To me love is the identification of the self in the other. In true, reciprocal love, a kind of shared, communal creature is born, not existing solely in either participant.

"You complete me", says the lover. The lover identifies the loved as an integral part of themselves, without which they are only a partial being. When away from the loved, the lover thinks of them constantly, feeling around for them like for a lost appendage.

Losing a lover is a special, terrible kind of pain, for a part of oneself literally dies. It is an acute neural injury that may take months or years to heal, as the dense connections constituting the loved in the lover atrophy and are pruned away.

Theme of the thread:

I can see the arguments for a sort of ontological nominalism, but I don't see a case for generally preferencing specifics over general principles — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't try to make a case for that. I'm saying that the meaning of words is changed by context and that you're assuming these "general principles" go 1:1 with a word. You've taken the word "love" as though it represents a singular thing, and now you're studying this thing. I wonder about that.

No one doubts that imbalanced, or unharmonious, interpersonal love typically results in psychological pain to one party if not to all. — javra

Does God qualify for "interpersonal" love? What do you mean by imbalanced and unharmonious? On what basis does this love "typically result in psychological pain..."? Though, you can choose to ignore these questions if my later paragraphs are on the right track.

Yet, in so affirming, the implicit issue becomes that of what a perfectly balanced, or perfectly harmonious, love would be—and it is the latter which idealistic youngsters (to name a few) typically aim for. — javra

There are many cultures around the around that don't practice monogamy, that have arranged marriages, that are patriarchal and practice other forms of imbalanced or unharmonious relationships. Opposition to such structures is generally ethical in nature, as opposed to spurred on by a philosophical view of love. Ethical stances should be the best predictors of how one views this subject of imbalanced love. Do you agree?

I for one fully agree with (authentic) love being a drive to maintain and increase unity of being, a "transcendent unity" so to speak. — javra

Another linguistic issue. Do you appreciate that you're the one who judges the love that qualifies as authentic? Your reasoning separates authentic love from inauthentic love, because your reasoning determines authentic love from inauthentic love.

It's understandable one might resist admitting the importance of ethical or value-based elements, but the correlations will always be striking. Those who despise homosexuality won't recognise love between same-sex couples as "authentic". Those who despise pedophilia won't recognise romantic love between adult and child as "authentic". We probably wouldn't describe love borne from Stockholm syndrome as "authentic". Most won't want to label either a very jealous, toxic love or a possessive, controlling love as "authentic".

What's your opinion on this?

When one loves another sentient agent, aspects of the other’s being become an integral part of oneself for as long as the love persists, and, in due measure to the love experienced, one will be readily willing to risk personal suffering and corporeal death so as to aim at preserving the love which is, if such risk is required. — javra

These are value-based assessments, and your values, interpretations and goals are determinative of "authentic" love. I'm saying this because of the quote of mine you responded to, and to further my argument that "love" is a concept we invented, not a thing to be understood or discovered.

However, in terms of my own personal feelings about love, and I'm no exception, I also define what is and isn't love by my values and ethics, I strongly agree with you. Love, for me, in the contexts I imagine you to be using, entails this kind of prioritisation and importance you describe. This is completely different from the "strong-like" one has towards something like ice cream.

Mainly want to make the point that there is a substantial ontological difference between love as unity of being and love as strong liking of. The two are distinct. — javra

We agree that there are these distinct concepts expressed by the same word. I'd go further and say I have different sets of expectations for "love" depending on many other contextual differences. Such as comparing a love for a spouse vs a love for a friend or a love for one's child. However, I don't think that's mutually exclusive with your comparison, and contrasting these two concepts of unity and strong-like works fine.

Love (in the strict sense of: an either conscious or unconscious drive to maintain if not also increase unity of being) is perpetually present and inescapable for any lifeform which perpetuates its own life, this minimally in the form of self-love (although one need not also like oneself for this self-love to be). — javra

I reject the entire question of "What is love", and view it as a misunderstanding of language. The discussion requires a context to work with and participants need to be able to understand what factors are determinative. Love could refer to an evolutionary feature developed by mammals that live in packs, that's not mutually exclusive with developing our own social or cultural, ethics or value-based understandings. Of the many valid perspectives on love, there's nothing determinative of the correct answer, and we just end up comparing ideas that shouldn't even be decided between. All because the same word is used to refer to them.

Words are not concepts, and I think you've shown an example of this by contrasting "unity of love" with "strong-like" despite both ideas belonging to the same word "love". Words validly refer to many concepts that aren't mutually exclusive because they apply in different contexts.

Does God qualify for "interpersonal" love? — Judaka

Under the conviction that God = Love, interpersonal love will be one aspect of God. Else, of being closer to God than otherwise.

What do you mean by imbalanced and unharmonious? On what basis does this love "typically result in psychological pain..."? — Judaka

Though more complex than this, it boils down to being in a toxic relationship, be it romantic, filial, or any other, wherein on loves the other. As to the second question: On the basis that at least one party gets abused and/or betrayed in some manner.

There are many cultures around the around that don't practice monogamy, that have arranged marriages, that are patriarchal and practice other forms of imbalanced or unharmonious relationships. Opposition to such structures is generally ethical in nature, as opposed to spurred on by a philosophical view of love. Ethical stances should be the best predictors of how one views this subject of imbalanced love. Do you agree? — Judaka

Regardless of relationship (arranged, polygamous, etc.) it could be toxic for those involved to those involved, or it could not be.

Also, in one way or another, I also find (nontoxic) love to be inextricable from issues of ethics. Compassion, for example, is one form of love (unity of being). What would ethics amount to in the absence of compassion?

I for one fully agree with (authentic) love being a drive to maintain and increase unity of being, a "transcendent unity" so to speak. — javra


Another linguistic issue. Do you appreciate that you're the one who judges the love that qualifies as authentic? Your reasoning separates authentic love from inauthentic love, because your reasoning determines authentic love from inauthentic love.

It's understandable one might resist admitting the importance of ethical or value-based elements, but the correlations will always be striking. Those who despise homosexuality won't recognise love between same-sex couples as "authentic". Those who despise pedophilia won't recognise romantic love between adult and child as "authentic". We probably wouldn't describe love borne from Stockholm syndrome as "authentic". Most won't want to label either a very jealous, toxic love or a possessive, controlling love as "authentic".

What's your opinion on this? — Judaka

You're here focusing on a sense of "authentic" unrelated to the one I made use of in this context: love as unity of being as being authentic love, with strong-liking being inauthentic love.

Unity of being occurs in homosexual marriages/relationships irrespective of whether others approve. Pedophilia, to me, is sexual in nature, and there need not be any sense of unity of being for sex to occur, as is evidenced in rape. If there were a unity of being between adult and child that would be romantic in some sense, I can only imagine the adult would want better for the child than that the child engages in sex, especially with an adult. As to Stockholm syndrome, it might be twisted, but if it were to result in a unity of being between the abductor and abducted, then it would be a unity of being. Ethical judgement calls on this being a different matter, typically revolving around the toxicity involved.

Lastly, a very jealous, toxic love or a possessive, controlling love most always does not have both parties valuing the other's worth on a par to one's own, this as more or less occurs in a unity of being between parties. Otherwise there would be enough respect for the other to not engage in such toxic/controlling love wherein the other suffers (incurs psychological pain), but instead always granting the freedom of the other. So no, here the love would not be a balanced/nontoxic unity of being.

my argument that "love" is a concept we invented, not a thing to be understood or discovered. — Judaka

It's an assertion more than an argument. One on par to asserting that "pain" is a concept we invented, but not an aspect of our reality as psyches to be understood or discovered. As though everything psychological concerns concepts we invent rather than aspects of our own ontological being we discern introspectively (?).

