Is love something we feel or something we do?

[Halbhh]

I would agree that 1 Corinthians 13 is much closer to true love than what we find in Plato's Symposium. According to Plato's account, love in relation to the other is always instrumental. The beloved is a means to something else. The object of love, for Plato, is the form of Beauty/Goodness. Diotima tells Socrates that love is an ascent. We begin by perceiving beauty in one person, from there we see the quality of beauty in several and from there we ascend to the form of Beauty/Goodness.

So, according to Diotima (Plato), we never love the beloved for the sake of the beloved. We love the beauty/goodness we perceive in the beloved ....but if we are going to enter into true love we transcend the particulars of individual instances of beauty and goodness in order to perceive the form of Beauty/Goodness. In this case, the beloved is used as a means.

Makes me think. Don't we all fall in love that way -- we idealize the beloved. We see that....truer, best side of them, or the Ideal.

I can't even say if it's the reality of them or not. Maybe both, really.

But that initial love, or infatuated love, the idealization, it has something of it that isn't just imagination I think. It's like we saw them in their perfected way, or...imagined them so...

That is, not just a perfect apple, or perfect peach, but a perfect certain type of apple, or a belle of georgia Peach, but not just any one, but a certain one. Just that one. Unique in all of time.

That particular perfect belle of georgia peach, like no other, not ever that has been before, or will be, but is just this one person.

In Paul's account the object of love is the beloved, i.e. the beloved is loved for her sake and not necessarily her qualities or some transcendent form of those qualities. Love is patient (for the sake of the beloved). Love is kind (to the beloved). Love is not envious (of the beloved), etc. So, on Paul's account, the beloved is the object of one's love. In fact, he goes so far as to say we are to put the good of the beloved ahead of our own. (Philippians 2:3)

Yes, true. To love someone where they are at.

 

[public hermit]

Makes me think. Don't we all fall in love that way -- we idealize the beloved. We see that....truer, best side of them, or the Ideal.

I can't even say if it's the reality of them or not. Maybe both, really.

But that initial love, or infatuated love, the idealization, it has something of it that isn't just imagination I think. It's like we saw them in their perfected way, or...imagined them so...

That is, not just a perfect apple, or perfect peach, but a perfect certain type of apple, or a belle of georgia Peach, but not just any one, but a certain one. Just that one. Unique in all of time.

That particular perfect belle of georgia peach, like no other, not ever that has been before, or will be, but is just this one person.

I think you're right, and this is an important point. Most love relationships (besides family) begin as you say. Certainly this is true for romantic love, but probably also for friendship. We see qualities in the other person that we like (humor, beauty, kindness, intelligence, etc.). This is a prime feature of eros. Eros is acquisitive in the sense that it wants to enjoy (acquire) the good qualities of the other. We do tend to idealize these good qualities. Also, when people are first together they almost always put forward their best foot, so to speak. So, the tendency to idealize is helped along by the other who puts forward an ideal self, haha.

This is one of the primary distinctions between eros and agape. Eros is somewhat egoistic (self-centered, but not in a necessarily bad sense) in that it wants to enjoy the good of the beloved for one's self. That's not necessarily bad, in fact it is something we all experience. Agape is definitely other-centered. Agape in its pure form is sacrificial. Jesus is the primary example of the pure form of love. No greater love can one have than to lay down one's life for her friend.

What is heartbreaking is when you have two people whose ideas of love conflict. Say you have x who considers love to be wholly involuntaristic and y who understands love to be voluntaristic. Things might be fine up to the point that x no longer "feels" in love. On the other hand, y sees her love as whatever is good for x. So, x breaks it off and goes looking for that feeling and y is left out. Sadly, I think this is all too common in our current culture.

 

[Halbhh]

I think you're right, and this is an important point. Most love relationships (besides family) begin as you say. Certainly this is true for romantic love, but probably also for friendship. We see qualities in the other person that we like (humor, beauty, kindness, intelligence, etc.). This is a prime feature of eros. Eros is acquisitive in the sense that it wants to enjoy (acquire) the good qualities of the other. We do tend to idealize these good qualities. Also, when people are first together they almost always put forward their best foot, so to speak. So, the tendency to idealize is helped along by the other who puts forward an ideal self, haha.

This is one of the primary distinctions between eros and agape. Eros is somewhat egoistic (self-centered, but not in a necessarily bad sense) in that it wants to enjoy the good of the beloved for one's self. That's not necessarily bad, in fact it is something we all experience. Agape is definitely other-centered. Agape in its pure form is sacrificial. Jesus is the primary example of the pure form of love. No greater love can one have than to lay down one's life for her friend.

