even your odd evasion of erotic love now, is telling of how erotic love, leading to relationships is almost shameful. — schopenhauer1

Dear me, when was I evading erotic love?

sex addict — schopenhauer1

"Lord, make me chaste -- but not yet." Augustine prayed.

:up: — schopenhauer1

Well, OK, thanks, but it doesn't answer why one should prefer an unloving life to a loving one (or else a loving life over an unloving one) - irrespective of the type of love addressed. I deem this to be a rather important question. But maybe its just me.

Dear me, when was I evading erotic love? — BC

:lol:

Looking back, no you sufficiently addressed it. But I was trying to pry it from your going back to friendships and the like, which I thought might have been equivocating like "eh if you have good friends, and you had sex just casually with a friends-with-benefits/fling, you don't need relationships". But that is not eros. My whole theory here is that eros has to embody all 4 of those things in a person(s) (at the least) for it to obtain, and it is not something that is trivial and can be mixed and matched, and as you state, is the prime reason humans mate exist (for good or bad!) and write poetry, songs, endless conversations of despair and delight, etc.

Well, OK, thanks, but it doesn't answer why one should prefer an unloving life to a loving one (or else a loving life over an unloving one) - irrespective of the type of love addressed. I deem this to be a rather important question. But maybe its just me. — javra

No I agree with you. That doesn't negate that it causes suffering nonetheless. I never said "thus we don't need eros". Rather, it is part of being alive as a human. Even ignoring, downplaying, or eradicating love from one's life (or attempts thereof), is having to deal with love, but in the "negative" sense of negating it. One is still contending with it on sociological and personal level.

In decades past (like... 1970-1990) many gay men maintained less exclusive sexual relationships than some gay men do now (now many gay men seem to toe the straight and narrow). One had a set of non-sexual relationships with friends, gay and straight.. One might have a committed sexual relationship with 1 person (at a time--more than 1 gets complicated quickly). Whether one was in a settled relationship or not, there might be very casual sexual relationships that were more or less transitory.

Run of the mill sex with a casual partner usually didn't pose a threat to a settled relationship. What did pose a threat was great sex with a casual partner--it tended to pull one's interest away from the person one was most committed to, giving rise to jealousy and resentment.

How does any committed relationships last under these circumstances? They last IF both partners are committed to each other, without being exclusive. Also, as couples age, the attraction of casual partners diminishes. Casual sex takes time, and having a home, a partner, pets, a job, an exercise routine, civic / religious activities, etc. just doesn't leave time and energy for sexual adventures on the side.

Do words have to "be" the things they refer to have content? — Count Timothy von Icarus

All that's required is context, which has been the theme of my criticism. We usually have considerable context which allows us to navigate the nuances I describe with ease.

Do words necessarily have to refer to unique things or can they refer to general principles/universals — Count Timothy von Icarus

Words such as "that" can be used to refer to all sorts of things, does that mean "that" is a "general principle"?

Asking "What is that" with context is a perfectly reasonable question, and asking "What is that" with no context is a perfectly unreasonable question. Can I say that we've established some words such as "that", rely heavily on context and do not represent "general principles"?

On the other side of that spectrum, of requiring context, are terms like "lactose intolerant" or "spotted hyena". I'm guessing these are not what you'd consider "general principles"?

Assuming you agree the word "that" absolutely requires context, and the term "lactose intolerant" doesn't, then what is the difference? Is it perhaps that what the word refers to differs by context?

Moreover, can't they refer to sets, potentially sets of universals that share properties? — Count Timothy von Icarus

They can.

You bring up examples such as triangles, which as a term, is closer to "lactose intolerant". All shapes that qualify to be triangles do so for the same reasons, it's not changed by context. Triangles "share" properties because for a shape to be a triangle it must possess specific properties. Also, a triangle is just a shape that has these properties and nothing more.

Would it likewise be absurd to discuss energy because it can be broken down into kinetic energy, nuclear, electric, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, though it would be absurd if it could be broken down instead into electric, spiritual and sexual energy. My problem isn't with breaking down concepts into smaller categories but pairing categories that are related by the shared use of a word, and assuming they're connected.

I don't think "energy" is changed by whether we're talking about kinetic, nuclear or electric, but I do think "pain" is changed by whether we're talking about physical or emotional pain. I'm not denying that there can be similarities, but it's not unusual for different things to have similarities, and similarities themselves aren't necessarily meaningful, especially if they're linguistic. The process for qualifying as physical pain vs emotional pain has differences, the process for qualifying as energy has none, same with qualifying as a "triangle".

That people can disagree on the meanings of words or sensory data doesn't really say much because some people will disagree about virtually everything. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interpretation is built into the truth conditions of the terms. While people can disagree on anything, in cases such as the Earth being flat, there are no such truth conditions, people can be wrong. It's a matter of what's determinative of the correct answer, and appreciating that when opinion is part of the truth conditions, the answer is a person's opinion. While we've stepped away from "right" and "wrong", still, some answers are useful, compelling, and inspirational and others are misguided and foolish, that's worth keeping in mind.