However, in terms of my own personal feelings about love, and I'm no exception, I also define what is and isn't love by my values and ethics, I strongly agree with you. Love, for me, in the contexts I imagine you to be using, entails this kind of prioritisation and importance you describe. This is completely different from the "strong-like" one has towards something like ice cream. — Judaka

On what rational argument or via what data do you find reason to doubt that this rudimentary distinction between unity of being and strong liking is a human universal?

I reject the entire question of "What is love", and view it as a misunderstanding of language. — Judaka

I get that. But if "words are not concepts" then words will convey concepts, and concepts are nothing more then abstractions (e.g.,"animal") of concrete givens (e.g., "that grey mouse over there"), with concrete givens including the states of being we experience as psyches.

So, in English (not to forget that different languages occur, both at the present time and in the past) the word "love" can either convey different types of "unity of being" or, otherwise, types of "strong liking". But I maintain that just as one is not sincere in the literal stance that an ice-cream cone is "to die for", so too will one not be sincere in the literal stance that one "loves" the ice-cream cone. It's right up there with food being "fun" to eat. This despite all three expressions being used commonly enough in our society to express concepts nonetheless.

I'm here not analyzing words but two different subspecies of states of personal being which in English are expressible by the same word.

Lots written. But in sum: We so far seem to basically agree on the difference between unity-of-being and strong-liking-of. I don't much want to engage in a debate regarding the nature of language. Again, I basically intended to make the case that the two sense of the word "love" are distinct. And that when we love another, we typically hold a unity of being with them, rather than a strong liking of them (although of course the latter can overlap with the former, the two nevertheless remain distinct states of psychological being).

Why again did Nietzsche want to coupe himself up with Paul Ree and Lou Salome? To drive themselves greater heights in overcoming the tension between antitheses and inciting to greater and greater births (pregnancy).

Recalls to me the idea of Plato's "giving birth in beauty." But then this:

I may almost say that I have never read[Pg 6] anything in which every single dogma and conclusion has called forth from me so emphatic a negation as did that book; albeit a negation tainted by either pique or intolerance. I referred accordingly both in season and out of season in the previous works, at which I was then working, to the arguments of that book, not to refute them—for what have I got to do with mere refutations but substituting, as is natural to a positive mind, for an improbable theory one which is more probable, and occasionally no doubt, for one philosophic error, another."

and this:

We shall have gained much for the science of æsthetics, when once we have perceived not only by logical inference, but by the immediate certainty of intuition, that the continuous development of art is bound up with the duplexity of the Apollonian and the Dionysian: in like manner as procreation is dependent on the duality of the sexes, involving perpetual conflicts with only periodically intervening reconciliations. These names we borrow from the Greeks, who disclose to the intelligent observer the profound mysteries of their view of art, not indeed in concepts, but in the impressively clear figures of their world of deities. It is in connection with Apollo and Dionysus, the two art-deities of the Greeks, that we learn that there existed in the Grecian world a wide antithesis, in origin and aims, between the art of the shaper, the Apollonian, and the non-plastic art of music, that of Dionysus: both these so heterogeneous tendencies run parallel to each other, for the most part openly at variance, and continually inciting each other to new and more powerful births, to perpetuate in them the strife of this antithesis,

...make me think as well of Heraclitus' tension of opposites, or even more so Eriugena and Hegel's dialectical progression through opposition.

But with Nietzsche, the problem I always find is that he's a bit too disordered in his approach. The aphoristic style makes him a joy to read and a pain to systematize. If the problem with folks like Plotinus and Hegel is that they are too focused on the abstract, the general, and the rational, losing the powerful influence of the specific and dramatic on the course of human life (and human history), the problem with Nietzsche I find is a lack of focus on the general.

If man rises out of mediocrity, and overcomes resentment, developing a love for his own life, how can a free community of such beings exist? And how can people support each other in such a venture? I don't think we really get an answer. Social freedom isn't directly addressed.

Nietzsche can be responsive to Ree because he knows him, shares a friendship with him. But what about his fellow philosophers, the ones he disparages so vociferously in some passages? I don't think it's unfair to say there is a fair number of strawmen in Nietzche's critique of his philosophical brethren. Nietzsche was the first philosopher I read, so I took his critiques as gospel, but returning to BG&E 12 years later, I realized that for all his achievements, he often seems overcome by the very resentment he speaks against. There are more uncharitable philosophers (Russell), but not many more. Yet there might be a potent lesson in that. As Nietzsche seems to allow, perhaps such irascibility is a goad to developing his "yea-saying," but it would seem to be a goad that must be left behind at some point.

The love of one's own fate as the highest love -- it's an interesting thought. It seems to be at once possibly the most transcendent type of love and the least, completely universal in terms of our experience and completely particularized.

Due to this, there is therefore no necessary dyad between love and hatred: while the later will always be dependent on the former, the former can well occur in the complete absence of the latter.

I think this is right. This is why the God of Plato and the Patristics "all loving," as opposed to being indifferent, jealous, or wrathful. Hatred involves being determined by that which is outside of one:

...something that’s entirely One can’t be “jealous” of others, opposed to them (even by being “indifferent to” them) and thus governed by its relation to them. So if the demiurge is to be good and thereby One, he can’t be “jealous.” And this is why Plato tells us that the demiurge set out to make everything “as much like himself as possible” — to share his goodness as widely as possible. This is why, as the Greek/Roman Platonist Plotinus put it some centuries later, the One “overflows.” ["boils over" per Eckhart]

This seems to be the reason why the demiurge as “intellect” is not indifferent to mere creatures like ourselves, but seeks to encourage us — all of us — to pursue the Good. In this way the demiurge is less “contained,” less restricted by us than it would be if its relation to us were characterized by indifference or “jealousy.” To the extent that the demiurge helps us to resemble it, we are like extensions of it, rather than separate containers around it, which would make it “many” (rather than one) by our relationships to it.

As you’ll notice, this is very much the idea of inner “freedom” that Hegel promoted. To the extent that a being excludes others from its sphere of concern, it is determined by this relationship (of exclusion) and it isn’t self - determining or, in that sense, free. So the possessor of inner freedom doesn’t exclude others from her sphere of concern.

My working definition is caring about someone’s well being, and wanting to see them flourish. — Mikie

It’s on the way but you can feel like this about some goldfish. For me this misses out on love being more like a great big electrical experience, galvanised by devotion and sacrifice.

This is why the God of Plato and the Patristics "all loving," as opposed to being indifferent, jealous, or wrathful. Hatred involves being determined by that which is outside of one: — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: Nicely said. Although I'll be currently shying away from embellishing this on account of it getting into non-physicalist ontological notions of "unity of being"--of which the sensations of love which we emotively feel, both the pleasures and tribulations, could be deemed a microcosmic expression of a macrocosmic force, or impetus, as universal as that of gravity. The topic of Stoic/Heraclitean Logos partly comes to mind here. But no doubt its one of them out-in-the-left-field notions that's bound to get easily misconstrued. So, having said my peace on this issue, I'm shushing up about this possible vantage of love/unity-of-being. :razz: Back to the issue of love as we experience it.

It's an assertion more than an argument. One on par to asserting that "pain" is a concept we invented, but not an aspect of our reality as psyches to be understood or discovered. — javra

I would assert everything for pain as I did for love.

As though everything psychological concerns concepts we invent rather than aspects of our own ontological being we discern introspectively — javra

Words can be used to refer to these "aspects of our own ontological being", but they aren't them. If this thread was instead "What is pain", it'd be equally misguided.

I get that. But if "words are not concepts" then words will convey concepts, and concepts are nothing more then abstractions (e.g.,"animal") of concrete givens (e.g., "that grey mouse over there"), with concrete givens including the states of being we experience as psyches. — javra

1. A wide variety of "states of being" can qualify as love or pain, and thus we lack specificity. What I wanted was additional information and context. If the thread was "What is pain", and didn't even specify if we're discussing emotional, physical or psychological pain, wouldn't that be absurd?