What is heartbreaking is when you have two people whose ideas of love conflict. Say you have x who considers love to be wholly involuntaristic and y who understands love to be voluntaristic. Things might be fine up to the point that x no longer "feels" in love. On the other hand, y sees her love as whatever is good for x. So, x breaks it off and goes looking for that feeling and y is left out. Sadly, I think this is all too common in our current culture.

Yes. There's only one perfect love maybe, that of God.

We can get part of the way towards that perfect if we just will do this thing, over and over:

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."

23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like...
(continues in a very helpful way on this...)
Matthew 18 NIV

If we can do that, over and over, then love can recover, or last. I think this is one of the key things. Not the only one, but such a key one. So many divorces are about unforgiveness I think.

 

[WolfGate]

There is a reason many languages have multiple words to cover the English word "love".

 

[Hmm]

I voted that love is both, that it's something we feel as well something we do. I was thinking not so much of love as a feeling we have for others but more as feeling of being loved by others. I'm not sure if you can feel loved by God if you haven't first felt love from a person.

I grew up where I was constantly criticised and it was only later in life that I knew people who pointed out what was right with me as well as what was wrong with me. Of course I can only talk for myself but I don't think I would ever have been able to have believed in a God of love if I hadn't felt loved by other people. I believe when people show you love (love as something you do) you feel loved (love as something you feel) and it is this feeling that makes God visible to you and allows you to connect with Him.

 

[bèlla]

What is heartbreaking is when you have two people whose ideas of love conflict. Say you have x who considers love to be wholly involuntaristic and y who understands love to be voluntaristic. Things might be fine up to the point that x no longer "feels" in love. On the other hand, y sees her love as whatever is good for x. So, x breaks it off and goes looking for that feeling and y is left out. Sadly, I think this is all too common in our current culture.

That echoes what I mentioned in my response. Meeting them where they are and applying the right prescription. Giving them what they need the most.

We try to love people as we are but they’re not us! They have different challenges, experiences, and woes. We have to hear them to determine the right approach.

One person needs lots of affection. Another may need a sounding board. And the next longs for encouragement. The output differs. But the recipient receives it as love. And it ministers to them. Just because I don’t require something doesn’t mean it isn’t a necessity for someone else.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Jamsie]

We can think of love in two general ways.

1. Love is involuntaristic: In this sense love is a passion, an emotion. As a passion it is not something I have control over. I feel love so long as the feeling is there, and when it is gone there is not much I can do. I can't simply manufacture the feeling of love. If love is involuntaristic, then I can only love those to whom I feel love.

2. Love is voluntaristic: In this sense love is something I do. Specifically, love seeks to bring about what is good for the beloved. I can choose to love, because I can choose to act in a way that is good for others. Moreover, I can choose to love anyone and everyone by always doing what is in their best interests, as far as is reasonably possible.

It might be tempting to say love is both involuntaristic and voluntaristic. I would argue that is not the case, but I'm open to hearing any opinions to the contrary. Or, perhaps, love is something else altogether.

What do you think? Is love involuntaristic, voluntaristic, or both?

Two quick stories, I recall when my youngest son told his mother after he was angry at a particular discipline - "I know I love you but I just don't feel it now". He was about 5 years old.

One day my dad gave me a dollar (Yes, 50 plus years ago $1. could buy a very nice card) and asked me to pick up an anniversary card for my mom. I did so thinking that she couldn't have known but the next day she told me that I had picked out a very nice card. Then she added - "Your father is not very expressive in many ways but there is never a single day that passes when he doesn't make me fully aware of how much he loves me, I never doubt".

So perhaps in our limited/finite way love is both an emotion and an action, voluntary and involuntary - and to sustain the voluntary one and to embrace the involuntary we require God's guiding hand. I think that perhaps "Love" in its purest sense is beyond our mental comprehension... but brought to bear within our capabilities by Christ working through and in us... (sorry for the ramble...)

 

[public hermit]

Of course I can only talk for myself but I don't think I would ever have been able to have believed in a God of love if I hadn't felt loved by other people. I believe when people show you love (love as something you do) you feel loved (love as something you feel) and it is this feeling that makes God visible to you and allows you to connect with Him.

This is a good point. I'm kind of the same way in that having felt loved makes it a lot easier to understand what it means to say God is love and that God loves us.