And yet it seems like there must be some causal explanation underlying the application of the same word to diffuse states and some causal explanation for how people generally understand these words so easily. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, they use context.

I don't agree at all that people would be at a total loss if someone were to say they are experiencing "pain" and they failed to specify which type of pain. They still have an idea of what is being referenced. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep, using context, it's really easy to overlook, but you're not bringing context up at all.

"Invented concepts," cannot be free floating from the world unless language is causally distinct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They're not necessarily "floating free", as I said, our understanding of "love" could be influenced by a play such as Romeo and Juliet. My point is that a wide variety of factors are involved, as opposed to just our understanding of the "states of being".

is the argument that words only have meanings to the extent that they are operationalized? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. Bipolar disorder just sits closer to "lactose intolerant". Word meaning is context-dependent. Though I'm talking about studying, investigating and understanding concepts. Operationalization addresses the problem of the inappropriate determinative factors I describe by taking words and ideas that differ by person and defining them in ways where they do not differ by person. Allowing for consistency and clarity, reliable data collection, and rooting the topic down in place.

Surely, people can be "more right," about describing things than others, — Count Timothy von Icarus

When dealing with "things" that have interpretation embedded into their truth conditions, or have implications that fall outside of their truth conditions, then being "right" is reliant on interpretation.

Expertise in love might mean explaining love in a way that helps people to have healthy relationships and live fulfilling lives. Giving people a framework to create meaningful relationships and act honourably, allowing them to win the respect of others and themselves. It might mean being able to articulate an understanding of love that would create a peaceful and flourishing society.

We want different things out of our words. Our opinions might sometimes be changed by scientific developments but they could also be changed by a variety of other factors as well. This leniency is useful, not a flaw, it allows us to adapt our language to express our thoughts and feelings and remain flexible in our ability to make practical changes.

I suspect your understanding of love coincides well with your ethical stances, how you want people to be treated, how you think others should act, the kind of society you'd like to live in, and so on. Our views, products of the time and place we were born into, and are shaped by social, cultural and moral factors. Surely, we can't have both this and a scientific or "general principle" approach, they're mutually exclusive. Unless I'm wrong that the concept of "love" is receptive to ethical and cultural changes, how can it be a general principle that one can study and be "right" about?

No I agree with you. That doesn't negate that it causes suffering nonetheless. I never said "thus we don't need eros". Rather, it is part of being alive as a human. Even ignoring, downplaying, or eradicating love from one's life (or attempts thereof), is having to deal with love, but in the "negative" sense of negating it. One is still contending with it on sociological and personal level. — schopenhauer1

I’ll try to simplify my perspective: granting that suffering is unwanted by the sufferer(s), if all paths in life end up being “just another avenue toward suffering” then: 1) that some path is just another avenue toward suffering makes no difference whatsoever in respect to the path’s worth in comparison to any other path and 2) the intent to minimize suffering in oneself and in others would then become warrantless, for this too would then in itself be just another avenue toward suffering.

This digs its heels into a much broader issue than that of love. To me something is very wrong with this outlined reasoning. (The only out that I so far see is if some paths in life were to lead to liberation from suffering in principle—at the very least to a far better extent relative to other paths. This as in the overly simplified affirmation that "only love can conquer hate", wherein love is deemed to be such a path toward liberation from suffering. But this is something I so far presume you disagree with.)

This stipulated wrongness however, whatever it might be agreed to be, then directly applies to the affirmation that love (even if strictly understood as eros) is just another avenue toward suffering. It’s then a difference that makes no difference whatsoever. But underlying this is the far broader issue just mentioned.

All this being relevant to the issue I initially raised, which I summed up in my last post as that of:

why one should prefer an unloving life to a loving one (or else a loving life over an unloving one) - irrespective of the type of love addressed. — javra

Do you disagree that love is an abstraction abstracted from, ultimately, concrete particulars?

If it is, then as abstraction it will hold its own properties which equally apply to all subspecies of love, each its own abstraction, which in turn will each hold properties applicable to, ultimately, concrete particulars.

Via analogy, animal is an abstraction of, for example, mammals, reptiles, invertebrates, etc., with each such subspecies of abstraction ultimately being abstracted from concrete particulars. As such, the abstraction of animal will hold properties applicable to all subspecies of abstraction and, ultimately, all concrete particulars it is an abstraction of. And an animal is utterly distinct from a plant, or fungus, etc.

Love, then, would be endowed with a fixed set of universal attributes relative to what it is an abstraction of in like manner to how animal, for example, is so endowed.

Run of the mill sex with a casual partner usually didn't pose a threat to a settled relationship. What did pose a threat was great sex with a casual partner--it tended to pull one's interest away from the person one was most committed to, giving rise to jealousy and resentment.