2. Both "love" and "pain" rely on interpretation, and I may interpret "states of being" as love, even if you or others do not interpret those same "states of being" as love.

3. A state of being that can be referred to as "pain", may qualify as "pain" for a multitude of different reasons. These reasons can drastically change the thing we're discussing. Pain is a great example, see how emotional pain from grief is very different from emotional pain from betrayal and so on.

I could go on but to summarise, without specificity, we're wandering aimlessly. That's completely unlike "animal", and especially the "grey rat". Grey rats aren't fundamentally changed by context or circumstance, nor who is speaking and how they interpret the term.

There are more specific, psychological terms that have strict criteria that require clinical diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder. Also with bipolar disorder, there is an underlying, identifiable phenomenon that the term aims to refer to. While studying that experience, flawed language can be identified and corrected to better describe the condition. "Pain" and "love" aren't specific terms, they represent ideas. What is and isn't love or pain has more to do with the ideas of love and pain, than the actual states one may use these terms to refer to.

"Love" and "pain" are invented concepts, and the "states of being" you refer to aren't determinative of what these concepts mean. It has much to do with our cultural and philosophical perspectives. Our understanding of love could be influenced by a famous movie or book, and it has, with works such as Romeo and Juliet or Snow White. Such influences fall far outside the realm of introspection or science.

TLDR since you didn't want to discuss language, this topic requires specificity and restrictions, that's all. I wanted this to be read, but I'm okay with it not being responded to, I want for you to only participate in discussions you're interested in.

On what rational argument or via what data do you find reason to doubt that this rudimentary distinction between unity of being and strong liking is a human universal? — javra

Ironically, the only other reply I received tried to connect the two.

However, in my experience, there seems to be a strong similarity in the way I love my parents, my son, my wife, my friends, God, and even my country that doesn't apply to most things that I like. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I doubt many others could explain "unity of being" as you understand it. I'm not entirely sure of what would be determinative of whether the distinction would be a "human universal".

You're here focusing on a sense of "authentic" unrelated to the one I made use of in this context: love as unity of being as being authentic love, with strong-liking being inauthentic love. — javra

It was clumsy of me to use "authentic", but I'm glad you understood my meaning, your response is as I had wanted. I think I have a good understanding of what you mean now.

It seems you've conveyed what you wanted to, and it doesn't seem like you're looking for anything else from me.

Western ethics is concerned with imbalances of power in romantic relationships and views them as inherently toxic or unhealthy. Even if both parties consent. The subjectivity stems from what makes a relationship "toxic", but it seems clear that you appreciate that. Your view is pragmatic, but I imagine it also coincides with your philosophies and ideals, what's missing is what we think is determinative of the correct answer. I'm not sure what would make you right or wrong, and I imagine most would agree or disagree based on their preferences and personal experiences. I don't know what to make of that.

Words can be used to refer to these "aspects of our own ontological being", but they aren't them. If this thread was instead "What is pain", it'd be equally misguided.

Do words have to "be" the things they refer to have content? I don't see how this line of reasoning doesn't similarly make talking about "triangles" in general impossible, or "matter," or "American drug policy," or "energy" for that matter.

Do words necessarily have to refer to unique things or can they refer to general principles/universals (or tropes if you don't like universals)? Moreover, can't they refer to sets, potentially sets of universals that share properties?

A wide variety of "states of being" can qualify as love or pain, and thus we lack specificity. What I wanted was additional information and context. If the thread was "What is pain", and didn't even specify if we're discussing emotional, physical or psychological pain, wouldn't that be absurd?

Why would it be absurd? Simply because you can break something down into a smaller typology?

Would it likewise be absurd to discuss energy because it can be broken down into kinetic energy, nuclear, electric, etc.? Is "American gun policy," impossible to discuss because it varies by state and municipality? Surely there is commonality here.

Plus, even if we're allowing that any universal is just a name for reducible traits in some physical system, it seems trivial that various brain states correlating with deep types of affection are going to have similarities they don't share with states of various sorts of disgust, loathing, or indifference. Phenomenologically, there is a similarity as well, such that while "Ted loves Donna," might refer to several different types of love, its content clearly has a phenomenological reference that is distinct from "Ted hates Donna," or even "Ted lusts after Donna."

2. Both "love" and "pain" rely on interpretation, and I may interpret "states of being" as love, even if you or others do not interpret those same "states of being" as love.

All sensory data requires interpretation and the same is true of readings of specialized instruments. Plenty of people still claim the Earth is flat, that the germ theory of infectious disease is wrong, etc. 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.

3. A state of being that can be referred to as "pain", may qualify as "pain" for a multitude of different reasons. These reasons can drastically change the thing we're discussing. Pain is a great example, see how emotional pain from grief is very different from emotional pain from betrayal and so on.

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.

Regardless of how protean language seems to be, I don't think this warrants positing that it is somehow acasual, sui generis, or supernatural — somehow floating free from the world. To be sure, you could flip around the meanings of words and have an intelligible language, but language still has a causal history that allows for its use. The claim that "nothing in language necessarily maps to the world" doesn't preclude contingent mapping.

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.

"Love" and "pain" are invented concepts, and the "states of being" you refer to aren't determinative of what these concepts mean. It has much to do with our cultural and philosophical perspectives. Our understanding of love could be influenced by a famous movie or book, and it has, with works such as Romeo and Juliet or Snow White. Such influences fall far outside the realm of introspection or science.

It seems to me the "love" is generally understood better than "energy," "information," "complexity," and "work," all of which have a plethora of competing definitions in the sciences and yet remain incredibly useful there.

"Invented concepts," cannot be free floating from the world unless language is causally distinct. As for bi-polar disorder, etc., is the argument that words only have meanings to the extent that they are operationalized?

I doubt many others could explain "unity of being" as you understand it. I'm not entirely sure of what would be determinative of whether the distinction would be a "human universal".

How many people can explain quantum chromodynamics like Wilzek? Surely, people can be "more right," about describing things than others, e.g. Keplar in his day re the solar system. Is the poet, philosopher, or psychologists excluded from such expert knowledge re love? Perhaps, but the fact that people can disagree with them cannot be the reason for this.

I'll definitely allow that some subjects are much more difficult to attain certainty on than others. However, I don't think a hard line between "knowledge of real things," and "knowledge of invented things," works without some sort of dualism. What necessitates this hard epistemic wall? How are Romeo and Juliet and Snow White causally distinct from other experiences?

I imagine most would agree or disagree based on their preferences and personal experiences.

Yeah, but this seems to be largely true on the cutting edge of science and metaphysics too. But I guess the question is one of "current lack of good evidence," versus "the impossibility of good evidence."

Terms also get more specifically defined in light of better evidence.

My point was merely that it has not been a major focus on a level with other topics and has generally not occupied a place of significance in systematic philosophy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Schopenhauer thought it of the highest significance as it was an often used vehicle for which Will to propagate.

I could go on but to summarise, without specificity, we're wandering aimlessly. That's completely unlike "animal", and especially the "grey rat". Grey rats aren't fundamentally changed by context or circumstance, nor who is speaking and how they interpret the term. — Judaka

Although @Count Timothy von Icarus already addressed this, I wanted to also point out that "grey" and "rat" (I did say mouse, though) are both abstractions as well: grey comes in many different shades; rats (or mice) come in many different sizes, shapes, hews, personalities, etc.; so both terms convey abstractions; abstractions the most definitely can change by context, circumstance, speaker, and interpreter. To that effect, as far as I can discern, all of our linguistic thought - i.e., all which can be conveyed via language - is strictly composed of abstractions, be they of things, processes, or otherwise. Concrete particulars are only what we immediately experience, like our perception of "that grey mouse over there", but then, in the nitty gritty, even such immediate perceptions are in part there due to pre-established abstractions which we already hold that, furthermore, at least hold the potential to perpetually evolve given novel experiences. Its a very complex topic to me. And, to me at least, language only strongly accelerates but is not foundational to such abstract cognition; otherwise no lesser animal could, for example, discern such things as "prey" from "predator", language-less though they are. And all this without introducing the concept of universals.