 

[public hermit]

One person needs lots of affection. Another may need a sounding board. And the next longs for encouragement. The output differs. But the recipient receives it as love. And it ministers to them. Just because I don’t require something doesn’t mean it isn’t a necessity for someone else

Right, people are different and need different things. Good point. This is where communication can be so important, I think. How can I know what the other person needs from me if I'm not listening and paying attention?

 

[public hermit]

told his mother after he was angry at a particular discipline - "I know I love you but I just don't feel it now". He was about 5 years old.

One day my dad gave me a dollar (Yes, 50 plus years ago $1. could buy a very nice card) and asked me to pick up an anniversary card for my mom. I did so thinking that she couldn't have known but the next day she told me that I had picked out a very nice card. Then she added - "Your father is not very expressive in many ways but there is never a single day that passes when he doesn't make me fully aware of how much he loves me, I never doubt

Great examples! The story about your youngest son is pretty hilarious, lol. And, on point!

 

[rockytopva]

Love is something we feel that drives us into the things we do.

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you... - Galatians 4:19

I believe that sanctification comes with the Christ formed on the inside. I can remember the days when the old timers would tell you to “come back tomorrow night” as they were often in revival and Christian conference. Once the Christ was formed they would, “glorify God in you,” or make a fuss over you.

And they glorified God in me. - Galatians 1:24

 

[bèlla]

Right, people are different and need different things. Good point. This is where communication can be so important, I think. How can I know what the other person needs from me if I'm not listening and paying attention?

We used to have lessons on active listening and how to hear the other person. That included their body language, words, pauses, and what’s unspoken.

We place a primacy on words. But you have to reach a place of trust to receive them. So you read the body, verbiage, the cadence and pauses for greater clarity.

Sometimes you gain insight by querying yourself. Why me? Why is the person drawn to me? Why do they behave a certain way towards me? Who might I represent to them?

That requires us to minimize assumptions. Forgo the formulas and take each case on its own. That’s how you learn to read people and adapt as needed. You shift gears. You can’t remain in one mode and love everyone as they require.

It’s more work of course.

~bella

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Yes

 

[Tree of Life]

We can think of love in two general ways.

1. Love is involuntaristic: In this sense love is a passion, an emotion. As a passion it is not something I have control over. I feel love so long as the feeling is there, and when it is gone there is not much I can do. I can't simply manufacture the feeling of love. If love is involuntaristic, then I can only love those to whom I feel love.

2. Love is voluntaristic: In this sense love is something I do. Specifically, love seeks to bring about what is good for the beloved. I can choose to love, because I can choose to act in a way that is good for others. Moreover, I can choose to love anyone and everyone by always doing what is in their best interests, as far as is reasonably possible.

It might be tempting to say love is both involuntaristic and voluntaristic. I would argue that is not the case, but I'm open to hearing any opinions to the contrary. Or, perhaps, love is something else altogether.

What do you think? Is love involuntaristic, voluntaristic, or both?

I would think of it in three senses. Love is action. Love is affection. And love is commitment. Perfect love involves all three. But we can express imperfect forms of love. We can perform loving actions without any affection at all. This is better than nothing.

 

[public hermit]

I would think of it in three senses. Love is action. Love is affection. And love is commitment. Perfect love involves all three. But we can express imperfect forms of love. We can perform loving actions without any affection at all. This is better than nothing.

This is a really helpful response because it covers a lot of territory. I especially like your distinction between perfect and imperfect forms.

Do you think imperfect forms are due to the fallen world in which we live? I'll give an example.

My worst enemy comes to me dying of thirst (for the sake of argument, let's assume this person did something horrendous to a loved one of mine). Even after great effort I cannot conjure up affectionate feelings for this person, even as they are dying of thirst. Nonetheless, I know the good thing they need and am able to provide it. Given all of that, I nurse them to health giving the water and whatever else they need.

I would say this act is love even though affectionate feelings are not present. I take it you would say it is an imperfect form because affection was not present. But one cannot manufacture emotion. And, there seems to be an extra "nobility" (for lack of a better term) in this act of love precisely because it was done regardless of the lack of affection. Let's face it, it is easier to love our friends than our enemies.

Let's assume your distinction between perfect and imperfect is on target. All I can think is in a fallen world imperfect forms of love are unavoidable. What do you think?

 

[Tree of Life]

This is a really helpful response because it covers a lot of territory. I especially like your distinction between perfect and imperfect forms.

Do you think imperfect forms are due to the fallen world in which we live? I'll give an example.