How does any committed relationships last under these circumstances? They last IF both partners are committed to each other, without being exclusive. Also, as couples age, the attraction of casual partners diminishes. Casual sex takes time, and having a home, a partner, pets, a job, an exercise routine, civic / religious activities, etc. just doesn't leave time and energy for sexual adventures on the side. — BC

Indeed, but my point was that we should not conflate eros with any one part of those 4 parts, otherwise it isn't love. Sexual adventure is just that, sex... Physical acts of a sexual nature. Just because it is with someone else, doesn't make it eros.

A strong emotional bond with someone can also be a kind of love. But if it is not sexual or physical in nature, it's hard to call that eros. A deep kind of Platonic love (philia perhaps?) would characterize this better.

A strong physical attraction without any emotional bond or sex is simply a sort of crush.

A relationship without attraction or sex, would deflate back to a friend.

That's all I'm saying. We can convolute it all we want but my conclusion was that if that is the case, then as you point out, this 1-4 necessity of eros to obtain causes quite a bit of strife for parties involved who seek eros. And as I stated, males are socially supposed to be quite stupid when it comes to how it works, and emotionally indifferent to wanting it. Females are socially supposed to be more open about finding love, and having 1-4 obtain. Perhaps they are often the gatekeeper for how 1-4 traditionally plays out. In the gay community, this may look a bit different, especially if males are generally indifferent to 1-4, and women are hypersensitive to it. Obviously this is generalizing and caricaturizing, but there may be truths to cliches and not because they are innate necessarily, but because it is how men and women are socialized.

This stipulated wrongness however, whatever it might be agreed to be, then directly applies to the affirmation that love (even if strictly understood as eros) is just another avenue toward suffering. It’s then a difference that makes no difference whatsoever. But underlying this is the far broader issue just mentioned.

All this being relevant to the issue I initially raised, which I summed up in my last post as that of: — javra

Well you did catch on to my point, yes. It is the Schopenhauer schema. That is the human being has no choice but the suffering of their wants and desires which may or may not obtain and may cause pain, harm, suffering along the way. It's unavoidable. You can try to minimize it, handwave it, or ignore it, but it's there nonetheless. Are you really going to tell (gaslight) me that love does not lead to much strife in the human socio-psychological sphere?

And eros love in particular is something people strongly desire, but fail at. I simply laid out a model for why it is easy to fail, as there are several steps and each one has to align, and each one can cause the downfall of the whole project.

As I stated just above:

Indeed, but my point was that we should not conflate eros with any one part of those 4 parts, otherwise it isn't love. Sexual adventure is just that, sex... Physical acts of a sexual nature. Just because it is with someone else, doesn't make it eros.

A strong emotional bond with someone can also be a kind of love. But if it is not sexual or physical in nature, it's hard to call that eros. A deep kind of Platonic love (philia perhaps?) would characterize this better.

A strong physical attraction without any emotional bond or sex is simply a sort of crush.

A relationship without attraction or sex, would deflate back to a friend.

That's all I'm saying. We can convolute it all we want but my conclusion was that if that is the case, then as you point out, this 1-4 necessity of eros to obtain causes quite a bit of strife for parties involved who seek eros. And as I stated, males are socially supposed to be quite stupid when it comes to how it works, and emotionally indifferent to wanting it. Females are socially supposed to be more open about finding love, and having 1-4 obtain. Perhaps they are often the gatekeeper for how 1-4 traditionally plays out. In the gay community, this may look a bit different, especially if males are generally indifferent to 1-4, and women are hypersensitive to it. Obviously this is generalizing and caricaturizing, but there may be truths to cliches and not because they are innate necessarily, but because it is how men and women are socialized. — schopenhauer1

It's akin to "work" and "labor". That is to say there are things in life we rather not do, but we can't just handwave it. It is inevitable to suffer in a way such that one has to do tasks that one would otherwise skip. But the pain, harm, tedium, and suffering involved in non-wanted forms of work have to be dealt with. Just like with love, one can try to find all sorts of self-help therapies to deal with unwanted aspects of things, but the burden is there to "deal with" nonetheless. Life in a way, for a self-reflecting animal as ourselves, is oriented with "dealing with", and psycho-social ways we choose to cope with the burdens involved in "dealing with".

So I'm not saying that thus love should be abandoned. I am just elaborating on the why it is hard to obtain and maintain. I am systemizing why eros breaks down in so many ways. It's a process and a state of affairs that has to be aligned and present.

Some questions about love:

The body is wired for sex; we don't have to learn a sex drive. Is the body wired for agape? Storge? Philia? We seem to need to be taught about agape; love of country or community; philia may need less tutoring than agape, but we at least need to learn how to practice philia, agape, storge. ["Storage" only shows up in discussions like this. What word do most people use for Storge (storgē, Greek: στοργή) is liking someone through the fondness of familiarity, family members or people who relate in familiar ways that have otherwise found themselves bonded by chance. An example is the natural love and affection of a parent for their child.].