But this sure seems to deviate from the thread's intent.

I'm not super familiar with Schopenhauer, but wasn't his take that this is sort of an irrational takeover by the "will to life?" His whole: "If children were brought into the world by reason alone, would the humanity continue to exist?" To which I take it the answer we're supposed to have is "no."

Seems in the bucket of "love as inscrutable Eros."

I'm not super familiar with Schopenhauer, but wasn't his take that this is sort of an irrational takeover by the "will to life?" His whole: "If children were brought into the world by reason alone, would the humanity continue to exist?" To which I take it the answer we're supposed to have is "no." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, it is the will-to-life perpetuating itself. That is romantic love at least. Perhaps something like agape is more akin to his idea of "compassion" which has quite the opposite nature of Eros- that of "quieting" the will in that one is seeing the nature of reality in its true nature, as a monistic being, divided by appearance. This is in contrast to Eros, which is will following its normal pursuit, "falling" for the appearance, and not just falling for it, but possibly perpetuating the species, and thus the whole illusion, again and again.

But romantic love can be broken into many facets of its phenomenology. Let's look at some:

1) Attraction. Some people's physical features and attributes seem attractive. There is something alluring, keeping one's gaze on them and attention. I've argued that physical attraction could be cultural and learned, but even if we were to keep it to its pseudo-scientific grounding in some "innate" feature, it doesn't matter, the consequence is the same.

2) Accompanying physical attraction is attraction from some emotional connection. This can be through personality, closeness, fondness, how they make you feel in some way.

3) Sexual function. Sexual organs can function in such a way as to gain pleasure. Sometimes one can feel sexual in what might seem as odd "fetishized" ways, but generally it's grounded in the usual sexual organs. That is to say, the phenomenon exists whereby one can have sex with someone they are not particularly "physically attracted to". Indeed, this is often called "settling". You WOULD like to get that really hot X, but you will "settle" for this person who is in proximity, able to be attained, and you get along with well enough. And, perhaps, due to proximity and closeness, you have developed a more emotional and personality-based attraction to, which increases the overall attraction of the person (see 2).

4) Relationship. Apart from, but connected to attraction and sexual function is relationships. Relationships are a commitment to one person (or perhaps more than one in polygamous type situations), whereby two (or more) people support each other in long-term emotional ways. Often this involves deciding to procreate or raising a family. Sometimes it just means being attached to that person in a closeness with them. It is about signaling the social cue that "this" person is my "partner" in life in a more close way than anyone else. They are the ones that care about your welfare, they motivate you, they have quality time with you, they often cohabitate with you to the point where you sleep in the same bed together, eat meals together, sit in the same room together, and go out for entertainment together. There is often an element of financial support as well, pooling resources, and dividing household chores, etc. This last one can be a source of contention.

The human animal and its mating behavior and life in general is complex. 4 - Relationships, are supposed to be the result of some mix 1-3 working at some level. 1-3 is supposed to lead to 4. But notice, there can be lots of room for all of these things to be separated and break down which causes even more misery for the human. That is to say:

-One can be more attracted to X person (1,2) which puts 4 in danger. One can technically get 3, but not really think 1,2. Ideally 1 and 2 should go with three, but technically those can be separated. Opposite this, one can have 1 and 3, but not really get anything from 2, which will lead to unhappiness as 4 will not be achieved. Also, 4 can be achieved, but 3 is lacking, which might lead one to end 4. When one gets older, 3 might not matter as much. When one is in 4 for a long time, they may lose touch with the world being outside of 4, and take it for granted. As mentioned earlier, the dividing of resources, time, and household chores might be a source of contention for 4. One might not find 4 as fulfilling as pursuing 1 and 2 again.

There are so many permutations for unhappiness.

@Count Timothy von Icarus, no response? I thought this was a fun one :D.

My main idea is that "love" (similar to Schopenhauer's view) is just another avenue for suffering. Just like life itself, the ideal is not the reality. "Romanticism" can mean many things, but in the realm of romantic love, it is an idealization or rather Pollyannaish lens for which to see love. But as I was explaining, "love" is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and when people say "love" they are defining those facets in a particular way (specifically 1 and 2 leading to 3 and 4). But there are so many ways love breaks down and causes pain and misery.

My main idea is that "love" (similar to Schopenhauer's view) is just another avenue for suffering. — schopenhauer1

And since suffering is implicitly deemed bad, the only logical conclusion that I so far find to this affirmation of supposed fact is that love in all its variations is a bad thing to maintain or pursue.

The ethical ramifications of this logical deduction from your given premise being what exactly? That Hitler and Stalin are good guys on account of their unlovingness but the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa are bad? So it's said, both camps suffer/ed in life (the present Dalai Lama still kicking it), but in utterly different ways and for utterly different reasons.

In short, given the premise you've affirmed, what then makes an unloving life preferable to a loving one?

And since suffering is implicitly deemed bad, the only logical conclusion that I so far find to this affirmation of supposed fact is that love in all its variations is a bad thing to maintain or pursue. — javra

No no. Earlier I stated the difference between Schopenhauer's idea of compassion and romantic love, and what that means:

Indeed, it is the will-to-life perpetuating itself. That is romantic love at least. Perhaps something like agape is more akin to his idea of "compassion" which has quite the opposite nature of Eros- that of "quieting" the will in that one is seeing the nature of reality in its true nature, as a monistic being, divided by appearance. This is in contrast to Eros, which is will following its normal pursuit, "falling" for the appearance, and not just falling for it, but possibly perpetuating the species, and thus the whole illusion, again and again. — schopenhauer1

So I was not just leaving it at "love" without distinction between kinds. Specifically I was separating out a sort of compassionate type love and erotic/romantic love.

The ethical ramifications of this logical deduction from your given premise being what exactly? That Hitler and Stalin are good guys on account of their unlovingness but the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa are bad? So it's said, both camps suffer/ed in life (the present Dalai Lama still kicking it), but in utterly different ways and for utterly different reasons. — javra

So yeah Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa type love can be deemed more in the agape/compassion category that I mentioned, though of course that would have to be applied in real-time contexts and determined etc. But the love they are striving for (and often spoken of in religious contexts in general) can certainly be deemed that.

In short, given the premise you've affirmed, what then makes an unloving life preferable to a loving one? — javra

So I was specific about romantic love, so in that context perhaps. I tried to define more systematically the "fuzzy" notion of romantic love. I was trying to say that it actually has several parts, and if they do not work in the right order, or are missing components, this can cause internal tensions that manifest in various negative emotions. Also, at every level of the four components that I theorized are involved in romantic love, there can be breakdowns that lead to stress and negative emotions.

Now going back to your idea of is "an unloving life preferable", that is tricky. My point about the multi-facets is that it becomes as much a sociological problem as it is a personal preference. Other animals have mating strategies that are more defined, innate, or whatnot. Some are learned. Bowery birds need to collect enough blue objects and do a dance in a certain way that the mate finds appealing to have maybe 5 seconds of coitus. Some birds also have various sharing responsibilities over the eggs and some mate for life even. Presumably this is all a combination of mainly innate features with some room for learned variance in there and contingency.

