Let me ask this. The career criminals and gang members that you say never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. Do they love themselves?
— GregW

I don't know what you mean by "do they love themselves?" — Tom Storm

I mean can they experience love by loving themselves?

That said, there seem forms of 'love' which are not actually to do with affection, and to do with some "solidarity" notion. Hence, far too amorphous. — AmadeusD

AmadeusD, what is some "solidarity" notion?

I mean can they experience love by loving themselves? — GregW

Well, in many cases, self-love may be more akin to narcissism, so probably not, especially if we understand love as a rich, selfless experience involving abnegation and sacrifice.

By way of example, things like brotherly love or love for ethnic peers without any personal relationship. Solidarity being some a priori "love" type claim which rests on anything other than direct personal affection.

I would like to begin a discourse on love, beauty, and good. — GregW

— Love = Truth, Beauty, and Goodness —

In the soil we shared, these flowers we chose—
Truth: tulip, goodness: lily, beauty: rose.
Nurtured with care they yet wave to and fro;
Storms can’t scatter the flowers that love grows.

There’s the tulip, the lily, and the rose,
Growing together—no separate rows!
What does it mean, as it must be rarely so,
When they so intwined all together grow?

The tulip’s a dependable sign of spring;
One can always count on the news it brings;
So, tulips have always well stood for truth.
The lily is often white, as the proof,

Representing purity and goodness bright.
The rose is the symbol of beauty’s might.
So these three combined together here
Means we’ve grown love’s bouquet with great care.

Truth, goodness, beauty—of their braided length,
Makes for lasting love, giving it its strength.
So, life’s storms can never scatter them bare.
Love’s not an easy thing to grow, anywhere.

Love’s spirit weaves the soul’s warp, weft, and wave,
Creating an eternal, perfect braid,
Wound from strands of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty;
Each different forms, but from the same All made.

Well, in many cases, self-love may be more akin to narcissism, so probably not, especially if we understand love as a rich, selfless experience involving abnegation and sacrifice. — Tom Storm

By way of example, things like brotherly love or love for ethnic peers without any personal relationship. Solidarity being some a priori "love" type claim which rests on anything other than direct personal affection. — AmadeusD

Allow me to present my entire train of thought on the subject of love.

We love our wives, our children, our family, our friends because to us they are beautiful and good.

Self-love, brotherly love, love of ethnic peers(?), philia, eros, agape, storge.... etc. are all a part of love.

Love is a part of desire as the lover is a part of the non-lover because the lover and the non-lover can both exist as a part of the same person. While the non-lover can desire many things such as wealth and power along with the beautiful and good, the lover desire only the beautiful and good.

Now, there is no shame in desiring and using power. The shame is in using power not well but badly. Everyone sees that power can be used for good or for evil, but the power of love can be used only for good. The power of love is not just the means of attainment but also of creativity, the creation of the beautiful and good. "The great and subtle power of love" lies first in the creation of the lover. It is love that turns the non-lover into the lover.

@PoeticUniverse

— Love = Truth, Beauty, and Goodness — — PoeticUniverse

Beautiful poem.

Is love really the same as truth, beauty, and goodness? If not, what distinguish love from truth, beauty, and goodness?

We love our wives, our children, our family, our friends because to us they are beautiful and good. — GregW

Doesn't work for me. I love because I love. It's a feeling and nowhere does good or beautiful enter my conception. I would say love moves beyond such characteristics. Love transcends qualities.

Love is a part of desire as the lover is a part of the non-lover because the lover and the non-lover can both exist as a part of the same person. While the non-lover can desire many things such as wealth and power along with the beautiful and good, the lover desire only the beautiful and good. — GregW

I can't follow this. Can you summarise the point I'm lost in the lover-non-lover-lover-non-lover train.

Now, there is no shame in desiring and using power. The shame is in using power not well but badly. Everyone sees that power can be used for good or for evil, but the power of love can be used only for good. The power of love is not just the means of attainment but also of creativity, the creation of the beautiful and good. "The great and subtle power of love" lies first in the creation of the lover. It is love that turns the non-lover into the lover. — GregW

Why are you talking about power? What have I missed?

When love is described as a power, it generally means that the experience of love can make hardship and suffering bearable and inspire us to strive for things beyond ordinary ambition. In this way, love can clothe, soothe, and rebuild a broken and deprived being. Yet I suspect that naked ambition and jealousy can also provide a similar fillip toward transformative deeds.

We love our wives, our children, our family, our friends because to us they are beautiful and good.
— GregW

Doesn't work for me. I love because I love. It's a feeling and nowhere does good or beautiful enter my conception. I would say love moves beyond such characteristics. Love transcends qualities. — Tom Storm

Love is not just a feeling. Love is the love of something and not of nothing. You love because the thing you love is good. You cannot love evil. Love does not transcend qualities; love is the desire for the qualities of the good.

