There are people out there who claim love isn't a feeling, and that it's a choice. I disagree with this, based upon my own personal experience. If you google "Love is not a feeling," then you'll come across all sorts of articles that claim love isn't a feeling, and that it's everlasting. I personally think love can only be a transient feeling. I'd, for example, know if I was sad or not. If I wasn't feeling sad, then it would be quite obvious to me that I'm not sad. The same idea applies to love. When I can't feel love, it's quite obvious to me that I'm unable to love anybody or anything.

This leads me to the conclusion that love can only be a feeling. To say that love isn't a feeling, and that it's the choice of doing kind, helpful deeds for your soul mate, would be no different than saying that sadness isn't a feeling, and that it's the choice of going to your soul mate's funeral. Also, there are people who'd say that love is a mindset. For example, if a serial killer performed loving acts to deceive and lure in unsuspecting victims, then people would say that's not love because the serial killer's mindset wasn't a loving one. But, love comes down to either being: 1.) A mindset, or 2.) A feeling. I think it can only be a feeling.

A loving mindset alone can't allow a person to love anybody or anything, just as how a sad or angry mindset alone can't allow a person to be sad or angry. A loving mindset needs to take on an emotional form (i.e. it needs to make a person feel love), so that the person can love. It would be like how a sad or angry mindset needs to make a person feel sad or angry in order for the person to be sad or angry. Unfortunately, there are factors that prevent a loving mindset from making us feel love, such as having a mental illness, having brain damage, or just having stress in your life. An example of a mental illness that prevents us from feeling love would be clinical depression.

That means clinically depressed soul mates can't love one another, no matter what they think, and no matter what kind deeds they do for each other. Of course, there will be moments where these clinically depressed soul mates can love one another, since there are moments where clinically depressed people are able to feel positive emotions, such as love, pride, and joy. But, there wouldn't be that many moments, which means it would hardly be a loving relationship. Lastly, not only do we require positive emotions to love and experience joy, but we also require them to see goodness, beauty, magnificence, and awesomeness in moments, things, situations, works of art, and life itself. That's been my personal experience.

I read up on Love on wikipedia and what's to know is that it's a complex emotion. For instance, Love of wife is different from Love of sister is different from Love of a book, and so on. The wikipedia article doesn't mention what unifies these various forms of Love i.e. a common feature to all these isn't identified. The closest answer it gives is that Love is a positive emotion but that doesn't cut it because Like is a positive emotion and it's not the same as Love. Anyway, what I want to say is:

1) Love is a well-differentiated emotion (there are many kinds of Love).

The contrary of love is Hate. Now if you examine Hate you'll find that this emotion lacks the variety seen in love. Hate your mother, Hate your enemy, it's the same emotion. So, we can say:

2) Hate isn't a well-differentiated emotion (there's only one kind of Hate)

How can this be? Love has many forms. So, each form should have its very own contrary form of Hate, as distinct from each other as the forms of Love. But this isn't the case.

How can we explain this odd state of affairs?

We had it all: The Parable Of Alex and Emma


A long time ago, in the rural outskirts of Preston, in a small meaningless village, lived two of the main characters of this story, their names aren't important and they probably never made the pages of history, but there was one thing about them which makes this short story worth reading. Alex and Emma were both in their late teens and they new each other since they were little children, they were friends who lived on two opposite sides of their small village. Alex and Emma's story is that of missed opportunities, since they both loved each other but instead of being together they only played strong and blatantly lied to each other about how they really feel and what they actually want.
Alex had only love for Emma, they knew each other for around 8 years yet each time she was close to him his stomach would tingle and all he noticed was how beautiful she really was, everything about her was heavenly to him, he knew she had flaws but that only made him love her more.
Emma had been in more relationships than Alex, but those relationships came and went, and she never felt actual love from them because she knew that no other person loved her as much as Alex, except she loved him as well, she never pushed him away when he was trying to be closer to her and he always made time for and embraced her through every sorrow he witnessed her go through.
These two friends thought quite highly of each other, so they were always scared to talk about their feelings, Alex because he always wanted to look courageous for Emma and Emma because she was scared to look weak in front of Alex.
Their life and relationship were not always this indecisive but their story ends with a prophetic tragedy as they never accepted how perfect for each other they really were, so with time they only moved further apart and neither of them understood what they were missing and how easy it was for them to be happy with each other but that's the pain of this tragedy.
Alex died at the age of 66, alone and always in tears, for his wasted love towards Emma haunted him like an evil ghost, he smoked himself to death and with his dying mind he mustered one last thought, that thought was Emma, how he remembered her, only to pass away seconds later but with a smile on his face.
Emma passed away at 78, she had a husband but no children, she rarely thought of Alex but when she did, she missed him, the simpler times where she’d be walled in by her feelings and one gentle loving embrace from him would knock this wall down and go straight to her.
She finally gained enough courage and blinded by all that misused love for him she found him the the phone-books and now she felt as Alex once did for her the teenage tingle in her stomach, but when someone answered the phone, she knew that wasn't Alex, but the word she heard next would end her will of anything, “the kind older gentlemen that lived here before me, he passed away around 12 years ago, nobody apparently called him or cared about him the other tenants of the apartment block saying that he was a spiteful loner, and pushed everyone away.”
Feeling dizzy and overcome with terrifying thoughts Emma dropped towards her bed laying there she cried, she remembered that feeling she had when Alex would drop everything for her and give her the comfort she never felt again, she closed her eyes thinking of his arms around her waist and his nose gently pressed against her cheek, with that last comforting thought she drifted off and her eyes never again opened.

These two people loved each other so much, yet wasted their love which they still felt even in their final days. Both of them were examples a moral to be learned, feelings are important and they push the world forward but without acting on those feelings, they mean only half of what they could.
Alex and Emma are both still alive but with every coming day this cursed tale, this vile prophecy only creeps ever so closer to becoming reality so Alex and Emma are both responsible for what their future together will hold.

The real and truest meaning of this parable is to show how even the deepest love between two human beings can be destroyed by a fear of courage and despite their love not completely fading their lack of courage towards each other and their feelings ruined this beautiful relationship and made two people with a simple issue pass away with regret and hurt only because they acted on their feelings too late and wrecked their relationship because of something so easily avoidable.

"I don't claim to be the first to think of this, but they are my words and they come from a broken heart."