However, humans, being the complex beings we are on a social level, do not have a set pattern for which we can harken back to. It is hard to say how early Homo sapiens "loved" and mated. One can extrapolate from some of the earliest living hunting-gathering groups like the San Bushmen. They seem to be able to pick their mates rather than it being assigned from parents. Often though, dowries are involved, and exchange of resources between families, and marriage becomes much more than "feelings". But then there was always cheating, and some societies allowed polygamy which prevents that from being as much an issue for men, perhaps.

But the numbers 1-4 are more of the "modern" take on it, perhaps since the 1700s, when modern attitudes of dating became conventionalized. So to that extent, romantic love is supposed to lead to a package deal whereby one is attracted to (physically, personality-wise), is emotionally invested in, is sexually active with, and forms a relationship with a particular person. That person can be the source of immense highs and lows if all of these things are to be enwrapped in that person. So, is it worth pursuing with this modern sociological construct? Divorce rates, if they represent broader notions of "love" and "relationships" are about 50% in most places or more. Romantic dramas and comedies extract a kernel of truth from the sorrows and highs one gets from such ventures.

One of the problems is 1-4 is not defined very clearly so expectations are misaligned, and people have different ideas of various things. Perhaps someone just wants 3 and not 4. All sorts of things go wrong.

What is true is that humans are a social creature. Books, entertainment, gardening, going to X place for a hobby can be done alone, but everything that put you in place (by way of being born in the first place), and the use of the various entertainments, was from other people doing something. You can't get out of being a social creature, even when alone. So what is one to do? One keeps living and suffering because the alternative is not living.

@BC any comments to add to these?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856869
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857263

The breakdown of types seems fine. It just seems to be missing something to say only that: "love leads to suffering." This is surely true, but just as true is the fact that love also leads to happiness. Moreover, it does not seem to be in any way the case that lack of eros, of itself, precludes suffering in any way. Indeed, lack of eros is often specified as a source of suffering.

Against the total preferencing of agape over eros, we could consider Plato's position: It is the settling for mere lust, for what is less real, that is problematic re eros, not eros itself. Settling in this way makes us an effect of causes we cannot fathom. Passion, ecstasy, eros - are these necessarily to be despised? "No," is Plato's answer. It seems these can be apprehended in spiritual ways, e.g. Rumi, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint Bonaventure. Finding what is truly self-determining is always transcendent, and eros is no different.

After all, what happens in the end when Eros meets Psyche? Though there is suffering and travails, all ends well in a divine comedy, with Hedone born of the meeting.

Schopenhauer's view seems more in line with the later Gnostic retellings of the tale, where Psyche is the human soul, continually drawn into the suffering of the material world by the manipulations of Eros/Cupid.

Which version gets at the heart of things? Both I'd say. There is Eros as the tempter, adulterer, and prankster, Eros as cause and master over man, and there is Eros as divine love, transcendent union instead of cause-effect, Boccaccio's Eros, the Eros of the Canticle of Canticles (the love of the divine and soul).

It would seem to me that the difference is in the experience and knowing, in the soul. You can read the Canticle of Canticles as a lewd and surprising addition the Jewish prophetic cannon or you can read it as a love song between God and the soul (individual, e.g., Origen, or collective e.g. Saint Augustine). Which is sort of Plato's point; it's the knower, the subject's relation that makes the difference.

Schopenhauer's overall theories notwithstanding, his personal problems with relationships, some of his misogynistic rants, which would be well at home on "Manosphere/Incel/Black Pill" blogs today, seem to suggest missing this side of eros, the side animating Dante's sublimity or Shakespeare's eternal Sonnet 18 ("When in eternal lines to Time thou grow'st./ So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,/ So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.") I mean, are these writers, or us through them, celebrating only lust? It seems not. "On my bed by night, I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him but found him not." (Song of Songs 3:1) - seems to appeal to more than a woman missing a warm body.

I think Schope's student Nietzsche gets a good deal closer in his later works as his appreciation of the "Dionysian" grows, although I'm a little weird in that I like Birth more than a lot of the later stuff. I still see a value in diagnosing naiveté about eros, but it's not the end of the story IMO.

"Love" is so overworked and so heavily romanticized (fictionalized, dramatized, hollywoodated) that it is difficult (impossible?) to say anything fresh and insightful about it.

"Loneliness" has lately been getting some attention in the news. Lots of people are lonely, experts have found.

Loneliness, alienation, disconnectedness, isolation, meaninglessness, etc. are deficiency conditions. Love, friendship, belonging, connectedness, validation inclusion, etc. are conditions of sufficiency. Lonely people feel emptiness; loved/loving people feel fullness, to put it in very simple terms. Of course, the experience of emptiness and fullness are not binary -- 0 and 1. There are ever so many ways to experience deficiency and sufficiency.

Love isn't the antidote for loneliness, though it seems to be often sought out as the cure. To counter loneliness one needs friendship, connection, validation, meaning.

AN ASIDE: Back in the 1960s, registration for classes at the university involved a final stop before one could select classes: the Validation Desk. There one's university documents were checked to make sure one's academic affairs were in order. Validated students proceeded forward. Invalidated students had to go fix whatever problem existed.

We all want to be VALIDATED--judged as legit, paid up, qualified, deserving. Validation can be hard to find. END OF ASIDE

We tend to think / hope that a sufficiency of LOVE will fill in all our deficiencies. Love, in this sense, is instrumental. "you give me love" and that will make loneliness, alienation, and other kinds of psychological crap go away. If only! It doesn't.

There is a cure for loneliness, it just isn't "love" per se. In some ways, the cure is more complicated than it is for lovelessness.

We do need to BE LOVED in order TO LOVE. A very large portion of the population are adequately loved early on, enough, so they can love others.

You know, Schop, I think I'm starting to babble here, so I'll step away till later.

Good stuff there, but I think something you may not have picked up was how 1-4 in my initial post laid out love. The way you are telling it, is indeed this "romanticized" version. It is the "romance of romance" that you talk of, but not "love" proper, I'd say. Love proper- that is love grounded follows more in line with 1-4. That is to say, what is this "feeling" but 1 and 2 in the divisions I laid out? What is the "passion" consummated but aspect 3? What is the long-term goal of 1-3, but of course 4. My point was I was trying to refine what it is specifically in a grounded way, how it is lived phenomenologically in our modern day for how love causes misery and breaks down. I wasn't just leaving it at "love causes misery", I was explaining the mechanisms for where at each point this misery takes place and what that might look like. Everything from finding "love", "loneliness", "attraction", "sex", and "long-term peace with another person one feels connected with" are all their own thing, which then gets lumped with "love", I was pulling those things apart and then seeing where they combine, and how they combine.

In the modern day, it does seem like by "love" people are looking for an ideal. What is this ideal? It is 1-4 working in stepwise fashion.

Loneliness, alienation, disconnectedness, isolation, meaninglessness, etc. are deficiency conditions. Love, friendship, belonging, connectedness, validation inclusion, etc. are conditions of sufficiency. Lonely people feel emptiness; loved/loving people feel fullness, to put it in very simple terms. Of course, the experience of emptiness and fullness are not binary -- 0 and 1. There are ever so many ways to experience deficiency and sufficiency. — BC

It's interesting because being a self-reflective, recursively thinking being, these feelings are much more amplified in humans than it seems any other being. A dog likes being pet and walked and playing a game. But that's it. It doesn't need much socialization beyond. An ape grooms, and forages together, and forms hunting parties and various hierarchical relationships and plottings. This is more complex, but still, the lack of recursive, self-reflection (self-talk, self-examination) makes the amplitude of possible suffering perhaps less. Humans need what you mentioned and more it seems.

But I was specifically wondering what you though of my analysis of how love manifests in modern day in this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856869

The reason I am interested in it, is I think most people's definitions of love follow the steps 1-4 in some linear fashion, and it is this linear fashion not being achieved in either the right order, or the perception that one of these steps is missing, that causes the breakdowns in finding, obtaining, continuing, pursuing love. In other words, do you have any more thoughts about how these breakdowns occur, and if that systemization (realizing it is only a model) might be more-or-less an accurate encapsulation of the ideal and where the ideal breaks down?

