unconditional love

[granpa]

unconditional love is not loving for no reason. (as some people seem to think).
that would be insane.

it is loving at all times and all places.
there is a perfectly reasonable reason for unconditional love.



if a person was born with an incurable disease that caused them to be extremely violent would you blame them for being the way they are? no, of course not.
should you hate them? no, of course not.
but what if they were being violent toward you personally. wouldnt you be tempted to hate them? yes you would. resisting that temptation to hate them would be an act of unconditional love.

since that line of reasoning can be applied to anyone anywhere i believe that we can and should strive to have unconditional love. (not that i am saying that it is easy. i struggle with it as much as anyone).

 

[The Nihilist]

Flaws in the argument:
1. It is not clear that we should not hate someone born with sociopathic tendencies.
2. It seems completely reasonable that we should hate someone who hates us, whether they are born with the condition or not.
3. Those objections aside, this line of reasoning cannot be applied to everyone, because most people aren't born with a tendency to hate me personally.

 

[granpa]

Flaws in the argument:
1. It is not clear that we should not hate someone born with sociopathic tendencies.
2. It seems completely reasonable that we should hate someone who hates us, whether they are born with the condition or not.
3. Those objections aside, this line of reasoning cannot be applied to everyone, because most people aren't born with a tendency to hate me personally.

so you would hate someone who was not in anyway to blame for their condition? ok.
you dont need to hate them to protect yourself. you can do what you have to do without hating them.


'that line of reasoning can be applied to anyone anywhere' does not imply that anyone anywhere is 'born with a tendency to hate'.

 

[The Nihilist]

so you would hate someone who was not in anyway to blame for their condition? ok.


'that line of reasoning can be applied to anyone anywhere' does not imply that anyone anywhere is 'born with a tendency to hate'.

A rabid dog needs to be put down.
I'm more interested in how you respond to my third objection, though.

 

[granpa]

A rabid dog needs to be put down.
I'm more interested in how you respond to my third objection, though.

A rabid dog needs to be put down.

it can be done without hate.

i already responded to your 3rd objection. my response was that you completely misunderestood what i said.

 

[The Nihilist]

In what way do you feel that your reasoning can apply to anyone? It seems that it only applies to those born as sociopaths

 

[granpa]

In what way do you feel that your reasoning can apply to anyone? It seems that it only applies to those born as sociopaths

in the sense that everyone is a product of cause and effect.

 

[The Nihilist]

in the sense that everyone is a product of cause and effect.

Your suggestion is that, since no one has free will, then no one can be blamed for his or her situation?

 

[quatona]

I agree in that hate is neither necessary nor helpful in our actions.
I do not, however, understand how you get from there to "unconditional love".
In my understanding, hate is not the antipode of love, and even if I would follow this notion I wouldn´t conclude that acting without hate is (unconditional) love.

 

[granpa]

I agree in that hate is neither necessary nor helpful in our actions.
I do not, however, understand how you get from there to "unconditional love".
In my understanding, hate is not the antipode of love, and even if I would follow this notion I wouldn´t conclude that acting without hate is (unconditional) love.

but what if they were being violent toward you personally. wouldnt you be tempted to hate them? yes you would. resisting that temptation to hate them would be an act of love. since that love can be shown to everyone everywhere at all times that constitutes (perfectly rational) unconditional love.

i am simply showing the absolute minimum love that every human being, no matter who they are, is due in order to prove the existence and rationality of unconditional love. why is that hard to understand?

 

[quatona]

but what if they were being violent toward you personally. wouldnt you be tempted to hate them? yes you would.

Slowly with the mindreadings and answering your questions on behalf of me!
I am fortunate in never having felt hate towards anyone.
Sure, I am familiar with negative emotions like fear, disgust etc., but then, I am a rational person and I have found them to be harmful not only for the person directed to, but even more for myself. Reason enough to practice overcoming their control over me.
I think there are pretty simple thoughtpatterns and exercises for doing that. They may not make the negative emotions disappear completely, but they will dramatically reduce the timespan until you gain control over them, and thus not allowing them an impact on your actions.

resisting that temptation to hate them would be an act of love.