Is there a single source for the "love urge" be it for one's child, one's friend, one's brother, for 'the world', for whatever it is that we love?

How is erotic love -- or raw eros, for that matter -- related to the other types of love?

Is there 'a basic love' that differentiates in various ways, given the circumstances, or do the various kinds of love arise separately? (seems unlikely to me).

I'm not expecting any definitive answers. Lots of theories out there.

As for erotic love -- my theory is that eros begins as a raw form and is gradually tamed, civilized. Who does the taming, the civilizing? Parents? Not mine -- they didn't talk about sex. School? God, no. The church. God forbid. Who, then?

Eros gets civilized, tamed, during sexual interactions--in the trenches, as it were. Other people set the limits on what they find acceptable or out of bounds, and since we want their approval / cooperation... whatever, we conform to their standards.

In contrast, take a person who has lived a very protected life or has lived in an institution from childhood into adulthood, say, owing to disability or MI. They are liable to display inappropriate sexual behavior because they haven't been out and about enough. By "inappropriate" I mean they don't "read the room" very well.

(I'm thinking of a fellow I met at the Y who was in a MI program. He said he was schizophrenic; could well be. He apparently was gay. His behavior in the locker room wasn't scandalous, it was
unschooled. 99.9% of men avoid prolonged frank stares, for instance. Not this guy, I was sorry to see him at a large gay bar downtown later -- not the place uninitiated vulnerable people should be hanging out.). He hadn't learned the social routines of fitness centers, let alone gay bars.

Case reports aside, most people learn how to seek out and find, locate sexual partners; appraise them for suitability; determine interest, make appropriate overtures, and go somewhere to get It on. Having gotten there, we learn what works well, what falls flat, what is likely to upset or antagonize, and how to avoid doing it. (Thinking of my first early adult sexual experience, "OK, now what am I supposed to do?)

In most cases, it doesn't take long to figure all this out, because quite often the rules for sexual encounters are similar to those that apply in any other kind of encounter.

For about two days now you’ve touched upon just about anything and everything but the core issue I’ve raised in every post I’ve made to you.

I’ll try one last time, but, if you again evade the issue and don't provide an answer, I’ll then be convinced you’re doing it intentionally on account of not having a rational answer to give:

• If suffering is to be deemed bad, and if all endeavors inevitably lead to suffering regardless of their quality, effort, and means—as Schopenhauer and you maintain—then on what grounds are love-antagonistic endeavors, such as that of becoming a mass murderer, to be proscribed in favor of love-cherishing endeavors, for both endeavors will share the exact same attribute of resulting in suffering, making the first category of endeavors just as preferable as the second.

(To spell things out a little clearer, what I’ve been repeatedly asking you is a morality question of how any ethical ought can be obtained given the premises you uphold. And yes, most will in simplistic terms maintain that love (be it pure agape or else agape-endowed storge, philia, or eros) in general is a good, whereas malice in general is a bad. But, again, why should this generalization be upheld when both necessarily result in the same bad outcome? It’s a simple enough question regarding reasoning.)

Is there a single source for the "love urge" be it for one's child, one's friend, one's brother, for 'the world', for whatever it is that we love?

How is erotic love -- or raw eros, for that matter -- related to the other types of love?

Is there 'a basic love' that differentiates in various ways, given the circumstances, or do the various kinds of love arise separately? (seems unlikely to me). — BC

I think there could be a case that they are all related through the idea of "care".
Agape is caring about humanity or the divine.
Philia is caring about someone one interacts with over time.
Storge is caring about "chance" or circumstantial kin (as you rightly framed that term).
Eros is caring about someone.

But then, not to beat a dead horse here, but Eros and Philia then become the same thing UNLESS you add the other component. Thus:

Eros is caring for someone you are attracted to physically/personality-wise, are sexual with, and forms into a relationship for which the care takes place over a long-term duration.

As for erotic love -- my theory is that eros begins as a raw form and is gradually tamed, civilized. Who does the taming, the civilizing? Parents? Not mine -- they didn't talk about sex. School? God, no. The church. God forbid. Who, then?

Eros gets civilized, tamed, during sexual interactions--in the trenches, as it were. Other people set the limits on what they find acceptable or out of bounds, and since we want their approval / cooperation... whatever, we conform to their standards. — BC

I think what you are saying actually ties into one of the modern day foibles of eros love. That is to say, because 1-4 is not explicitly stated, and because love is supposed to be seen as a sort of serendipitous event, it leads to misunderstandings, with unmet expectations, and misaligned communication. That is to say, 1-4 is the structure, but since love is supposed to be some ideal that is undefined, it tends to fail to start, flourish, sustain, and so on. Ironically, discussing the "structure" is taking the "romance" out of it. As if with all of this, there needs to be an element of whimsy and chance otherwise it is sterile and 1 leads nowhere (no 2 had, no 3 had, and definitely not 4).