Love is a part of desire as the lover is a part of the non-lover because the lover and the non-lover can both exist as a part of the same person. While the non-lover can desire many things such as wealth and power along with the beautiful and good, the lover desire only the beautiful and good.
— GregW

I can't follow this. Can you summarise the point I'm lost in the lover-non-lover-lover-non-lover train. — Tom Storm

Love is a part of desire. The part that desires only the good. The statements distinguish love from desire.

The lover is a part of the non-lover. While the non-lover can desire many things, the lover desires only the good. The statements distinguish the lover from the non-lover.

Now, there is no shame in desiring and using power. The shame is in using power not well but badly. Everyone sees that power can be used for good or for evil, but the power of love can be used only for good. The power of love is not just the means of attainment but also of creativity, the creation of the beautiful and good. "The great and subtle power of love" lies first in the creation of the lover. It is love that turns the non-lover into the lover.
— GregW

Why are you talking about power? What have I missed? — Tom Storm

The power of love is a part of power. While power can be used to attain many things, the power of love can be used to attain only the good. The statements distinguish power from the power of love.

When love is described as a power, it generally means that the experience of love can make hardship and suffering bearable and inspire us to strive for things beyond ordinary ambition. In this way, love can clothe, soothe, and rebuild a broken and deprived being. Yet I suspect that naked ambition and jealousy can also provide a similar fillip toward transformative deeds. — Tom Storm

I agree that love and the power of love "can make hardship and suffering bearable and inspire us to strive for things beyond ordinary ambition. It can also clothe, soothe, and rebuild a broken and deprived being." I do not agree "that naked ambition and jealousy can provide a similar fillip toward transformative deeds."

Love is not just a feeling. Love is the love of something and not of nothing. You love because the thing you love is good. You cannot love evil. Love does not transcend qualities; love is the desire for the qualities of the good. — GregW

Yes, you can love evil. And sometimes you may not know it as evil. Love is a feeling for someone or something. An emotion. It doesn't come with a quality control function.

I agree that love and the power of love "can make hardship and suffering bearable and inspire us to strive for things beyond ordinary ambition. It can also clothe, soothe, and rebuild a broken and deprived being." I do not agree "that naked ambition and jealousy can provide a similar fillip toward transformative deeds." — GregW

You seem to have a preoccupation with good and evil, and take a strongly binary view of them. Personally, I don’t think the difference is always so clear. I tend to see good and evil as contingent qualities, shaped by context, perspective, and circumstance. While there are obvious examples of actions driven by hatred or self-sacrifice, at a broader, more human level, evil (which is not a category I generally use) is not always so easy to identify. Some acts of duty and patriotism and courage may also be considered evil.

Tom, every argument you made in your post is wrong, here's why.

Yes, you can love evil. — Tom Storm

Evil is a part of bad. If you can love evil, then what evil and bad things can you love?

And sometimes you may not know it as evil. — Tom Storm

If you loved something that you didn't know was evil, then you were fooled. You did not love evil.

Love is a feeling for someone or something. An emotion. It doesn't come with a quality control function. — Tom Storm

Love is not just an emotion. Love is a desire for someone or something that is good. Love, the desire for only the good, is the ultimate quality control function.

You seem to have a preoccupation with good and evil, and take a strongly binary view of them. — Tom Storm

I believe a strongly binary view of good and evil is the only view to take.

Personally, I don’t think the difference is always so clear. I tend to see good and evil as contingent qualities, shaped by context, perspective, and circumstance. While there are obvious examples of actions driven by hatred or self-sacrifice, at a broader, more human level, evil (which is not a category I generally use) is not always so easy to identify. Some acts of duty and patriotism and courage may also be considered evil. — Tom Storm

The measure of good and evil is not always obvious. The path to good and from evil can be narrow and short. It can sometimes be as thin as a razor's edge.

Love is not just an emotion. Love is a desire for someone or something that is good. Love, the desire for only the good, is the ultimate quality control function. — GregW

Our world views are too different to continue this discussion. Take care.

Our world views are too different to continue this discussion. Take care. — Tom Storm

Take care, Tom.
I enjoyed our discourse.

Red Sky, Jeremy Murray, I just did a review of the posts in this discussion, and I found your questions about love that I had missed in my first reading. Here are my better late than never replies.

Is the ability to feel love something you are born with? — Red Sky

Greg, could the “things of God” not simply be what many religious people mean by God, essentially? — Jeremy Murray

The "things of God" are not the same as God. They are an essential part of God. I choose to believe that before all else, there exist the perfection of God, which include the "perfect things of God": perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire. We commonly call this desire, love. The ability to feel love and goodness are with us from the beginning because love and goodness are the image of God.