Because "love" is everything from the feelings of attraction, emotional connection, the sexual impulse, to the culmination of these into a relationship (a final "state of affairs" if you will regarding the first three state of affairs). It isn't JUST the feeling of attraction or relationship or sex or isolated. It has to have them in combination. That is another aspect I am asking to consider.

I'll have to think about it. Like I said, the layout seems right, at least as respects the common flow of things. But this seems more "what usually happens" less "what is ideal." What is ideal is 4, no matter the process. I also think you can have most of the elements of 4 without 1-3 in the form of deep friendships. These can be passionate, but not sexual, e.g. the fictionalized version of Jack Kerouac and Neil Cassidy in "On the Road."

But whereas "eros" might be used to refer to attraction and sex in general, the English "love" seems quite disconnected from this. To be sure, there is a relation, but plenty of people will say they are not "in love" with people they've slept with or are attracted too, while most will say they "love" their family members.

The commonality between 4 and stroge/agape jumps to mind here. The "ideal/universal" seems like it can/should be realizable in many forms. That's what makes it the "universal," the truly self-determining, it isn't bogged down in the particulars. 1-4 might be the way it goes for most happy couples, but it seems plausible to talk about a celibate priest living a "love filled life" without stretching the term.

If people end up suffering because they don't go through 1-4 as expected, this seems like it could be a case of the type of "lack of understanding" Plato is talking about. It's mistaking accidents for substance; what people want is the substance, they suffer for chasing accidents.

There are so many permutations for unhappiness. — schopenhauer1

Paraphrasing Tolstoy, unhappy families have lots of permutations; happy families don't.

Attraction — schopenhauer1

We can be attracted to all sorts, but if there is zero attraction toward us, it's a non-starter. Some degree of mutual attraction is required. Face, figure, scent, clothes, body, bearing. Brains, maybe. Later.

One can, should, exercise one's intelligence about attraction. There are people who are extremely attractive, but with whom a relationship would be a certain disaster. That wildly worldly woman at the bar might be very arousing, but she probably doesn't want to settle down in a suburban white picket fence existence with an accountant whose hobby is stamp collecting.

emotional connection — schopenhauer1

The emotional connection may not appear concurrently with physical attraction, but if there is prompt and disagreeable emotional affect, it's probably a non-starter.

Sexual function — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Successful sexual encounters can range from the minimalist encounter in the dark to grand seduction scenes. The latter are way too much trouble for my taste.

The experience of sex is simultaneously simple and enormously complex. See Kinsey.

Relationship — schopenhauer1

If we add up attraction, emotional connection, and sex over time we will likely end up with a relationship--usually in that order. Folk wisdom has it that sex with people who were first established friends isn't going to work out. That's been my experience.

A sexual, emotional relationship that lasts will be conditioned by other factors: money, employment, poverty, major illnesses, and so on. If the partners are loyal, the relationship will endure through thick and thin, depending on the capacities of the partners. Failure can happen to good people.

In a long-lasting relationship, the factors that ignited the relationship will change. Lots of relationships endure decades with major changes in the circumstances of both partners. I believe the chances of having a long relationship improve with age. Two teenagers lack enough experience to have a chance at negotiating a long relationship. By somewhere in their 30s, people are (or should be) better able to make a long relationship work. For child-rearing, though, one doesn't want to wait too long.

Needless to say, if you mix too many drugs and alcohol into any stage of a relationship , things will not go well.

What is ideal is 4, no matter the process. I also think you can have most of the elements of 4 without 1-3 in the form of deep friendships. These can be passionate, but not sexual, e.g. the fictionalized version of Jack Kerouac and Neil Cassidy in "On the Road."

But whereas "eros" might be used to refer to attraction and sex in general, the English "love" seems quite disconnected from this. To be sure, there is a relation, but plenty of people will say they are not "in love" with people they've slept with or are attracted too, while most will say they "love" their family members.

The commonality between 4 and stroge/agape jumps to mind here. The "ideal/universal" seems like it can/should be realizable in many forms. That's what makes it the "universal," the truly self-determining, it isn't bogged down in the particulars. 1-4 might be the way it goes for most happy couples, but it seems plausible to talk about a celibate priest living a "love filled life" without stretching the term.

If people end up suffering because they don't go through 1-4 as expected, this seems like it could be a case of the type of "lack of understanding" Plato is talking about. It's mistaking accidents for substance; what people want is the substance, they suffer for chasing accidents. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, I think this is where we must parse distinctions-

Storge is love of kin more-or-less: parent/child, pet/pet-owner, etc. Sometimes a "relationship" might fall into this, but I see it as the end result of eros love. If erotic love does not turn into a relationship, it becomes unstable, which perhaps we can discuss more.

Agape love, is like love of humanity, love of a person in an abstract way such as to see the commonality of them in you and whatnot. This is the love you mentioned tied with religious points of view of "love for fellow man"

Philia is brotherly love, basically a friendship.

Finally, there is erotic love, which is one based on some sort of attraction and/or sex. It is "erotic love" for which most people default to when discussing "love" in the general sense. It is this love in particular I am focusing on. Often 4 (which can be considered a type of storge love), is only the end result of 1-3. And that is my point, it cannot be bypassed.

If we add up attraction, emotional connection, and sex over time we will likely end up with a relationship--usually in that order. Folk wisdom has it that sex with people who were first established friends isn't going to work out. That's been my experience.

A sexual, emotional relationship that lasts will be conditioned by other factors: money, employment, poverty, major illnesses, and so on. If the partners are loyal, the relationship will endure through thick and thin, depending on the capacities of the partners. Failure can happen to good people.

In a long-lasting relationship, the factors that ignited the relationship will change. Lots of relationships endure decades with major changes in the circumstances of both partners. I believe the chances of having a long relationship improve with age. Two teenagers lack enough experience to have a chance at negotiating a long relationship. By somewhere in their 30s, people are (or should be) better able to make a long relationship work. For child-rearing, though, one doesn't want to wait too long. — BC

So my point with 1-3 cannot be bypassed for 4 only, is the following:

1 alone is simply a sort of infatuation, but not "love" (eros love that is).
2 alone is simply a friend, and perhaps can count as a sort of philia.
3 alone is simply a "friend-with-benefits" or simply physically pleasurable in nature
4 alone is near impossible without 1-3, which is why I said that it pretty much has to arrive in that order for 4, to obtain. If not, it may be seen as inauthentic, rushed, not real, etc. 1-3 needs to be there to legitimize the status of 4.

Thus, I say that "erotic love" in order for it to be indeed "love" has to have all 4 elements to obtain that status. But it is also because of the necessity of each step to be present and aligned correctly, for which love is generally hard to enter into and hard to keep. There are so many ways 1-4 can fail.

It is also interesting to note that the process is quite cumbersome. Because 4 is not instant, nor is it preferable to be instant, it needs a lot of time, energy, etc. and this makes erotic love that much more fickle than most other types of love.

This is all very interesting, but of one thing I am quite certain: theorizing about love will not get one laid. It probably won't lead to love either. I'm not being sarcastic; sadly, rationality just doesn't help the heart all that much. (It's handy though when one is doing a postmortem on a dead relationship.

So my point with 1-3 cannot be bypassed for 4 only, is the following: — schopenhauer1

You are describing erotic love as the end result of a progression, beginning with attraction and ending with "authentic" (whatever that means) erotic love. Probably all love follows a progression. The kinds of love mentioned here--eros, philia, storge, and agape--require investment, commitment, desire, and more by the subject. One doesn't just wake up one day and find one is full of agape.

