To me though it seems to inhere conditionality, the necessary expectation of something in return, which doesn't fly with regard to love. See Un's post. Anyhow, talk is cheap in this area. — Baden

Even reciprocation is usually transactional. But, gifts serve as an external reinforcing factor to the furtherment of reciprocity.

Suppose you have a child Posty. And you love your child. Is it necessary or even appropriate to talk of such love in terms of a transaction?

it's not all talk, feelings and actions play a bigger role than Reason may wish, but reason can help too. — Moliere

I guess I just prefer a subtle approach than a full-on sermon, which even the most reasonable of us can fall into at times on topics like this.

That's fair.

I'll own up to the fact that love has been one of my philosophy topics for a bit. :D But there's wisdom to what you're saying here.

Depends on how you define what is of value to you in the relationship, is what I assume the question posed in proper transactional terms. Again, these things can be both emotional and material, not either/or.

I better quit while I'm ahead then. :gasp:

Do you think that would apply even to your love for your (hypothetical) new born baby? (Who is (let's face it) not immediately capable of reciprocation.)

I want to thank you all for your wisdom I couldn't have seen without you.

I feel the love now.

And you are talking in terms of "transactional analysis" right? Because Moliere wasn't as far as I could see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis

i can feel myself transforming and i see it in her too. I want to become closer to god.

Do you think that would apply even to your love for your (hypothetical) new born baby? (Who is (let's face it) not immediately capable of reciprocation. — Baden

How can a baby reciprocate anything, that's nonsensical to assume such a state of affairs?

Anyway, the point you seem to be asking, is what reasons are there for having the child if it cannot reciprocate for the 'favor' in return. Is that correct?

You can call it, that, given that the idea seems to hinge on rational self-interest and an eclectic mix of utilitarianism along with it. Everything's OK as long as there was no other way for things to be the way they are/we're in transactional analytic terms, I think.

No, it just wouldn't seem to make sense to call that love "transactional". "Unconditional" would be a better word, no?

i can feel myself transforming and i see it in her too. — Gord

Who?

Assuming rational self-interest here, there is something being derived from the fact of having a baby of my own.

The transaction would seem to be more with your sense of self-interest than with the baby then?

Yes, the baby itself can be the source of my satisfaction, though.

So, your description of your love for your baby would be something like: you give to your sense of self-interest the sanction to give love to the baby, which in turn gives you satisfaction by responding to that love? The transaction is love for satisfaction then. Something like that?

Yeah, there's no free lunch as you seem to get the gist.

But suppose the baby was sick with a terminal illness and loving it was bound to cause you more pain than satisfaction (as it's always more painful to lose that which you love and in proportion to the intensity of that love) could you stop yourself loving it for this reason?

Or even love it less for this reason? Wouldn't you, in actual fact, love it even more?

could you stop yourself loving it for this reason? — Baden

In principle I could though the idea is repugnant; but, would I be able to love myself with that conscious decision/deliberation?

What I'm trying to get is that the reality is that you would find you couldn't. You are likely to find yourself loving even if the result is overall more pain and sadness rather than satisfaction simply because that's how love operates. Reason isn't pulling the switches.

Reason says satisfaction is better than pain.
Love says pain is better than emptiness.

Reason says satisfaction is better than pain.
Love says pain is better than emptiness. — Baden

When it comes to the real world, things aren't as clear-cut.

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that things in the real world aren't clear cut. Mull over the example though if you would.

Who? — Baden

The girl whom im in love with. Her Chinese name is 遊走金字塔的女人. I do not yet know how to pronounce it in English. Will report back when i do.

Assuming rational self-interest here, there is something being derived from the fact of having a baby of my own. — Posty McPostface

Dude, assuming rational self interest is assuming no love at all. They are opposed. One might have children to ensure someone to change one's nappy in one's dotage - but that is prudence, not love.

I can say I love my children, — Ciceronianus the White

And you beat me to it. All other claims of love are so much less.

I don't think love is something we can give to all people, unless you equate it with "comradeship" or something similar. And I think it's quite possible to love someone and remain indifferent to everyone else. I think we do that all the time. We don't know anything about most other people, in fact. — Ciceronianus the White

I believe that authenticity is a state of mind and love is synonymous with what we know as our motivation that combined can be explained as moral consciousness, that awareness and feeling combined. It is not something outside of us, powered by some external source but something that we work to better understand within ourselves and it is the reason why you actually matter, the state of your mind and why, indeed, by better understanding this self-love you were likely drawn to philosophy and stoicism in the first place in order to help articulate this subjective language. The authenticity of our motivations or will is empowered by self-love, when we understand ourselves, appreciate who we are and find that peace formed by an acknowledgement that transcends others - hence why paradoxically it is by being alone that we learn how to love - because love is that language that explains our place in the world.

When we know ourselves and our wants and likes, we better express ourselves and much of the misery and grief in this world is that ignorance caused by society that coerces conformism and initiates artificial explanations of "love" to ensure people remain distant from themselves while thinking they are happy. When someone mistreats you, makes you feel terrible about who you are, you feel worthless and your motivation is shattered and in your indifference to yourself you begin to lack that feeling of empathy, of affection and kindness to others. In such bitterness, they themselves begin to commit the same error and thus that self-hatred and hedonism is given outwardly where nothing but destruction grows. The destruction here being everyone trying to be loved but not actually learning how to love themselves.

That is why I agree that it is indeed possible to think you love one person and remain indifferent to all else, but that is not love, that is just an enlarged ego. The motivation is not the same. That feeling of euphoria when someone love you - that can be born out of manipulation because you present yourself in a desirous way, because you are popular, because that is what everyone expects you to be like - is caused by that desire to have someone love you and that motivation is rooted - just like selfishness and narcissism - because of a deeper loneliness. There is no self-love.

So the problem is not about knowing other people. It is about knowing you.