Patcharin analyzes in the book a phenomenon that occurs in the Isarn region of Thailand, which is the largest and most underdeveloped in the country, and that consists of marriages between women from the region and foreigners. For her study she focused on the village of Na Dokmai, a population of 4,300 dedicated to agriculture. What is surprising is that for such a small population, 159 of its wives were married or had long-term relationships with foreigners from 21 different countries. Patcharin looks at what is behind these relationships, which is what drives Isarn women to seek foreign husbands.
A first reason is a distrust towards Thai men in rural areas, who are seen as unreliable: they tend to have other lovers, they are little responsible towards their families, they get drunk and they like the game, and some of them are abusive. The idea that you cannot trust men, who are birds of passage, is deeply ingrained in Thai culture. It is the portrait offered by the classic work "Khun Chang Khun Phaen" and it is the description made by the Dutchman van Vliet, who lived in Ayutthaya in the 17th century: "... men are generally lazy and slow, so that women (which are proportionate and pretty), they do most of the work in the fields. These women also row in the rivers [given the importance of the floating markets in the country, surely in addition to rowing, they would trade] and they do many other things (and unlike in other nations) they do the same work as their slaves and take care of their families with great diligence ... "

More graphic than van Vliet and more contemporary too, is the testimony of one of the interviewees, whose Thai husband went to work abroad with money that she had borrowed: “He didn't send any money home. When I called him, he said she didn't have a job. When I asked him to send money, he told me that she didn't have any money because he didn't have a job (…) He wasn't worried about what happened to me or our children. He wasn't worried that our house might be taken from us. I couldn't make ends meet, much less pay the huge debt to save the house. "

In comparison, with Westerners all are advantages. As one of the Thai women interviewed in the book says: “Most of the men farang [“ farang ”is the denomination of all the Westerners; comes from the Persian "barran" which in turn is an adaptation of "frank"] they accept and support children from previous relationships [in rural Isarn it is very normal for girls to become pregnant very soon and just as normal as the Thai parents of the creatures ignore], but the Thai men do not. It is not in our culture… Women can also enjoy a better life and have new experiences, especially when living abroad.”

One of the components of the fascination with Westerners is that they have money and this is where the concepts of Western and Thai love collide. From Provençal troubadours and Hollywood movies we are convinced in the West that love has to be something pure, detached and immaterial. If chrematistic considerations enter, bad. But in the conception of love in Isarn, if the man really loves the woman, he has to help her financially. Sound interested? In many parts of the world and even in the West until recently women expected husbands to be good providers. “I want a good man who is generous and warm, who takes responsibility for his family, accepts and helps my children and also takes care of my parents. My previous relationship [with a man from the village] shows what life would be like if the man did not take his family seriously [it really seems that the girl looks for a social worker rather than a husband]. " In Isarn love and money overlap and the money that the farang gives to the Isarn girl creates an emotional bond; in the West, love and money are incompatible. “My relationship with Sven started because of money. I needed to help two of my children and repay a loan (…). [The relationship] ended in love. "

Na Dokmai women married to farangs form a kind of separate caste. They live in modern houses, paid for by their husbands, contribute to the temple and other charities. Sometimes they are not fully accepted, because they come from low extraction, but money always paves the way.

With so many avenues opening the wedding with a farang, it is not surprising that many young people in the village think about how to get within reach of the farang. For many of them, the most obvious way, especially when you don't have a lot of studies or you don't speak English well, is to go to a gogo-bar in the coastal city of Pattaya, where I say they know farangs. The interesting thing is that in some cases it is their own parents who propose this “professional opportunity”.

That it is a profession that can lead to the golden dream of a marriage to a farang does not imply that it is a prestigious profession. In fact, when the girls referred to Patcharin about their relationships with their clients, they tended to emphasize the friendship side (for example, that they went together to tourist attractions) and neglected the sexual aspect. It was not uncommon for the tourist who had been to Thailand for fifteen days to become a mixture of escort, tour guide, manager and sexual partner, which in their minds tended to blur the distinction between normal girl and prostitute. Once husband Farang's goal was achieved, they all left the profession and many found themselves in an ambiguous position in their village. They were respected because they had married a farang and had money, but their old profession was not completely forgotten.

Patcharin focuses more on women than on men, but it is still interesting to know what can lead a Farang to marry a girl with whom he hardly has a common language and who belongs to a culture far removed from his own. Based on studies by other authors and on some interviews, Patcharin points out that, coming from feminist societies in which traditional masculinity is threatened, these farangs find in Thai women a model of femininity and care and a return to family values ​​that in the West they are disappearing. To this would be added a certain fascination for the oriental woman, who is seen as an epitome of sensuality. Richard Berstein in the magnificent "The East, The West and Sex" has explored the entire western imaginary since the time of the Romans about a feminine and sensual East.

What I am missing from the book is a statistic of how many of these relationships between Farang men and Thai women succeed. At the time I was quite skeptical and thought that most of them failed. That may have been true in the 1990s, but I believe that Thai society is opening up and that the success rate is increasing, while the rate of failed marriages is increasing in our countries. In the end it will turn out that it is easier to have a successful marriage if you marry a woman who lives 10,000 kilometers away than if you do it with the neighbor on the fifth floor.

So I’ve a had a few glasses of wine and I want to go into the more mushy sentiments of Philosophy. Like “love”. I simply want to know if you had to describe pure love in a succinct few sentences, what would it be? I’m not asking for a universal consensus/ objective definition of love simply your experience of the term. Your personal individual relationship with the concept of “love”.

For me, love is the ultimate sacrifice. It is the surrender of all of yourself - your health, your safety, your vulnerabilities, ego etc anything you could possibly offer for the well-being and prosperity of another. It is cherishing of someone or something with such high regard that you would put it all on the line to protect said thing. I also believe it is boundless and that truly happy people are those who can find an empathy, a means, to love even those that typically we would believe are not deserving of such a thing.
Thoughts?