But it is also because of the necessity of each step to be present and aligned correctly, for which love is generally hard to enter into and hard to keep. — schopenhauer1

One of my favorite religious writers, Dorothy Day's (founder of the Catholic Worker Movement) biography is titled "A Harsh and Dreadful Love". The love of Christ is a very difficult path to follow. Most of the time, for most people, love is not harsh and dreadful but it can be damned difficult.

Ordinary love, the kind most of us find and hope to keep, is difficult because humans are not constant. We change for better and for worse. We may fail in our love at a critical time when our partner most needs us. Love, of course, is never the only thing we feel.

This is all very interesting, but of one thing I am quite certain: theorizing about love will not get one laid. It probably won't lead to love either. I'm not being sarcastic; sadly, rationality just doesn't help the heart all that much. (It's handy though when one is doing a postmortem on a dead relationship. — BC

Quite true, theorizing is no way to love. However, I think it becomes more a self-fulfilling prophecy than anything really prohibitive. It is the romantic fairy tale that it's just a "feeling" and there can be no intellectualizing. But being a philosophy forum, I think we can step back and see the patterns. Perhaps the patterns can inform better. Do you find this person physically attractive or do you want to get laid? Do you find this person's personality attractive? Do you feel like you care for this person beyond when just spend time together? Do you have physical intimacy? Do you see yourself over time sharing responsibilities and the everyday burdens of life that entails a long term relationship. So, yeah knowing the pattern can indeed inform oneself, more than you might let on with just "It's all about the feels!".

You are describing erotic love as the end result of a progression, beginning with attraction and ending with "authentic" (whatever that means) erotic love. Probably all love follows a progression. The kinds of love mentioned here--eros, philia, storge, and agape--require investment, commitment, desire, and more by the subject. One doesn't just wake up one day and find one is full of agape. — BC

Indeed, I should not discount that other love follows a progression too, and is temporal. The stakes are different though. Agape is all consuming for the religious-inclined.. Monks, nuns, or just the "devout". Perhaps the atheistic ascetic and Buddhist devote can fall into this too. But for many of the masses, this is not what they care about (even if they should?). Rather, they want the progression of erotic love (1-4). 4 especially leads to a kind of stability. You can deny that it is more important than the other loves, but it seems pretty important to people. At the beginning of life, family stability, and throughout life friendships are important, but a relationship as represented by 1-4, seems to be very desirable, as something more encompassing to ones everyday life. There is a reason you "go back" to your wife/husband/partner, and not just to a "friend". There is an aspect of "home", and shared space, etc. It's different in its all-encompassing nature. Of course, none of this mattered centuries ago. Love had not much to do with marriage, procreation, and a domestic partner. That is relatively new. There were a lot of arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, of necessity, etc.

Ordinary love, the kind most of us find and hope to keep, is difficult because humans are not constant. We change for better and for worse. We may fail in our love at a critical time when our partner most needs us. Love, of course, is never the only thing we feel. — BC

Indeed, but I do see the 4 components outlined a good tool to see where the failure takes place.

But for many of the masses, this is not what they care about (even if they should?). Rather, they want the progression of erotic love (1-4). — schopenhauer1

I don't think it is at all a deficiency that people prize erotic love. As embodied beings who experience the world through the physical senses, we ARE carnal beings. The sexual drive goes back a long ways. The wellspring of life ought not be disparaged. (Screw the Apostle Paul.)

Just guessing, but I don't think our emotional apparatus begins with well-differentiated forms of love -- erotic, philia, storge, agape, etc. Our first simple love is for mama and over time (decades) is differentiated. Young children evidence simple caring--simple philia. Children have sexual urges too, if maybe not erotic desire. By 12? 13? the vaguely sexual becomes specifically erotic, whether acted on or not with others. And our sense of caring, the sense of our capacity to comfort others. and empathy grows as we move into adulthood--not at all evenly across the population, of course. Well developed adults display diverse love -- erotic, filial, maternal, paternal, agapaic, civil even, Love of country.

BUT, being embodied as we are, it is physical erotic pleasure that is the foundation of long-term family relationships. (Non-sexual relationships, like college friendship, can last into old age too.)

Of course, none of this mattered centuries ago. Love had not much to do with marriage, procreation, and a domestic partner. That is relatively new. — schopenhauer1

How many centuries are you going back? Ordinary English villagers lives 600 years ago displayed evidence of courtship, marriage for love, domesticity. Kings, queens, very large landowners, (earls, dukes, etc.) were under obligations to make strategic marriages. You know, if your estate covers a couple of counties in England, you are not going to marry a woman with nothing, no matter how nice she is. You jolly well better marry the daughter of another wealthy landowner, and maybe you will be richer for it. "What's love got to do with it?"

Human psychology hasn't changed much. (That's my theory.).

Courtly and romantic love" as depicted by troubadours and poets was new back in the medieval period. It wasn't practical advice, it was 'romance'. On the other hand, the Song of Solomon (it's in the Bible) was written... maybe 900 B.C. Male and female POVs alternate.

7:1-3, 6 “How graceful are your feet in sandals, o queenly maiden!
Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand.
Your navel is like a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies.
Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.
How fair and pleasant you are, o loved one, delectable maiden!”

As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.
Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love.
His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.

Don't sit under the apple tree with anybody else but me?

I don't know whether Solomon existed, and if he did whether he had anything to do with the poetry, but what the poet is talking about here is not strategic or arranged marriage, but good old carnal love.

The sexual drive goes back a long ways. The wellspring of life ought not be disparaged. (Screw the Apostle Paul.) — BC

BUT, being embodied as we are, it is physical erotic pleasure that is the foundation of long-term family relationships. (Non-sexual relationships, like college friendship, can last into old age too.) — BC

Indeed, this is actually why I see Paul as a kind of "Gnostic-lite". If suffering begins at birth, and prior to birth control, sex led often times to birth, then stop the cause and you stop the effect of suffering. Of course, Paul's shitty application of Gnostic-like ideas (it was floating around then.. you can't tell me Paul wasn't familiar in some ways to Gnostic ideas), and Augustine's ridiculous treatment of this whole thing based on his own self-inflicted guilt, is another matter (he was a full blown (no pun intended) sex addict according to his autobiography).

But indeed, even your odd evasion of erotic love now, is telling of how erotic love, leading to relationships is almost shameful. That is to say, sex stripped of relationships seems more appropriate to talk about than relationships. It is too domestic, too close to home, too close to the vest. That is to say, to want to have a deeply formed relationship with someone you are physically, emotionally, and sexually compatible with is also some of the least likely things to align successfully. Yet people take the ventures and fail often. Women are socialized to make this an open thing. Males are socialized to downplay it as no big deal, even though, why do they willingly conform to such arrangements? Also, the happiness levels of married couples belies an interesting idea whereby many times it is the men who are happier with such arrangements and women who get less happy in marriage. Anyways, it seems that wanting a relationship is shameful in society, the sex is actually no big deal anymore. Interesting sociology.

The distinction between agape and eros is all fine and well. But it doesn’t satisfy the issues posed.

First off, while agape can certainly be had in the absence of eros, eros devoid of any form of agape … well, many adjectives can be used, but I’ll keep to the point and say is dehumanizing, or else dehumanized. Rape as a good example of this. It’s never been my thing so I’ve never personally partook, but from what I’ve gathered from others and from reading, even threesomes and orgies – from ancient to modern - typically contain some form of agape, however minuscule – as in compassion for the other’s being (such as via respect for the other’s limits of comfort despite maybe depriving one of fully satisfying one’s own cravings) – if they’re not to be dehumanizing at best, violent rape-fests at worst. Ditto for some presence of agape in masochism (if one actually studies one’s fair share of anthropology and doesn’t go by pre-judged cultural stereotypes).