In contrast, take a person who has lived a very protected life or has lived in an institution from childhood into adulthood, say, owing to disability or MI. They are liable to display inappropriate sexual behavior because they haven't been out and about enough. By "inappropriate" I mean they don't "read the room" very well. — BC

Yes, but you speak of very specific interactions. I am speaking of the structure, what the interactions represent. Thus the initial interactions are probably because of some attraction. More interaction creates even more attraction or perhaps the opposite, a sort of repulsion. That might lead to sex and relationships, etc. Sure, sex can be had right off the bat, and then perhaps the other things follow, but that usually is not how it goes, and generally leads to friends-with-benefits or flings. It doesn't have to go in order, but the order is generally the way it goes. Even if the order is not there, 1-4 steps have to be present in some sense, otherwise you can be talking about anything physical or sexual and that counts as "eros", which obviously I am making a case that it is not.

If suffering is to be deemed bad, and if all endeavors inevitably lead to suffering regardless of their quality, effort, and means—as Schopenhauer and you maintain—then on what grounds are love-antagonistic endeavors, such as that of becoming a mass murderer, to be proscribed in favor of love-cherishing endeavors, for both endeavors will share the exact same attribute of resulting in suffering, making the first category of endeavors just as preferable as the second.

(To spell things out a little clearer, what I’ve been repeatedly asking you is a morality question of how any ethical ought can be obtained given the premises you uphold. And yes, most will in simplistic terms maintain that love (be it pure agape or else agape-endowed storge, philia, or eros) in general is a good, whereas malice in general is a bad. But, again, why should this generalization be upheld when both necessarily result in the same bad outcome? It’s a simple enough question regarding reasoning.) — javra

I think you just present a false dichotomy or odd straw man. Why would love causing suffering and mass-murder causing suffering be equivalent because one can lead to suffering, and one definitely leads to suffering? You are trying to get me pinned down to a morality tale from something that isn't necessarily moral. If you play a game and it leads to suffering, it isn't "immoral" that you played that game. If you FORCED someone to play a game knowing that it will probably lead to suffering, that is a different story, and we can start talking morality. Obviously the case of the mass-murderer is FORCING a harm onto someone else. But we need not go down this side-street.

Rather, my position overall is that once born, we are in a position to have to "deal with" as that is part-and-parcel of life. You can choose to deal with things in a number of ways, but you can't get away from certain inherent features that are part of being a self-reflective social creature.

Do you disagree that love is an abstraction abstracted from, ultimately, concrete particulars? — javra

The term is changed by context, it's influenced by culture and ethics, and it's a concept with no clear rules or truth conditions, and truth conditions are separate from the meaning of the term. There are so many different, but valid ways to understand the word. Some of these ways are more directly aimed at referencing "concrete particulars" than others. You've already addressed some distinctly different ideas.

It’s often been said that “love is nothin’ more than chemicals in the brain”. But then, what of anything cognitive—percepts, convictions, thoughts, disdains, etc.—that relies upon the brain’s operations doesn’t consist of neurotransmitters? — javra

One form of this which is relatively commonly known to moderners being that of “God = Love (this rather than an omnipotent and omniscient male psyche somewhere up in the skies)”. — javra

Later in the same post, you went on to clarify the distinction between "strong-like" and "unity of being". This wasn't your attempt at an exhaustive list, and I'm confident there are many more distinct perspectives on love that you could bring up, but even so, you effortlessly brought up so many.

Isn't that true? It's confusing to be asked whether love is "an abstraction...", you should know that there's more than just one. Explain your thoughts on this.

If it is, then as abstraction it will hold its own properties which equally apply to all subspecies of love, each its own abstraction, which in turn will each hold properties applicable to, ultimately, concrete particulars — javra

Love involves interpretation, and is thus influenced by a variety of biases and contextual factors, though in this case, I don't mean "contextual factors" which influence the type of love we're talking about. You've agreed with me that ethics plays a role. This alone destroys any chance for love having consistent properties. Think about it, how can ethics influence our interpretation of an intensely personal feeling? The same feeling could exist in two scenarios, classified as love in one, and not the other, because of how we interpret what makes a relationship toxic or unhealthy. Are these the properties you're referring to?

Love, then, would be endowed with a fixed set of universal attributes relative to what it is an abstraction of in like manner to how animal, for example, is so endowed. — javra

It doesn't matter if "love is an abstraction abstracted from concrete particulars". If there's even a single truth condition that's dependant upon interpretation then the properties you refer to include factors that differ by person.

All the words used as counterexamples consist entirely of truth conditions uninfluenced by interpretation, feelings, circumstances, context or bias. That's what gives a term like "animal" its universal attributes, they're universal because they do not differ by person. Each organism that qualifies to be an animal must have these properties. For love, we can say each subcategory of love has the properties to be considered love, but just from one person's perspective. It's distinctly not universal.