Semi-autobiographical, semi-observational:

To be proud of knowing a truth seems to me to be a defense mechanism to compensate for the fact that this truth has taken more than it has given, or has given nothing at all. Behind every smirk is a deadening of the spirit, signaled by the subtle twitch of the eyelid. If by spirit we mean the ability to rejuvenate, flourish and dance, then the loss of this is a terrible thing. The man who has nothing but truth has lost everything else - he is a worm, nay, a maggot, a bringer of death, a spiteful, bitter creature who claims to love what he hates and who decomposes before the eyes of others. The lover of truth, in his grandiosity, attempts to steal from others that which he does not have, and thus bring others down (not up) to his level. He is a megalomaniac, a narcissist, a gangster - one who fires deadly ideas into the minds of others as a murderer shoots a gun into his victims. He is also a charlatan, because truth is a snake-oil that has been conveyed magical properties by the crank Socrates. Truth is the last refuge for an aborted prototype, a being who cannot make reality as an artist and thus must submit himself to a tyranny of the absolutely mediocre. They are captured and tortured by it, and develop a deep hatred - and jealousy - of those who still have their freedom and happiness. The lover of truth despises others because they make him suffer alone. The lover of truth is in an unsound mental state, and his propensity for lying about his enamor of truth is a sign of profound self-delusion, the lack of self-restraint, or perhaps most seriously masochism.

Perhaps there is an objection that this is too hedonistic, that what is valuable is not necessarily what is pleasurable or congruent with vitality. But this is a pathetic ruffling of the feathers. Again - the man with nothing else turns to truth. "Truth" - this is the pig with makeup. To value truth for the sake of truth is outrageous and absurd, it is the final gasp of a dying soul. Truth is not valuable in and of itself, and a terrible truth will leave you on the side of the road, nursing your wounds and wondering why you ever thought it was valuable in the first place. It is masochism to want this.

I mistrust and pity self-proclaimed lovers of truth - for they are like a bachelor who proposes without acceptance. High and lofty in their castles in the clouds they rest, laurels on their shoulders, for they know while others do not. Yet the foundation of these glass palaces is the respect and adoration of the masses, without which they instantly wobble and crumble. A lover of truth need not advertise this to others - yet who can be a silent lover of truth? Yes, indeed! Truth is the great pheromone of the intellect - a lover of truth brags and boasts, flutters and flaunts as a prostitute does on the street corner. Indeed, the lover of truth whores his way into public notice through his submission to an idol. Truth is given magical properties and elevated to a status that is wholly undeserved.

Look at me! Listen to me! I have truth, I am the truth! In actuality there cannot be a lover of truth but only lovers of opinion, and more specifically their own. All of this is a charade - ironically, the lover of truth is in a state of profound self-delusion. They do not love the truth, they love their opinion and the power and influence it gives over others. Worse still, they construct a false idol of themselves. They love their image in the mirror, despite the frailty of their bones and the weakness of their heart. What has gone by the name "truth" has caused incalculable harm. Those who love truth for the sake of truth are at best fools, at worst, narcissistic megalomaniacs. Alternatively they may also be masochists.

We all care what we can get in return. There is no such thing as unconditional love. It does not exist. For any love to last, the two partners should be of substance.

Even the perfect love of our Heavenly creator (if you're a theist) has its terms –commandments –or else you're thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone.

We only day dream and chase unconditional love, it is a fantasy because it does not exist. No matter how hard we chase after it.

W. H. Auden (1907 - 1973) Poet

Thousands have lived without love, not one without water — W. H. Auden

The words of Auden, despite the simplicity, has a sting in its tail.

Love here stands for all that we humans consider to be distinctly identifiable as attributes/objectives/aspirations/abilities/talents
of superior beings, viz. us. These attributes/objectives/aspirations/abilities/talents
then are believed to set us apart from other beings like animals, becoming the basis of an hierarchy in the great chain of being wherein we award ourselves the highest rank.

Water, here serves as the reality check, the sometimes gentle reminder and the sometimes painful slap in the face, consisting of those hard-to-ignore facts of life, like death, sickness, hunger, thirst, etc., that restores us to our rightful place in the great chain of being - not at the top as we're wont to believe but with and among what we've considered beneath us, animals. A case can be made that when things start going south for the world, humans may turn out to be worse than animals but that's another story.

That said, in those attributes/objectives/aspirations/abilities/talents that humans have used as justification to distance themselves from animals, we can see an opportunity to effect a great transformation - the earth, the world, will change forever and for the better if we nurture some of these decidely human "qualities". Perhaps I haven't felt thirsty in a while. Perhaps I haven't loved in a while

Change my view, challenge me if you will.

I pose the argument that everything humans do is for their personal gain and that 'love' doesn't exist.

Let's start by saying an animal's natural instinct and sole purpose is to protect itself, where then animal's evolved to work with others as it ensured greater survival. This survival mechanism is seen today as society is founded on the principles of contributing and dwelling on making the world a better place for their own survival. Nonetheless, this is seen in relationships most importantly; friends are chosen on a basis of resembling similar or desired values, interests and attitudes. Yet, when a friend changes and no longer offers what they used to offer, its easy for them to be discarded immediately. This same discardment occurs between family members also.

Another scenario are healthcare workers and those who volunteer. While this may appear to be the ultimate character of kindness and goodness, it can be said that there are underlying motives such as the feeling of a sense of proudness of their sacrifice and feeling as they are achieving their 'purpose' which in itself is selfish. These workers will quit when they see that their efforts aren't doing anything. As for sacrificing lives, they would not sacrifice their life for one unless they have afterlife beliefs that ensure their safety.

My last scenario is the 360 turn to hatred and everything that is not 'love' when there is a sense of loss of what one had that they can't get back. Their new hatred forms their next selfish action such as killing their wife and children. This is selfish as there is no concern for his family and the family's selfish wants.

~ Charles Bukowski

Some people adore love, some completely despise everything about it.
it's been described as wonderful, ecstatic, ever-lasting, and especially beautiful. it's also been described as a whoooole bunch of other things. Not primarily good things, such as a ''dog from hell.''
Personally I could not agree more with Bukowski.

We tend to assume that human relationships are unique in displaying an extraordinary level of consciousness, but nature supplies us with some startling antitheses to our rash presumptuousness. Consider the following:


Cichlids, a type of small fish, have three genders that all play a role in mating. The masculine males, of larger and stouter body plan, iron out their territories by aggression, repeatedly chasing away rival males so that once it is time for reproduction, meaningful boundaries have been clearly demarcated by which females can indicate exclusive interest via spatial proximity. Paradoxically, these keyed up males also spend most of the time chasing away the females that will ultimately be their reproductive partners. However, there is an intermediate gender, a more slender male with whom the macho males cannot reproduce, but which establishes a seemingly intimate male-male relationship: the two male genders periodically take part in a mutual courtship ritual, a sort of slow, undulating swim while their bodies are parallel and in contact. This intimate relationship between fish with male sex organs plays an important part in actual mating, as the slender male is a mediator between territorial males and the females: when it finally comes time for coitus, the females accompany the slender males into territories, making an introduction collectively, with all three fish gradually spending some more time together until finally mating, a group effort during which the female and large male do the characteristic slow, undulating swim while discharging eggs and sperm, but with the slender male also participating, sandwiched between them. The ability of males to make these intra-sex bonds is key in determining whether they reproduce, as female interest and consummation depends on the slender male liaison.