An interesting issue, actually: When one mentions “eros” does one strictly mean “sexual gratification”, so that one construes rape to be a form of eros? Something about this to me is utterly wrong – so that eros necessarily implies some measure of agape. But maybe others disagree?

But then the same to me applies to philia and to storge: devoid of any agape whatsoever they become meaningless. Then again, agape is itself fairly hard to define.

At any rate, in reference to my previous post, love as agape (say, one devoid of eros, of philia, and of storge) can and does most often incur the very real risk of suffering on account of the agape held. Minimally in the form of disappointment. If, for example, one holds agape for humanity, and humanity behaves like a bunch of shortsighted lemmings about to drown themselves in the ocean (say, for example, by ever-accelerating climate change), one will experience dire disappointment on account of the agape held. Which would never have been in this agape’s absence. Not to even mention the possibility that one such fellow human might commit violently unjust crimes against the agapeist in question, or something to the like.

Furthermore, agape too has its often felt ideal it pursues, one that many of us will proudly gripe and whine about being an unrealistic future only idiots believe in. (As though this is what children should be somehow taught by us jaded adults so as to live more ethical and upright lives. Apropos, sarcasm 101, if it needs to be translated.)

Agape, as with eros, will far more often than not lead to suffering. Exceptions occur in both cases, yes, but it is not the norm.

So then what makes pure agape a more preferable love to maintain and pursue than an agape-consisting eros? For, in the first place, both can equally be almost guaranteed to result in suffering on account of being held or pursued and, in the second place, as the individual persons we all are, most of us stand a far greater chance of gaining more eudemonia from a sustained, agape-consisting eros than via an agape alone. The ideal romantic relationship in the extended moment is persists – this, for some, being well over 50 years of loving marriage (with personal relatives as examples, if nothing else) – can enrich one’s life with both warmth and wisdom gained from the other’s perspectives far more than can a universalized compassion for mankind, for example.

There’s no reason why one can’t have both; Noam Chomsky as one well enough known example of this. But if one is to draw a line in the sand between agape and eros, why should the likely suffering to be incurred by the former be prescribed while that to be incurred by the other be proscribed? After all, both can be addressed by your previous affirmation of being “just another avenue toward suffering.”

(And, for the anti-natalists out there, the bringing forth of offspring is not essential to the occurrence of a romantic relationship: the latter can well be held just fine without the former.)

-----------

BTW, since you were getting into a little bit of anthropology, just wanted to mention as an aside that polyandry has also been known to occur in addition to polygyny. Irrespective of polygamy type, though, compassion and the like are inextricable from such sexual relationships if they are to be in any way happy for those involved. (Most polygamies in our history as humans don’t revolve around kings or emperors. If this needs to be said in general.)

An interesting issue, actually: When one mentions “eros” does one strictly mean “sexual gratification”, so that one construes rape to be a form of eros? Something about this to me is utterly wrong – so that eros necessarily implies some measure of agape. But maybe others disagree? — javra

No not at al. Not how I was breaking it down. Let me quote for you my theory of eros:

1) Attraction. Some people's physical features and attributes seem attractive. There is something alluring, keeping one's gaze on them and attention. I've argued that physical attraction could be cultural and learned, but even if we were to keep it to its pseudo-scientific grounding in some "innate" feature, it doesn't matter, the consequence is the same.

2) Accompanying physical attraction is attraction from some emotional connection. This can be through personality, closeness, fondness, how they make you feel in some way.

3) Sexual function. Sexual organs can function in such a way as to gain pleasure. Sometimes one can feel sexual in what might seem as odd "fetishized" ways, but generally it's grounded in the usual sexual organs. That is to say, the phenomenon exists whereby one can have sex with someone they are not particularly "physically attracted to". Indeed, this is often called "settling". You WOULD like to get that really hot X, but you will "settle" for this person who is in proximity, able to be attained, and you get along with well enough. And, perhaps, due to proximity and closeness, you have developed a more emotional and personality-based attraction to, which increases the overall attraction of the person (see 2).

4) Relationship. Apart from, but connected to attraction and sexual function is relationships. Relationships are a commitment to one person (or perhaps more than one in polygamous type situations), whereby two (or more) people support each other in long-term emotional ways. Often this involves deciding to procreate or raising a family. Sometimes it just means being attached to that person in a closeness with them. It is about signaling the social cue that "this" person is my "partner" in life in a more close way than anyone else. They are the ones that care about your welfare, they motivate you, they have quality time with you, they often cohabitate with you to the point where you sleep in the same bed together, eat meals together, sit in the same room together, and go out for entertainment together. There is often an element of financial support as well, pooling resources, and dividing household chores, etc. This last one can be a source of contention.

The human animal and its mating behavior and life in general is complex. 4 - Relationships, are supposed to be the result of some mix 1-3 working at some level. 1-3 is supposed to lead to 4. But notice, there can be lots of room for all of these things to be separated and break down which causes even more misery for the human. That is to say:

-One can be more attracted to X person (1,2) which puts 4 in danger. One can technically get 3, but not really think 1,2. Ideally 1 and 2 should go with three, but technically those can be separated. Opposite this, one can have 1 and 3, but not really get anything from 2, which will lead to unhappiness as 4 will not be achieved. Also, 4 can be achieved, but 3 is lacking, which might lead one to end 4. When one gets older, 3 might not matter as much. When one is in 4 for a long time, they may lose touch with the world being outside of 4, and take it for granted. As mentioned earlier, the dividing of resources, time, and household chores might be a source of contention for 4. One might not find 4 as fulfilling as pursuing 1 and 2 again.

There are so many permutations for unhappiness. — schopenhauer1

And here:

So my point with 1-3 cannot be bypassed for 4 only, is the following:

1 alone is simply a sort of infatuation, but not "love" (eros love that is).
2 alone is simply a friend, and perhaps can count as a sort of philia.
3 alone is simply a "friend-with-benefits" or simply physically pleasurable in nature
4 alone is near impossible without 1-3, which is why I said that it pretty much has to arrive in that order for 4, to obtain. If not, it may be seen as inauthentic, rushed, not real, etc. 1-3 needs to be there to legitimize the status of 4.

Thus, I say that "erotic love" in order for it to be indeed "love" has to have all 4 elements to obtain that status. But it is also because of the necessity of each step to be present and aligned correctly, for which love is generally hard to enter into and hard to keep. There are so many ways 1-4 can fail.

It is also interesting to note that the process is quite cumbersome. Because 4 is not instant, nor is it preferable to be instant, it needs a lot of time, energy, etc. and this makes erotic love that much more fickle than most other types of love. — schopenhauer1

So with all that being said, eros implies that those 4 things be in place for it not to be something else. So, in a way you are right if you are trying to say eros cannot just mean 3 alone (sex without any other aspects aforementioned like attraction, personality, emotional connection, etc.).

Agape, as with eros, will far more often than not lead to suffering. Exceptions occur in both cases, yes, but it is not the norm. — javra

Indeed, there aren't many perfectly successful ascetics, Schopenhauer-style, or whatever manifestation of the saintly life one conceives.

So then what makes pure agape a more preferable love to maintain and pursue than an agape-consisting eros? For, in the first place, both can equally be almost guaranteed to result in suffering on account of being held or pursued and, in the second place, as the individual persons we all are, most of us stand a far greater chance of gaining more eudemonia from a sustained, agape-consisting eros than via an agape alone. The ideal romantic relationship in the extended moment is persists – this, for some, being well over 50 years of loving marriage (with personal relatives as examples, if nothing else) – can enrich one’s life with both warmth and wisdom gained from the other’s perspectives far more than can a universalized compassion for mankind, for example. — javra

(And, for the anti-natalists out there, the bringing forth of offspring is not essential to the occurrence of a romantic relationship: the latter can well be held just fine without the former.) — javra

:up: