Pertaining to Love

[RETS]

Love.

It's something we all look for. Some seek in places where there is only a passing glimpse, while others take their time trying to find real love- A lasting love.

Christians often talk about how God is love, and even in this many try to define God as their idea of love, instead of defining love by God.

So the question is this: Is it possible, just possible, that love is more than what is commonly perceived?


For instance- Love as many believe it to be is a soft and gentle thing. Something that will never hurt you. Others think of "tough" love, where the truth is told, even the brutally honest truth, in the hopes of washing away whatever impurity is holding someone back.

But is it possible that love, in addition to being the soft and gentle sort; in addition to being the romantic and passionate sort; in addition to being the brutally honest sort- Is it possible that love also has a harsh edge?

By "harsh edge," I mean that perhaps love is not only brutally honest at times, but also willing to let someone go and learn the hard way. Perhaps, even allowing someone to be hurt... All in the interest of revealing what is real in a person, and what is merely subterfuge. Perhaps love is also the knife that separates the skin deep obsessions from the true to the soul desires.



Your thoughts?

 

[Eudaimonist]

By "harsh edge," I mean that perhaps love is not only brutally honest at times, but also willing to let someone go and learn the hard way. Perhaps, even allowing someone to be hurt... All in the interest of revealing what is real in a person, and what is merely subterfuge.

I could go with this, as long as one genuinely has one's loved one's best interests at heart.

The truth hurts, but one may be better off knowing the truth. Socrates is an example of someone showing this sort of love.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

-
By "harsh edge," I mean that perhaps love is not only brutally honest at times, but also willing to let someone go and learn the hard way.

This reminds me of the "greater good" defence to the problem of evil, which is aka "Irenaean theodicy" after Ireneaus who first defended the idea. The argument is that we become more morally complete only through expiencing and learning to respond to evil. Is that what you are getting at?

 

[UnReAL13]

This reminds me of the film "The Devil's Advocate":

Reeves: "What about love?"

Pacino: "Overrated. Chemically no different from eating large quantities of chocolate."

 

[RETS]

This reminds me of the "greater good" defence to the problem of evil, which is aka "Irenaean theodicy" after Ireneaus who first defended the idea. The argument is that we become more morally complete only through expiencing and learning to respond to evil. Is that what you are getting at?

Let me see... Another way of explaining... The opposite of love is not hatred, but apathy. Hatred is most often born from a love of something or someone; every other time, it is born out of desire, which is also a contributing aspect of love.

So, the same God who cursed the Egyptians to free Israel from their slavery can continue to be the same God requiring the wholesale slaughter of anyone still in the streets at the base of Sinai. (This following the golden calf incident.) Yes, some were lost, but many more repented because of the action- Thus, love was not (just) the emotion, but the overall, "big picture."


So... Not so much the defense to the problem of evil, as you state. I guess more that what we sometimes see as evil, because it hurts us, is actually Love at its most terrible.

 

[variant]

Love is those actions that bring us together for mutual benefit, hate is what drives us apart antagonistically.

It is no more complex than that, your feelings are meant to augment your experience and drive your actions.

This reminds me of the film "The Devil's Advocate":

A line so unconvincing I couldn't suspend my disbelief that the father of lies would say such a thing.

 

[UnReAL13]

A line so unconvincing I couldn't suspend my disbelief that the father of lies would say such a thing.

Although can you prove that love is anything more than a chemically induced feeling?

 

[variant]

Although can you prove that love is anything more than a chemically induced feeling?

Why would I want to do that?

I find both the "overrated" and the comparison to chocolate binging to both be highly unconvincing.

I never said love was not chemically mediated.

(also if I was really speaking to the devil then it would definitely give credence to souls and all that raz)

 

[UnReAL13]

Why would I want to do that?

I find both the "overrated" and the comparison to chocolate binging to both be highly unconvincing.

I never said love was not chemically mediated.

(also if I was really speaking to the devil then it would definitely give credence to souls and all that raz)

Then would you care to define "love"?

 

[variant]

Then would you care to define "love"?