There are more than a thousand officially documented gender-bending species, and probably much more variety that has not been accounted for, usually displaying not just sexuality but also a behavioral complexity we might almost be inclined to call cultural. Should humans respect these organisms as perhaps capable of borderline rationality instead of sending unfortunate animal souls to the dinner table en masse?

If beastiality is inherently wrong, what about anthropomorphic animals? I mean, have you seen Jessica Rabbit? Where do we draw the line, and why?

I’ve made one of my life goals to read everything by Simone de Beauvoir (SdB). From reading a writers words, I can tell how aligned their thoughts are to mine and SbB is like my twin.

My only wish is that I could write half as good as her, but alas, coming from a very unenriched background, that, will never happen.

This from her America Day by Day diary from her 1947 trip.

“Real youth is that which exerts itself in forging ahead to an adult future, not that which lives confined with accommodating resignation in the limits assigned to it”.

What is love? If you ask someone on the street, they will tell you that it's essentially a kind of secular magic. Perhaps not so secular, given how it was Christianized when it was made universal -- but we're talking about the dirtier love that happens between people who bond and have sex and perhaps rear children. It can't be defined, yet it's the most important thing in the world. Isn't that weird? Aren't important things usually those that affect people to such an extent that they can say what they are? Alzheimers is important, because it wrecks your functionality in the world and your livelihood. When asked what Alzheimer's is, do we says it's ineffable? Hardly.

What's funnier about love is that for something so supposedly ineffable, it has real social effects, tangible ones. Usually, these effects include men falling in love with women, and then after producing children for them (or, often, some other man separate form the 'provider' producing children for them), giving them a livelihood. Love is a kind of glue that keeps men attached to women. It's a kind of story, whose spiritual significance is that men should stay attached to women because mythologically, the 'reward' a man receives for doing so is something beyond value, 'love.' Of course, love is literally beyond value, which is the funny part: you can't feed an empty stomach with love, and at the end of life, no love is going to save you. Hence 'love' is an excellent narrative for accomplishing its social goal, precisely because it requires nothing of anyone yet claims supreme importance for itself.

Hypothesis: Love is a heterosexual social mechanism primarily designed for lower status men to aim at women. All other variations on love are outgrowths of, and analogies to, this. Its primary function is to bond lower status men to women in order to provide them incentive to mate with (or think they are mating with, while being cuckolded by stronger/better men), and provide for, those women. Women are recipients of love, men are givers of love. Women, strictly speaking, do not love men; and homosexual couples love one another only insofar as they are imitating the heterosexual mechanism through the universalization of enlightenment ideology that is ignorant of its historical roots. We see this through the fact that in heterosexual relationships, by and large, love is one-sided. Men do sometimes fall over themselves for women; women consider this to be above them, and do not show the same outward affection toward men, and often times don't even really seem to be that interested in them, beyond the social value that a relationship with a man affords.

The reason that women do not love men is quite simply that they do not need to. Women have wombs and sex appeal, and so are intrinsically valuable -- men already want to mate with them, and so women do not need to be given a metaphysical incentive to seek men. Rather, men seek them, and all they have to do is accept (or 'settle for') a man that propositions them. Hence, a woman is something to be 'attained.' Men aspire to women; women deign to be with men.

Higher status men also, by and large, do not love women, at least not in the same way that lower status men do. This is because higher status men, being of superior stock, already can mate with women whenever they want, and there is no narrative required for them to want to settle down with women and accept their poorer lot in life, because they don't have a poorer lot (they are genetically successful). Lower status men, however, are prone to unrest, and are by and large disposable unless they protect and serve women. Few lower status men would do this if they did not believe that women had an intrinsic, magical worth. Since they have no material worth for a man (a woman will not protect you, provide for you, or likely even care about you), she must attain a mystical quality that goes beyond any facts -- she must be the object of 'love.' This placates the lower status men so that he performs his duty willingly, with the belief that he is getting something out of the relationship, though no one can say what this is.

Later outgrowths of the notion of love, such as universal spiritual love, and so on, are just imitations of this basic function that love serves. Properly speaking, women and homosexuals don't love, because they don't need to be duped by it in order to serve a social function. To the extent they do, it is because love has been socially transformed into something that everyone believes themselves to have a 'right' to, not realizing that this is not some beneficial 'thing' that we all ought to pass around, but a historically contingent social mechanism that serves a very specific purpose in binding heterosexual men to women (by heterosexual here I don't mean any ineffable essence of sexual attraction to the opposite gender/sex, but socially and functionally heterosexual, i.e. someone who thinks of themselves as a breeder and attaches large self worth to putting penises and vaginas together and rubbing them).

---

All of the above is descriptive and contains no value judgments. If you find any of the above repulsive, you cannot blame me, because I am only reporting how these gender roles and love in fact work regardless of any opinion of them.

...baby don't hurt me, no more.

(I'll put that up front so no one else feels tempted.)

Interestingly, this topic has not been a priority among philosophers. In comparison to the amount of ink spilled on "what is God" or even "what are essences" it gets short shrift. This, despite Saint John's admission that "God is love" (I John 4:8).

In all my reading, only in the Medieval theological philosophers, Plato's Phaedrus, and some of Hegel's work does love seem to come up. I suppose Scruton briefly takes it on. Perhaps this has to do with almost all major philosophers being life-long bachelors?

I wanted to ask: why is this question given such low priority? The arts are filled with references to love.

I assume that part of the deficit stems from the 19th century tendency to equate love and faith with the romantic side of human being - the side that can only be approached through emotion and art, not by reason (e.g. Jacobi). And yet aesthetics and mysticism, seemingly equally hard to approach, seem to get more attention.

Moreover, because love is often ignored, the idea of the "family" is as well. And yet the family seems like it should play a more central role in political thought since it is the cornerstone of economic organization.

Second, what is a good answer? What is Love?