I think you just present a false dichotomy or odd straw man. — schopenhauer1

I don’t. Although I don’t want to here get into a debate on how deontology’s sole justification is consequentialist in nature, consequentialism, which includes eudemonism, certainly enters the picture. And the perspective addressed is not that of some abstract notion of “harm to anyone”. As one example of how this dictum is often ill-fit, sustaining equality of rights FORCES direct harm onto tyrants—but this doesn’t justify a morality in which tyrants are given the freedom to tyrannize.

The perspective is simply that of an individual subject’s reason for choosing between future acts of malice and future acts of love—this when both are deemed to hold the same bad consequence of suffering for the individual subject in question.

But I get the impression that we’re on very different wavelengths here. Pity in a way, since I believe that the topic of love and suffering is rich with nuances and, indeed, with exceptions—thereby justifying the prescription of love over malice. But so be it then.

As one example of how this dictum is often ill-fit, sustaining equality of rights FORCES direct harm onto tyrants—but this doesn’t justify a morality in which tyrants are given the freedom to tyrannize. — javra

Indeed, and I would agree that the tyrant then is causing harm, and it is okay to stop them from doing so. The suffering of a tyrant not being able to cause harm is not a moral consideration, but a consideration of if someone is allowed to pursue their self-interest when that self-interest IS violating a moral consideration.

The perspective is simply that of an individual subject’s reason for choosing between future acts of malice and future acts of love—this when both are deemed to hold the same bad consequence of suffering for the individual subject in question.

But I get the impression that we’re on very different wavelengths here. Pity in a way, since I believe that the topic of love and suffering is rich with nuances and, indeed, with exceptions—thereby justifying the prescription of love over malice. But so be it then. — javra

Future acts of malice are immoral. Future acts of love are not. Both can lead to suffering, however. But those aren't conflated. Life necessitates suffering indeed. But I wouldn't want to force the conditions of life's suffering on another, if possible. So once alive, if it's easier to negate love than pursue it, and that causes less suffering, then do it. If pursuing love causes less suffering than negating it, than pursue that. If both cause the same amount of suffering, it's a wash.

Edit: And one of the conditions of life is that sometimes, to pursue a goal, we must suffer greatly. Presumably erotic love is so desirous a goal because it meets many people's desires (to be cared for/to care for others, physical intimacy/sex, and having a person you are with to share good and bad times with and feel close to). That seems to pack a high value. However, obtaining and sustaining this can cause also high amounts of suffering. It is probably worth it to pursue if one wants to gain the benefits of fulfilling those needs.

This goes back to the idea of whether suffering is all that bad. And contra a Nietzschean perspective on suffering, I think it is bad. That is to say, if those needs were met to begin with (pace Schopenhauer), then the suffering need not take place to begin with. The Nietzschean counter that, "The value is in the suffering/pursuit", I simply say that this is in fact the "slave mentality (notice I am actually inversing Nietzschean's terms, that rascal!). That is to say, if one already had what one needs, want wouldn't even NEED to justify the suffering in the first place. One would feel whole in some sense, complete. But that is not the human condition.

Later in the same post, you went on to clarify the distinction between "strong-like" and "unity of being". This wasn't your attempt at an exhaustive list, and I'm confident there are many more distinct perspectives on love that you could bring up, but even so, you effortlessly brought up so many.

Isn't that true? It's confusing to be asked whether love is "an abstraction...", you should know that there's more than just one. Explain your thoughts on this. — Judaka

As relates to the English term "love", I so far maintain that it can only bifurcate into "unity of being" of various types and into "strong-liking-of", which again can come in various types. Both seem to me to belong to the umbrella concept - itself an abstraction - of "affinity" but that, whereas "love" can be a verb, "affinity" cannot - to my mind partly explaining why love can in English be used in both senses.

As to more than just one type of unity of being, yes, of course. Greek comes in handy in distinguishing philia, from storge, from eros, from pure agape, for example. But all these different types of unity of being shall yet be a unity of being. Else expressed, all specific types of love (in the sense of a unity of being) shall yet be love (a unity of being). This just as there are many different types of animal but, from fish, to birds, to amphibians, etc., all are yet animals (here, at least, going by the science-grounded definition of "animal" ... a little more on this below).

Certainly love, be it understood as a unity or being or more broadly as affinity (wherein strong liking can be incorporated), is globally distinct from envy, for example, to not once again express the attribute of malice. As such, all variations of love will share a commonality.

To my mind, it is this commonality which the question of "what is love" seeks to better explore.

You've agreed with me that ethics plays a role. This alone destroys any chance for love having consistent properties. Think about it, how can ethics influence our interpretation of an intensely personal feeling? The same feeling could exist in two scenarios, classified as love in one, and not the other, because of how we interpret what makes a relationship toxic or unhealthy. Are these the properties you're referring to? — Judaka

I myself don't situate thing in terms of ethics playing a role in love, but of love playing an integral role in ethics. I'm coming from the vantage that love, unity of being, is ethical - in so far as being good, if not what's sometimes been termed "the Good" (neo-Platonic notions of "the One" for example come to mind, wherein the One is a literally absolute, hence complete, and perfected unity of being). It is then our all too human deviations from love - such as the inclination toward possessiveness in romantic love, or of domination in parental love (to list just two among innumerable examples of how love can go wrong, which will also include the opposite of holding laissez faire attitudes in either type of relationship just mentioned) - which leads to the unethical, i.e. to that which is bad. The more we deviate from the ideal of love should be, the worse, and so more bad, the situation becomes, despite the feelings held. And it is in this latter case alone that institutionalized ethics, morality, then influences our interpretation of intensely personal feelings. But I grant that this plays into an ontological interpretation of love which doesn't fit that of it strictly being a biologically evolved set of emotions or feelings. And it might be this which we at base actually disagree on (?).

If there's even a single truth condition that's dependant upon interpretation then the properties you refer to include factors that differ by person. — Judaka

I so far find the same can be said of consciousness, for example. Yet I'm not one to entertain thoughts that one's person's consciousness is another person's cauliflower. :wink: More soberly, I do maintain that something which the term "consciousness" tacitly references is universally shared by all conscious beings, regardless of culture and so forth, and this despite what it exactly is not yet being adequately defined.

The parable of different blind men interpreting what an elephant is based on their strictly localized experiences of its body comes to mind. One will define it by its trunk's properties. Another by its tail's. But the elephant remains and elephant all the same. Same I think can be said of consciousness, as well as of love.

That's what gives a term like "animal" its universal attributes, they're universal because they do not differ by person. Each organism that qualifies to be an animal must have these properties. — Judaka

When it comes to the term's scientific definition, yes. But in everyday life most certainly not, and here the scientific interpretation is just one variant among many. Most will maintain that a coral, for example, is not an animal. And many adamantly hold that humans are not, this on the opposite side of the spectrum. To give just two examples of how "animal" doesn't hold universal attributes as abstraction among all people that utilize the term. (Even the typical scientist won't like it much if termed an animal by some other.) But yet when looked at more impartially, what an animal is can be pinpointed with relative stability, this as biology does. Of course, a main difficulty here is that love, unity of being, is not biological in any empirical sense but psychological and intangible. This, though, I argue does not make love either unreal or else unimportant (immaterial in this sense). As to its common property, I tried to already speak to this; namely, all forms of love will be a unity of being, differing in the specifics of between whom.

All this not so much in attempts to convince but more in keeping with sharing perspectives.



.

Thought this video might be appropriate here. I enjoyed and was inspired by it.

(Spoiler alert: the video refers to certain practices that may strike some individuals as being quite religious or even spiritual. For those, viewer discretion is advised. :snicker: )

Thought this video might be appropriate here. I enjoyed and was inspired by it. — 0 thru 9

Yet this Sufi understanding of love would then be entirely contingent on what one makes of, else how one interprets, the term “God”. For instance, if "God" is understood in a more Brahman-like way, then a mutually shared romantic love (with its erotic sex included) will be one aspect of love thus understood.

At any rate, the video presents what is to me a pleasant alternative to the often-touted motif that one ought to have “fear of God”. Love as longing for unity with God, as the Sufis can be said to hold, and, on the other hand, the need to constantly hold a fear of God will generally lead to two very disparate and in many ways contradictory worldviews. (Via a very rough analogy, loving one's parent is a very different form of respect than that which occurs via fearing one's parent.)

Apropos, what then do you make of the proposition that "love obliterates ego in due measure with it's strength"? Otherwise stated, that one looses oneself with the attribute of love in due measure to the love's strength. This furthermore varying with the type of love addressed.

Yet this Sufi understanding of love would then be entirely contingent on what one makes of, else how one interprets, the term “God”. For instance, if "God" is understood in a more Brahman-like way, then a mutually shared romantic love (with its erotic sex included) will be one aspect of love thus understood. — javra

Thanks for your reply! :smile:

I’m not a Sufi or expert, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that at the height of the experience, the Sufi merges with love, with the All.
They probably could get philosophical in quiet moments, and explain it in concepts.
But the being and experience seem primary, as I understand it.

But yes, a merging with the beloved that beyond sexual and personal seems to be a goal.

At any rate, the video presents what is to me a pleasant alternative to the often-touted motif that one ought to have “fear of God”. Love as longing for unity with God, as the Sufis can be said to hold, and, on the other hand, the need to constantly hold a fear of God will generally lead to two very disparate and in many ways contradictory worldviews. (Via a very rough analogy, loving one's parent is a very different form of respect than that which occurs via fearing one's parent.) — javra

Yes, well said! :up:

Apropos, what then do you make of the proposition that "love obliterates ego in due measure with it's strength"? Otherwise stated, that one looses oneself with the attribute of love in due measure to the love's strength. This furthermore varying with the type of love addressed. — javra

Perhaps when the love is strong, it makes one forget any feelings of separation and loneliness?
Rumi must have written a poem about it! Lol.