My worst enemy comes to me dying of thirst (for the sake of argument, let's assume this person did something horrendous to a loved one of mine). Even after great effort I cannot conjure up affectionate feelings for this person, even as they are dying of thirst. Nonetheless, I know the good thing they need and am able to provide it. Given all of that, I nurse them to health giving the water and whatever else they need.

I would say this act is love even though affectionate feelings are not present. I take it you would say it is an imperfect form because affection was not present. But one cannot manufacture emotion. And, there seems to be an extra "nobility" (for lack of a better term) in this act of love precisely because it was done regardless of the lack of affection. Let's face it, it is easier to love our friends than our enemies.

Let's assume your distinction between perfect and imperfect is on target. All I can think is in a fallen world imperfect forms of love are unavoidable. What do you think?

We never love perfectly. A heart with perfect love could even conjure up affection toward an enemy. It wouldn't see them in terms of the worst they've done, but in terms of their being an image bearer of God. I think God has affection toward his enemies and that's why he saves them. But where we lack affection we can start with action. The thing about love is that each doorway enters into the same cathedral. If we are faithful with loving actions we might end up cultivating an affection. Where our treasure is, there our heart will be also.

 

[anon anon]

This topic is timely! I have a close relationship where my partner exhibits love characteristics #1 strongly but never # 2; I on the other hand am the reversed. It's great to get caught up in his flow -- I'm not naturally charismatic -- but I wish he would extend the kind of love described in #2 as well. Not all needs can be met just by feelings. If there's deadlines or timetables outside of his, I don't get the love I need! I feel like the hero in the relationship a lot because I'm willing to extend love and care, even when it doesn't feel good. He's the feelings, I'm the hero. But sometimes I need a hero too, and I wish I had more of my own feeling-flow. None the less very blessed to have what I have; praise Jesus for compliments! God bless and Jesus loves you more.

 

[GraceBro]

We can think of love in two general ways.

1. Love is involuntaristic: In this sense love is a passion, an emotion. As a passion it is not something I have control over. I feel love so long as the feeling is there, and when it is gone there is not much I can do. I can't simply manufacture the feeling of love. If love is involuntaristic, then I can only love those to whom I feel love.

2. Love is voluntaristic: In this sense love is something I do. Specifically, love seeks to bring about what is good for the beloved. I can choose to love, because I can choose to act in a way that is good for others. Moreover, I can choose to love anyone and everyone by always doing what is in their best interests, as far as is reasonably possible.

It might be tempting to say love is both involuntaristic and voluntaristic. I would argue that is not the case, but I'm open to hearing any opinions to the contrary. Or, perhaps, love is something else altogether.

What do you think? Is love involuntaristic, voluntaristic, or both?

Love is something we receive from God that meets the desires of our hearts for love, acceptance, meaning, and purpose. Then it becomes something we share with others as we bear the fruit of the Spirit God is producing in and through us.

 

[Neogaia777]

We can think of love in two general ways.

1. Love is involuntaristic: In this sense love is a passion, an emotion. As a passion it is not something I have control over. I feel love so long as the feeling is there, and when it is gone there is not much I can do. I can't simply manufacture the feeling of love. If love is involuntaristic, then I can only love those to whom I feel love.

2. Love is voluntaristic: In this sense love is something I do. Specifically, love seeks to bring about what is good for the beloved. I can choose to love, because I can choose to act in a way that is good for others. Moreover, I can choose to love anyone and everyone by always doing what is in their best interests, as far as is reasonably possible.

It might be tempting to say love is both involuntaristic and voluntaristic. I would argue that is not the case, but I'm open to hearing any opinions to the contrary. Or, perhaps, love is something else altogether.

What do you think? Is love involuntaristic, voluntaristic, or both?

Love is something we are, or else are not, etc...

It is wise, and it has control, etc...

It knows when to act, or else not act, based on the feelings and/or emotions involved with love, so as to show or display true agape love, etc...

And it takes or approaches each individual situation accordingly, etc...

It always does what is "best", etc, and knows what the best is always, etc, for any given situation or circumstance, etc...

And it is a very grown up or very mature love, etc...

Experienced also, etc...

It knows when the emotions should take a back seat, and when they should not, etc, and it has control over this, etc, and, like I said, the knowledge and/or experience, and also wisdom, to match it also, etc...

It is what we should all attain to, or aspire to being, etc...

And then it is also what is said in 1 Corinthians 13 also, etc, on top of all of this, etc...

God Bless!

 

[returntosender]

True love never wanes, it might increase or stay the same but it never decreases. True love is a feeling.