I'll throw out a few theories I am familiar with to get the ball rolling.

Hegel: The idea of love as a "union," which is broadly popular, seems to make sense to me. I like Hegel's "recognition of the self in the other." In love, there is a mutual recognition of the other as a subject, and a recognition of their deeper, "inner self." That is, we are no longer objects to one another. Further, our desires become harmonized, such that we identify with the other and prefer what is best for them. Hegel's fairly utopian vision is for entire peoples to reach this state, a sort of social love, but he allows that it happens first and most fully within the context of the family.

Pope John Paul II:I think the "union interpretation" makes more sense when paired with personalism, the idea that "persons" are ontologically fundamental. The broader merits and deficits of personalism aside, the fact the persons are basic would seem to ward of the contemporary critiques of "love as union" -- that it in some ways robs the lovers of their autonomy by making them into a single entity. In personalism, this would not be the case; we always have discrete persons, and union is a process they engage in. John Paul II's Theology of the Body would be an example of this sort of thesis (an interesting blend of Thomism and Husserl).

Augustine: Augustine thinks we can never perfectly communicate our feelings and ideas to one another through material signs, but only through our shared connection to (and love of) the Logos (Christ, the inner teacher). Unlike Locke, Augustine doesn't think we are fully "locked into our own heads," but rather that we can transcend this inner isolation through love. However, Augustine's zeal for traditional romantic love is tempered by the fear of concupiscence, lusting after the mutable things of the flesh, rather than the higher things of the spirit (the immutable and eternal). Thus, a pure love loves the other purely on account of the ways in which they instantiate the divine. I like parts of this theory, but it seems too sterile.

Plato: And this brings us full circle to Plato's account of love as the desire to "give birth in beauty." In Plato, it seems like we love another because we want to somehow possess and steward the good in them. However, we don't love the person as a whole, but rather "what is good in them." Plato has Socrates contrast the "lower" form of (mere) biological reproduction with a higher "reproduction in others of what we think is good in us." This latter form of reproduction is accomplished through mentoring others and leading by example. Love has a transcendent character here, in that we want to possess the good of others but also to spread our good into others.

It seems to me that we might love someone, but not love everything about them. So, to some extent, Plato and Augustine seem to get something right. At the same time, we love people for who they are, in spite of their flaws, and so it seems like the personalist account also gets something right as well. To me, love seems to be about wanting the best for a person, but also a sharing in that goodness through a transcendent union.

FYI: Didn't know which category to place this under so i picked philosophy of the mind because i felt it was most appropriate.

Well folks here are my thoughts. Please understand these opinions come from my own experience and reflection, not anything i have read.

To start i will define love. I believe love is an expression of the mind. I do not see it as an emotion but rather a will to act and by act i am referring to the act of giving. When you exercize your mind creatively and intuitively in the presence of a lover, you will be rewarded without fail.

On to being in love.

I understand being in love as a spiritual awareness. Think back to when you were a child and the world seemed magical and your curiosity boundless. I believe at this point in our lives we were in the state of being in love. I think this comes about through the connection we forge with a loving mother.

I will now speak a bit about my experience of being in love versus loving. I met a girl in my junior year of college who i had an instant almost preordained connection with. After i summoned the courage to speak with her i was intouch with my spirit like never before. It was as if i was a child again. Things did not work out, which i now realize was for the best, but what i came to understand was that i did not actually love this person at all. I loved the way she seemed to lift my spirit. I was therefor in love with her. The final realization that i came to, not so long ago, was that when i looked at this person i wasn't actually seeing her, i was seeing my own mother who i was still very much attached to. When things fell apart it was my mother that i sought. For many years took comfort in my mother's company and it brought me peace of mind. But what i have realized is that peace of mind is not at all what the human condition is supposed to be about.

On love

To love someone is to see them for who they actually are. Most everybody knows this but i did not until recently. One must observe both strengths and flaws in body and character. I dont think it wise to accept flaws if they can be remedied. I believe that to love another is to exercise ones will power in the most natural way possible. I love a woman now. I am not in love with her at all. She does not raise my spirits in the slightest. She challenges me to become a stronger, more self aware man, the same way a best friend might do.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I would apprecate any thoughts and or experiences on the topic you guys might have. Peace.

I am currently rereading You Are What You Love by James K.A. Smith. As I read through it I thought it would be helpful to write a summary/review of the book. The book in basically a reflection on the development of human behavior and what that looks like if we understand humans to be primarily a "desiring" animal before a "thinking" one. Again, this is simply a way for me to think through the book, which I thought I would share here for others to engage with as well. In this post, I only engage with the preface and chapter 1.

Preface

Worship is the spiritual practice that most shapes us and the way we will interact with culture. And we worship what we love. The question, then, is “what do you love?”

Ch 1

Jesus asks us, “What do you want?” (1). He asks this question because the heart of discipleship is the heart not the mind. Following Jesus is more about learning to love what God loves and learning how to love like God loves (2). This is not to say that the mind is not important, but most churches disciple as if only the mind matters. We train Christians as if we could “think our way to holiness” (4). That is the problem, we do not realize that our hearts lead us more than out minds.

Does the emphasis of heart over mind lead to an emotionalism that is different, but equally dangerous (5-6)?

The rejection that humans are primarily thinking creatures is not a rejection of knowledge; Smith argues that we do need knowledge, but a new kind. The affections, what one desires is the means to knowing. Smith quotes Philippians 1:9-11 to show that Paul understands right knowing to come out of proper love. As Smith writes, “I love in order to know.” (7).

Augustine explains that humans are made by and for the Creator as revealed in Jesus Christ. And second, that humans are dynamic, meaning that they are always oriented toward something (8). The longing we feel for something is more like hunger than curiosity, it is not an intellectual desire, but a visceral one. This is why the heart is so important, we act on what our heart feels much more often than what our mind thinks. Thus, Augustine concludes, we will only find rest when we order our loves properly, a.k.a. make God our first love.

Our loves lead us to act because they are the vague and unarticulated, but mentally omnipresent image that guides us in our decision making. We are oriented by what we imagine to be the good life (11). We are motivated to action now by “convincing the intellect, but by allure” (12). Smith summarizes himself, “You are what you love because you live towards what you want” (13). The final example he gives to explain how our desires lead us is gravity. Smith explains that our desires are like gravity, they pull us towards themselves, the stronger the desire the stronger the pull is.