As a side issue…
I wonder if these Sufi practices and methods could be modified(?) to suit someone not comfortable with the whole ‘God thing’, which is understandable and common.
Buddhist meditation does not need to have a deity to focus on.

Maybe one could say they are seeking and (hopefully) merging with Pure Love, or something.

Who couldn’t use a little transcendence now and then?

Who couldn’t use a little transcendence now and then? — 0 thru 9

:grin: :up: I like that sentiment. But I don't have an answer as to the typical atheist's views on something like "Pure Love".

As relates to the English term "love", I so far maintain that it can only bifurcate into "unity of being" of various types and into "strong-liking-of", which again can come in various types. Both seem to me to belong to the umbrella concept - itself an abstraction - of "affinity" but that, whereas "love" can be a verb, "affinity" cannot - to my mind partly explaining why love can in English be used in both senses. — javra

What's determinative of that?

if I show evidence of different ways that the word is used, what could that accomplish? How would you respond?

I so far find the same can be said of consciousness, for example. — javra

The term "consciousness" does not have truth conditions that differ by person, and as a concept remains consistent throughout the majority of contexts or circumstances. This is unlike either "love" or "pain", and the two important differences. Same with "elephant", "animal" and I think every other example you've brought up. I'd like to emphasise criticism throughout this thread, of the topic "what is love", has been about these two important differences.

I myself don't situate thing in terms of ethics playing a role in love, but of love playing an integral role in ethics. I'm coming from the vantage that love, unity of being, is ethical - in so far as being good, — javra

I suppose I can understand why you feel that way. In my view, "unity of being" is entirely your concept, and its only ethical and moral influences are your own. Each of us has our own views, the role of ethics only becomes apparent when you start taking into consideration the variety of views, and looking at their reasoning.

The more we deviate from the ideal of love should be, the worse, and so more bad, the situation becomes, despite the feelings held. — javra

Keep in mind that when you say "the inclination toward possessiveness in romantic love, or of domination in parental love", these are necessarily ethical views. For instance, in the West, what we consider "possessiveness" is less controlling than what exists as norms in some other cultures. These are more words with interpretations as part of their truth conditions, and these conditions are informed in part by ethics. You cannot separate "love" from "love" like this without involving ethics.

Linguistically, if "Unity of being" is "just good", then speakers will simply refuse to refer to anything they think can't be "good" using the term. A term can be innately moral, but it can't both be innately moral AND be absent moral agreement as a truth condition. It would mean speakers would have to refer to relationships or feelings that they thought were immoral, as moral, by referring to them as "Unity of being".

Another example. You said that "Unity of being" can emerge from Stockholm syndrome, and I'm sure you can appreciate, that's a controversial opinion. There will be those who disapprove. You may feel that by definition "Unity of being" is inarguably true, but you've also said "Unity of being" is "just good". Someone unsupportive of such a relationship can't justify their feelings while simultaneously agreeing that their feelings are "just good". Certainly, If I was put in such a position, I'd make "goodness" a truth condition. "If "Unity of being" is good, then logically, feelings borne of Stockholm syndrome cannot be "Unity of love", because feelings borne of manipulation and abuse cannot be good".

I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from here... Whether ethics plays a role in "Unity of being" conceptually or in application, it will play a significant role, it's unavoidable.

Just to remind both myself and you, I brought up ethics because I wanted to show that "love" is influenced by it, and this influence demonstrates that "love" is a concept influenced by our opinions and feelings. If not for ethics but some other reason, such as recognising the influence of Romeo and Juliet or Snow White, or Jesus Christ/Christianity etc.

But I grant that this plays into an ontological interpretation of love which doesn't fit that of it strictly being a biologically evolved set of emotions or feelings. And it might be this which we at base actually disagree on (?). — javra

I'm okay with the co-existence of even mutually exclusive understandings of love because I view them as separate concepts.

To give just two examples of how "animal" doesn't hold universal attributes as abstraction among all people that utilize the term. — javra

Aren't they just examples of people being wrong?

But yet when looked at more impartially, what an animal is can be pinpointed with relative stability, this as biology does. — javra

The term lacks truth conditions that differ by person, and the truth conditions being fulfilled represent the meaning of the term. Sciences generally aim to avoid language that differs by person. There are both psychological terms and terms of intangible concepts that try to, with varying success, be ones that can be pinpointed impartially with relative stability. "Love" just isn't that, it's a word that expresses something deeply personal and important. It's not a word that a scientist or philosopher can design however they see fit. We don't want all words to be like "animal", it's necessary to have words like "love', they each have their role.

I get your stance, but, again, I don't see things that way. I'm starting to question what it is you have in mind when the term "love" is used. Many disparate concepts, yes, but you've hardly provided examples of what these might be (though you have previously agreed on the distinction between strong-liking-of and something else altogether). Aside from which, I feel like we're starting to go in circles. So I'll leave the discussion as is for my part.