak throws us into what he calls thrownness — the condition of being hurled into a world we did not choose, into feelings we cannot rationally explain. It is disorienting. But it is also a moment of truth.

Because in the collapse of the familiar, something else emerges: the possibility of confronting life as it is, not as we imagined it to be.

So perhaps heartbreak should not be dismissed as “just” emotion. Perhaps it is one of the most philosophically rich experiences we can undergo and enlightens us to the individuality of our emotions.

It demands vulnerability. It reveals moral knowledge. It exposes the fragility of our constructed selves. It suspends us in strange time. And, if we let it, it can become a site of transformation — not through forgetting, but through narrative repair.

My newsletters are all free to read (I gave up making them paid because I want everyone to read everything!) But please considering supporting a struggling 9-5 girl with just one iced latte!