Our loves guide our decision making, so we should be aware of our loves. But this is the kicker, our loves often operate at a sub-conscience level. Our loves guide our decisions without us ever realizing it. This is where the idea of virtue comes in. The loves we have will manifest as either virtues or vices, depending on whether or not it is a good love. Laws and rules teach the mind what to obey, but it is the virtues that train the heart to embody those laws (18). Smith gives a good analogy: learning virtue is more like learning your piano scales than music theory (18). Virtues are developed through imitation and practice, this means that they must be seen and repeated many times before they become second nature, or a true virtue to a person (19).

The goal of discipleship is to rehabituate our loves. The core of discipling is to reorient the person’s loves and this is not done through retraining the intellect, but through capturing the heart through a new vision of the good life (22).

What trains our loves more than anything else is worship because to love something is to worship it. This is why the worst idols are not theological ones, but ones of the heart. Worship then is what reorients our hearts towards God more than right teaching (24).

I am currently reading You Are What You Love and thought I would post my chapter summaries as a conversation starter. Here is the preface and chapter 1.

Preface

Worship is the spiritual practice that most shapes us and the way we will interact with culture. And we worship what we love. The question, then, is “what do you love?”

Ch 1

Jesus asks us, “What do you want?” (1). He asks this question because the heart of discipleship is the heart not the mind. Following Jesus is more about learning to love what God loves and learning how to love like God loves (2). This is not to say that the mind is not important, but most churches disciple as if only the mind matters. We train Christians as if we could “think our way to holiness” (4). That is the problem, we do not realize that our hearts lead us more than out minds.

Does the emphasis of heart over mind lead to an emotionalism that is different, but equally dangerous (5-6)?

The rejection that humans are primarily thinking creatures is not a rejection of knowledge; Smith argues that we do need knowledge, but a new kind. The affections, what one desires is the means to knowing. Smith quotes Philippians 1:9-11 to show that Paul understands right knowing to come out of proper love. As Smith writes, “I love in order to know.” (7).

Augustine explains that humans are made by and for the Creator as revealed in Jesus Christ. And second, that humans are dynamic, meaning that they are always oriented toward something (8). The longing we feel for something is more like hunger than curiosity, it is not an intellectual desire, but a visceral one. This is why the heart is so important, we act on what our heart feels much more often than what our mind thinks. Thus, Augustine concludes, we will only find rest when we order our loves properly, a.k.a. make God our first love.

Our loves lead us to act because they are the vague and unarticulated, but mentally omnipresent image that guides us in our decision making. We are oriented by what we imagine to be the good life (11). We are motivated to action now by “convincing the intellect, but by allure” (12). Smith summarizes himself, “You are what you love because you live towards what you want” (13). The final example he gives to explain how our desires lead us is gravity. Smith explains that our desires are like gravity, they pull us towards themselves, the stronger the desire the stronger the pull is.

Our loves guide our decision making, so we should be aware of our loves. But this is the kicker, our loves often operate at a sub-conscience level. Our loves guide our decisions without us ever realizing it. This is where the idea of virtue comes in. The loves we have will manifest as either virtues or vices, depending on whether or not it is a good love. Laws and rules teach the mind what to obey, but it is the virtues that train the heart to embody those laws (18). Smith gives a good analogy: learning virtue is more like learning your piano scales than music theory (18). Virtues are developed through imitation and practice, this means that they must be seen and repeated many times before they become second nature, or a true virtue to a person (19).

The goal of discipleship is to rehabituate our loves. The core of discipling is to reorient the person’s loves and this is not done through retraining the intellect, but through capturing the heart through a new vision of the good life (22).

What trains our loves more than anything else is worship because to love something is to worship it. This is why the worst idols are not theological ones, but ones of the heart. Worship then is what reorients our hearts towards God more than right teaching (24).

I have been giving it some thought, really, about the differences between Lust and Love. I suppose I should start by defining what I mean by the two terms regardless of their official definitions and if anyone wishes to correct the words or definitions then they can do so.

I define the word "Love" as having a somewhat spiritual, emotional, mental and perhaps metaphysical bond with another soul, or being. In this case, I mean it towards an intimate relation rather than a friendly or family type "Love".
By "Lust" I mean the want and desires associated with sexual intercourse and anything with that nature. Just for the gratification, and for the physical pleasures and perhaps release of stresses moreover than the actual connection it offers to the counterpart involved.

Getting to the point, the idea I wanted to discuss is that I believe there to be a distinction between people when looking through people. I have witnessed and am aware myself of the male tendency to divide females between those who would only be good enough for the Lust (sex), compared with those that could offer Love as the emotional and relieving bond and relationship.

Of course, I would believe that women would do the same thing their side when judging the men. There would be a distinction between which men would be only good enough for Lust and which for Love.

How does this then work for homosexuals? Believably the same, but associated with the same sex. If Gay they would look through the men and divide between lust and love. And if lesbian then the same with the women.

Is it therefore possible to divide orientation between Love and Lust?

Therefore, being open for Lust with either sex, male or female, but only being orientated for one through love. It would bring a whole new dimension to the table. I believe there is a distinction between the two. It is possible and perhaps somewhat common, for person to only be interested in one sex for Love and relationships but be open sexually and lustfully for the more than one.

For example, A man that is open to other men, and women for sex or anything of that nature. But, does not develop a connection with men in terms of love, that which he does have with women. It is simply Lust and nothing more.

This then brings forward, are the terms Gay, Straight, Lesbian..Etc to generalized? Do they include more than they should? If we think of someone who is Gay we attribute them to only being interested in the same sex. But what do we mean by "interested"? Sexually? Emotionally? I believe that it should be more closely defined.

For example, "I am straight (meaning in terms of Love) and Femaphilic" suggesting they are oriented to the opposite sex for a relationship but orient themselves for Lust towards females.
Likewise, suggesting "I am Gay (again in terms of Love) and Mascaphilic" would imply they are attracted to the same sex for a relationship but orient themselves for Lust towards males.
Yes, I am aware Femaphilic amd Mascaphilic are not real words I made them to demonstrate the point. Of course, if you were interesting in both sexually then you could be perhaps Biphilic, or using a prefix that would suggest both.

What I would like to know from people willing to discuss this point is, what do you think of this idea? Do you agree or disagree and why? If your going to state your point, back it up and explain it.