For me it´s a skill you can learn, in your own best interest.

since that love can be shown to everyone everywhere at all times that constitutes (perfectly rational) unconditional love.

I must admit that I have problems with the term "love", anyways. It´s so loaded. In this case I find it a bit too big for a simple learnable behavioural pattern. Ymmv.

 

[granpa]

Slowly with the mindreadings and answering your questions on behalf of me!
I am fortunate in never having felt hate towards anyone.
Sure, I am familiar with negative emotions like fear, disgust etc., but then, I am a rational person and I have found them to be harmful not only for the person directed to, but even more for myself. Reason enough to practice overcoming their control over me.
I think there are pretty simple thoughtpatterns and exercises for doing that. They may not make the negative emotions disappear completely, but they will dramatically reduce the timespan until you gain control over them, and thus not allowing them an impact on your actions.

For me it´s a skill you can learn, in your own best interest.

I must admit that I have problems with the term "love", anyways. It´s so loaded. In this case I find it a bit too big for a simple learnable behavioural pattern. Ymmv.

live long and prosper.

 

[quatona]

live long and prosper.

Thanks for the conversation and a belated welcome to this forum!

 

[granpa]

Thanks for the conversation and a belated welcome to this forum!

thank you.

 

[granpa]

Your suggestion is that, since no one has free will, then no one can be blamed for his or her situation?

i deduce that because there is a cause for every effect that nobody should blame others or themselves for their situation.
(a responsible person will take responsibility for their actions though)


sorry to take so long to respond. i thought i had responded to you when in fact i had responded to quatona.
i have posts on 5 different forums and i have trouble remembering things.

 

[Emmy]

Dear granpa. You are right, and UNCONDITIONAL means, what it says. Loving at al times and in all places. That is God`s Love for us, and the love we should have for others. Agape, love pure and straightforward. If there are people who cannot help being dangerous in any way, we can still bring them to God in prayer. God is the Judge, and His Law is absolutely fair, Rewards for those who follow God`s loving advice, and fair und suitable consequences for those who go against God`s Law. I say this humbly and with love, granpa, and send greetings. Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[The Nihilist]

i deduce that because there is a cause for every effect that nobody should blame others or themselves for their situation.
(a responsible person will take responsibility for their actions though)

I'm going to pretend you said you're a determinist.


If praise and blame are useful for getting people to behave well, then they are justified whether or not a criminal can control his actions. If praise serves as a good incentive for being a good citizen, and blame a good disinsentive for being a criminal, then difference does responsibility make at all?

 

[The Nihilist]

Dear granpa. You are right, and UNCONDITIONAL means, what it says. Loving at al times and in all places. That is God`s Love for us, and the love we should have for others. Agape, love pure and straightforward. If there are people who cannot help being dangerous in any way, we can still bring them to God in prayer. God is the Judge, and His Law is absolutely fair, Rewards for those who follow God`s loving advice, and fair und suitable consequences for those who go against God`s Law. I say this humbly and with love, granpa, and send greetings. Emmy, your sister in Christ.

booooooorrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggggggg

 

[granpa]

I'm going to pretend you said you're a determinist.


If praise and blame are useful for getting people to behave well, then they are justified whether or not a criminal can control his actions. If praise serves as a good incentive for being a good citizen, and blame a good disinsentive for being a criminal, then difference does responsibility make at all?

blaming is not the same as disciplining. thats the difference. blaming is completely unnecessary. not to mention irrational for the reasons i have already shown.

 

[The Nihilist]

blaming is not the same as disciplining. thats the difference. blaming is completely unnecessary. not to mention irrational for the reasons i have already shown.

Blame can play a social function in the way I've outlined, as can praise.