I already did:

Love is those actions that bring us together for mutual benefit, hate is what drives us apart antagonistically.

It is no more complex than that, your feelings are meant to augment your experience and drive your actions.

 

[UnReAL13]

I already did:

What "actions" in particular constitute expressions of "love"?

 

[Received]

A good generic definition of love is will-to-good. This allows the "good" here to be conceptualized however you will; the important element in love is that one intends to bring about a better state for the person to whom it's directed.

This means love is a form of creation. Camus, who is one of the most underrated philosophers of the twentieth century, said that fighting for things like freedom or rights or a better state of affairs is essentially a question of beauty. To love a person is to create the ideal you have for them -- or at least water the seed that's already present. In the Rogerian terminology (which is really a restatement of Kierkegaard), love unfolds the self of the other. It makes the other self more itself.

 

[variant]

What "actions" in particular constitute expressions of "love"?

Those that bring us together for mutual benefit....

You do read what I post when you reply to it right?

Or do you want an itemized list?

 

[UnReAL13]

Those that bring us together for mutual benefit....

How do you determine if something is "mutually beneficial"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

How do you determine if something is "mutually beneficial"?

This is the sort of question that philosophers ask when they already know the answers from day-to-day life. I'll bet that you have little difficulty making this determination.

That's not to say that you will always judge correctly, but everyone in their day-to-day lives forms views of what benefits oneself or others. It's enough to use one's best judgment on such matters, and love can motivate one to seek such benefits.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[UnReAL13]

I'm sort of hung up on the idea of "mutually beneficial actions" constituting the concept of "love".

For example, you go to the DMV, and register for your driver's license. You don't complain or cause a commotion. You wait patiently for your number to be called, take the brief exam, pay your fee, and go on your merry way.

Technically the actions between you and the DMV employee are "mutually beneficial", as you've made their job easier, while obtaining your license to operate a motor vehicle. Does this mean that you "love" the DMV employee?

I feel that mutually beneficial actions can quite often occur between people who are indifferent to each other, or even actually "hate" each other. Why does love have to be defined as the result of "mutually beneficial actions"?

 

[Received]

I'd say mutually beneficial actions would work if you added intentionality to the mix. I also have qualms about being mutual; a person can still love someone who doesn't love them (pay attention to pop music).

 

[variant]

I'm sort of hung up on the idea of "mutually beneficial actions" constituting the concept of "love".

For example, you go to the DMV, and register for your driver's license. You don't complain or cause a commotion. You wait patiently for your number to be called, take the brief exam, pay your fee, and go on your merry way.

Technically the actions between you and the DMV employee are "mutually beneficial", as you've made their job easier, while obtaining your license to operate a motor vehicle. Does this mean that you "love" the DMV employee?

I feel that mutually beneficial actions can quite often occur between people who are indifferent to each other, or even actually "hate" each other. Why does love have to be defined as the result of "mutually beneficial actions"?

Yes you have shown love toward the DMV employee, even if you secretly feel like you hate them. You would love them in the emotional sense also if you had the feelings of good will to match.

You can go in the reverse and beat the people you have sentimental emotional attachments to as well.

And yes, it works on a very long scale.

And no, it's not uncomplicated in pratice.

 

[variant]

How do you determine if something is "mutually beneficial"?

I doubt very highly that you have trouble making this determination in most cases, but yes, our ability love one another depends entirely on our ability to agree upon mutual benefit and our ability to correctly judge what is in ours and others benefit and our ability to communicate this effectively.

But that’s what it’s like being human, we have to deal with ambiguities and every day life all the time.

 

[UnReAL13]

Yes you have shown love toward the DMV employee, even if you secretly feel like you hate them. You would love them in the emotional sense also if you had the feelings of good will to match.

You can go in the reverse and beat the people you have sentimental emotional attachments to as well.

And yes, it works on a very long scale.

And no, it's not uncomplicated in pratice.

I think I'm rather Ignostic towards your concept of "love". By your standard, virtually everyone "loves" everyone else to some extent. If terrorists supply me with gasoline, and I supply them with money, am I supposed to "love" these kind of people?