“If you love a flower, don’t pick it up.
Because if you pick it up it dies and it ceases to be what you love.
So if you love a flower, let it be.
Love is not about possession.
Love is about appreciation.”


― Osho

The need to say this by Osho indicates that one's impulse when feeling love is to possess.. so what is love about? Is it a desire to possess? is it a desire to appreciate, and cherish and elevate? is it both? (which many times can't actualize).

Is the type of love that leads one to want to possess different to that which leads one to want to commit subservience for the sake of the beloved? If so, why do we still refer to these different types with the same word: "love"??

This post does not only refer to romantic love; it aims to define love as an emotion shared among humans and what comprises their world. I have been mulling over it for a while and even attempted to engage my sister into a discussion about it.

She defines love as innate and the ability to love as a gift. I say the ability to feel love is innate but you choose who to love. My sister feels choice limits love which is an insurmountable emotion. I feel choice makes love a very precious gift because you are gifting someone the most sincere aspect of yourself, therefore opening yourself up to vulnerability.

So the question I pose to you is, how do you define love? Do you feel that you start out loving everyone and everything like my sister does?

If there is something I have always agreed on is freedom. I do disagree with most of people's thoughts, however I also respect their will to think, if not their opinion.

Lately I have been thinking about love and if not what it really is, as I do not have the mental ability to grasp such concept, I do have thought about its place in modern society.

We need other people to procreate. That is a fact. But lately, people also think that nevertheless we do not need people to rise a family, that is not only not true, but selfish, somehow.

The last two years I have been a defender of open relationships. Mostly because I can not stand to be lied to the face. "I only feel attracted to you" That is a relative truth, therefore a half lie. I can limit my care about someone's sexual/emotional exclusivity if I enjoy the same rights to do so (Although I may like it to be another way, but whatever).

My point is, I see most people are thinking like this (Well, the difference is that I call it not standing lies while they call it "Free love"). And I do not disagree.

I just, lately, thought about it harder than usual, and then the question came to light: What about families?

Maybe I am not personally the kind of person that is able to form a family and that is okay; but most people... That should be somehow alarming. Why? Because think about it... Think about a family in which they are "Free" to give love (real, familiar love) to whoever they eventually want.

"Yay!" The hasty will say.

Not so fast, McQueen.

People will lack not only opportunity to be loved but also lack love, real love, and this may be a good insight of why there are so many mentally ill people, especially young people nowadays, and not precisely because of technology (Which may be the really cause behind the possibility of "Free, unlimited" love, nevertheless).

So, my question is, how is (real, healthy, affectionate) family feasible with this "Free love" philosophy in place, which I share?

Note: Any feminist propaganda speech will be ignored at least by me.
Just saving some time. Not trying to be mean.

Regards.

"Confined Love"
By John Donne

Some man unworthy to be possessor
Of old or new love, himself being false or weak,
Thought his pain and shame would be lesser,
If on womankind he might his anger wreak ;
And thence a law did grow,
One might but one man know ;
But are other creatures so?

Are sun, moon, or stars by law forbidden
To smile where they list, or lend away their light?
Are birds divorced or are they chidden
If they leave their mate, or lie abroad a night?
Beasts do no jointures lose
Though they new lovers choose ;
But we are made worse than those.

Who e'er rigg'd fair ships to lie in harbours,
And not to seek lands, or not to deal with all?
Or built fair houses, set trees, and arbours,
Only to lock up, or else to let them fall?
Good is not good, unless
A thousand it possess,
But doth waste with greediness.



The poem called “Confined Love”, written by John Donne is based on Donne's observation that men, as a whole, are restricted from fulfilling their full potential by not only being allowed to “love” as many women as they please but by creating a reality in which love can be recognized as a polygamous love, rather than a monogamous one.

Donne says that certain men are “false and weak” because they follow this unsaid rule of a monogamous marriage and by following this rule they are “unworthy to be possessor of old or new love”, The speaker argues against this point by stating a question: “But are other creatures so?” By asking this, Donne insinuates that other creatures, whether it be animals, insects or aliens, are not participants of this rule, and are able to mate with whomever is available to them at the given time. This idea that Donne observes is in the first stanza, where another point is hidden in the quote: “Thought his pain… his anger wreak”. Here, the speaker gives us a logical explanation for which the reasons for man's anger toward women are evident, and can be avoided by instituting the destruction of this “false and weak” rule, creating men who are “unworthy...love”. By ending with the question of animality versus humanity, Donne gives readers the comparison that humans, like other free animals, should have the choice to choose whomever is available to them at the given time.

In the second stanza, the false reality is divulged and continued by the sarcastic comment “Are sun, moon, or stars by law forbidden… their light” in which Donne brings in the natural life to light once again for inspecting. He does this because in theory, the natural world has no laws at all, but only reactions with one another, thus creating the polygamous style of naturality. Because of our monogamous ways, “... we are made worse than those”, by following the law we are disavowing nature's intentions of having the freedom of multiple lovers without ramifications. By creating this observation, Donne assumes that nature's intent was to have the freedom of polygamous actions.
The third and final stanza stands to further emphasize the speaker's point, which is, in its simplest form, that men were intended to live like nature's creations with the freedom to lay with as many lovers as men want. Donne does this with his opening line “who e’er rigg’d fair ships to lie in harbours”, thus breaking down the law against (a) polygamous relationship(s) and lowering the value of said law and stating that men were built for the purpose of crusading with the freedom to not stop in only one partner, but encouraged to seek out more. In this stanza, he compares men to ships and their grand quest of seeking a new dock to harbor. He restates this premise further into the stanza by saying “... built fair houses, set trees, and arbors” and that they should not be locked away or set to rot in inconceivable isolation with one another, but instead be exposed to the elements, tried and tested for what they are worth, showing their greatness and gaining their experience with every harbor they dock. Donne further reinforces this statement with his last lines “A thousand it possesses, But doth waste with greediness”, ending his observation with a testament: that men should not be confined to one partner, but be shared, and celebrated for their experience and knowledge.

Do you agree with a polygamous world?

The word "love" has been so often used that I don't think the true meaning of it is understood by many people. Someone "loves" a certain food, a particular place, or doing a specific hobby. But do they actually show love?
I think that love ought to consist of many virtues, such as trust, respect, kindness, and gentleness towards a person in order to count as true love. Therefore, loving a food is not really love, but rather mere enjoyment for the moment, and so forth. The same could be counted in a friendship also if one friend only finds satisfaction for a short time, but is disrespectful or even mistrusting of the other friend, then a true love in friendship does not exist and only temporary enjoyment of each other exists.

I am sure there are many more defining factors in the virtue of love, so please share!

An interesting question one could ask when thinking about God, especially from a religious viewpoint, is does God love some people more than others. To me, it seems obvious that he does. Here is my argument in standard form for why I believe this to be true.

1. If some people are more worthy of love then other people, then they ought to be loved more.
2. A purely perfect being will always do what ought to be done.
3. God is a purely perfect being.
4. God will always do what ought to be done. ( 2, 3)
5. Some people are more worthy of love than others.
6. Some people ought to be loved more than others. ( 1, 5)
7. Therefore God loves some people more than others. (4, 6)

Premises 2 and 3 I expect to be uncontroversial. God, by definition, is a purely perfect being, and if something is truly perfect, it will always do what ought to be done. If a purely perfect being does not do what ought to be done, then it is no longer perfect. Premise 4 follows from 2 and 3, entailing its truth as well.

I also expect minimal controversy for premise 1. By definition, if something is worthy of something, it ought to be granted to them. Perhaps there are counter-examples where a person is worthy of something, but they do not receive it. However, this is a result of insufficient resources; they still ought to receive what they are worthy for.

Premise 5 is the only premise that could spark a substantial objection. For this reason, I will attempt to defend it. Assuming moral truths exist, we clearly posit certain things as good, bad, or neutral. Furthermore, we claim that some people are more good than others. Take two people that are identical in every way. Say these two people are walking in separate parks, and in both parks, there is a child drowning. One of the persons, person A, saves the child while the other person, person B, notices the kid but keeps walking. Person A must be considered a better person; They are equal in every way except Person A has done one more good deed than person B. Regarding love, it is better to love something good rather than something bad just in virtue of what goodness is. In addition, if A has more goodness than B, then one ought to love A more than B. This is because more goodness is better than less goodness. As a result, because some people have more goodness than others and more goodness ought to be loved more than less goodness, some people ought to be loved more than others. Therefore premise 5 is true. Premise 6 is entailed by 1 and 5. The conclusion is entailed from 4, and 6. This argument is valid and sound.

Does Jesus/Yahweh love us or is he stalking us?

Love without reciprocity, works and deeds, according to scriptures and Jesus’ own words, not that a supernatural Jesus ever existed, is not a true love.

All you need to do, to know the truth of that notion; is to look at your own standards of love. You would not love someone who does not return that love, as that is more a stalkers kind of love.

Some Christians and other believers will not see that. Most who are not led by faith, generally accept the truth stated above.

This link, in its message, gives about the same notion.

http://imgur.com/a/CIce4

Your thoughts?

Regards
DL

The concept makes no sense. Any attempt you make to define what unconditional love is will result in conditional criteria. "Unconditional" itself if a condition. For the love to be different from conditional love, the condition is that it must be unconditional.

And yet, people will argue tooth and nail that it is a real thing. One of the most common examples is that of a mother's love for her child, but the first condition is that the child must be hers.

I believe the reason for the popularity of this concept is that it is convenient. It is akin to "the devil made me do it". It is tempting to legitimize the removal of standards and conditions on the basis of love. This kind of reasoning is not based on real love, but rather emotional appeal.

I look forward to hearing what you all think.

When we love somebody, do we love this human being, or did we simply find something in him/her that seemed useful to us?

I'm sorry, perhaps, this isn't the best description.

What I mean is - when a man falls in love with a woman, does it mean he saw someone in this woman who could provide him safety, comfort, satisfaction,...?

Is love really a good thing, or is it selfish to love somebody/something?

If I ask a child „Why are you eating that chicken?” and he says „Because I love chincken.” wouldn't that mean he ate it because it tasted good to him?

I've seen a video on this topic, so it isn't my thought, but it was interesting so I wanted to hear other opinions as well.

If we do not turn our love of self to our hate of self, we are bound for our near extinction.

Science has shown that the good in us, our love side, is dominating us via our selfish gene.

Science is also showing us that we are in a major extinction event that may well include a vast number of people. I doubt that our full extinction will come to pass, but we will be reduced to such small numbers that we will likely revert to a less sophisticated system and city states.

If we do not turn our swords into plows, and devastate the worlds populations with war, our environment will do the deed and near extinct us.

We love our governments and gods. That is why we have let them bring us to the brink of extinction. We follow them so closely that we all have our heads stuck into the ground.

I think, given the incompetence of all governments and gods; we should let our great love for what leads us and turn it to hate, as we should, to insure the survival of people right here and right now. Start to hate the systems that got us all to this pitiful place in time.

We presently elect our incompetent governments and gods for a variety of reasons. We are all tribal and belong to a religious tribe or a government tribe. We all follow their ideologies, theologies or philosophies. We are all the same in this.

Surely, given that we are basically all humans, who wish to love more than hate, can hate those things that are putting us all in peril long enough to do something about our head long leap to near extinction.

The environment is under political control and they are killing our bodies. Our bodies harbor our souls to the physical world where our children live.

I think it is time for a god to take over.

I don’t care if it is a pedophile protecting Pope or a united Christianity, or newly elected Khalif of a newly united Islam, but a god must step up, as our political side has failed humankind completely.

Our politicians are not uniting the world and should be made to step down so that some form of religious system, chosen by the masses, so that we can try uniting under a newly elected god.

Jesus prophesied that that would become a necessity, and so did Socrates before him. Both were right in thinking that such a system would be the best possible end for political theories.

I urge the vast majority of the world, the religious, to have a final battle in the ongoing god wars, which involves our political gods as well. Let their hate out by debate and elect a new god of peace so that our current incompetent batch of leaders might find the best one.

My love of the religious has let loose my hate against our incompetent political leadership and I think we all should, elect a new god and save us from our own near extinction.

We have the means; do we have the will?

Regards
DL

This came up in a different discussion.

The term 'philosophy' is often said to "literally" translate into 'love of wisdom'.

In fact, it literally translates into 'knowledge of love'.

After all, when we describe a love of some subject, we use the word 'philia' or 'phile':
- hemophile
- xenophile
- audiophile
etc.

When we describe knowledge of some subject, we use the word 'sophy':
- cosmosophy
- anthrosophy
- theosophy
etc.

Philia = Love of
Sophy = Knowledge of

Philosophy = Knowledge of Love

Discuss.