You know, actually we have no love - that is a terrible thing to realize. Actually we have no love; we have sentiment; we have emotionality, sensuality, sexuality; we have remembrances of something which we have thought as love. But actually, brutally, we have no love. Because to have love means no violence, no fear, no competition, no ambition. If you had love you would never say, ''This is my family'' - you may have a family and give them the best you can; but it would not be ''your family'' which is opposed to the world. If you love, if there is love, there is peace. If you loved, you would educate your child not to be a nationalist, not to have only a technical job and look after his own petty little affairs; you would have no nationality. There would be no divisions of religion, if you loved. But as these things actually exist - not theoretically, but brutally - in this ugly world, it shows that you have no love. Even the love of a mother for her child is not love. If the mother really loved her child, do you think the world would be like this? She would see that he had the right food, the right education, that he was sensitive, that he appreciated beauty, that he was not ambitious, greedy, envious. So the mother, however much she may think she loves her child, does not love the child.
So we have not that love. Now love cannot be cultivated, obviously; it is like cultivating humility - it is only the vain man, the man of arrogance, who can cultivate humility; that is a cloak to hide his vanity. As humility cannot be cultivated, so love cannot be cultivated. But you must have it. If you don't have it, you cannot have virtue, you cannot be orderly, you cannot live with passion - you may live with lust, which we all know. So if you have no love, you have no virtue; and without virtue there is disorder.
I think that love ought to consist of many virtues, such as trust, respect, kindness, and gentleness towards a person in order to count as true love. Therefore, loving a food is not really love, but rather mere enjoyment for the moment, and so forth. The same could be counted in a friendship also if one friend only finds satisfaction for a short time, but is disrespectful or even mistrusting of the other friend, then a true love in friendship does not exist and only temporary enjoyment of each other exists. — Lone Wolf
Actually, I haven't really pondered much on romantic love, to be honest. It seems such a waste of time to me. But perhaps your statement can be applied to the love a parent has for a child, or from one friend to another; like a true love in friendship is acceptance of the dumb things our friend does?In loving someone, do you imagine that they satisfy some preexisting romantic ideal? You give roses and go on dates and then you break up after the rainbows go away 2-3 months in. That's superficial, a person should not be loved for their satisfaction or instantiation of a personal or ideological romantic ideal, they should be loved for their stupidities and weaknesses. — fdrake
Yes, I think you are right here; but what is it? What are the elements of love?Our human love is finite and is an expression or mode over God’s infinite love. — MysticMonist
I think uses of love in the example of food is just a linguistic confusion. Love is only of people. — MysticMonist
it strikes me that the object of love must have the potential to leave you. — Nessuno
So if you have no love, you have no virtue; and without virtue there is disorder.
Wouldn't that mean that your friend was not loving if he did not respect and consider your view? Therefore, love was not completed?And even if it were true, and even it were an act of love, my friend might see it as an indulgence or a manipulation or arrogance. — unenlightened
That's just the problem. It seems to be an entire system of virtues, so in a sense, it doesn't exist by itself; but rather is a mere collection of virtues.could you define love by itself? — Buxtebuddha
I think I agree here lol. This seems logical. But now what exactly does good will consist of?To me love is to will the good of another. This is the classically Christian definition, if you're familiar with it. "True love", then, would really only be had by God, seeing as we humans can't attain love, truth, honesty, and so on in their fullest forms. — Buxtebuddha
It seems to be an entire system of virtues, so in a sense, it doesn't exist by itself; but rather is a mere collection of virtues. — Lone Wolf
So if you have no love, you have no virtue; and without virtue there is disorder.
Hmm, that seems to contradict what was said earlier in that statement. Clearly, there is some degree of order, so there is some virtue, which could mean there is some love. I think whatever love is, it has been corrupted, which is why we see a broken world. — Lone Wolf
Well the way I understand it, is that there can be partial order without love. As there is partial order in a fascist regime, but the order is really a systematic disorder. Or consider 'social work', where well meaning folk intervene in domestic situations to bring order and improvement, but when children are taken into the care of such institutions, the outlook for them is very bleak, and it is because there is no love, only sentiment. — unenlightened
and not noticed love (at least not what is said to be experienced from human to human) from the animal's part. — Lone Wolf
Love is not possession. Such is foolishness of our peri-christian world of chattel/marriage. — charleton
That's just the problem. It seems to be an entire system of virtues, so in a sense, it doesn't exist by itself; but rather is a mere collection of virtues. — Lone Wolf
I think I agree here lol. This seems logical. But now what exactly does good will consist of? — Lone Wolf
Not real Christians, as it is prohibited in Scripture. But yes, humans are very capable of being ruthless. And the point is?So I've heard humans torture and murder their fellows, even christians. — charleton
Can you explain this? — charleton
If you think love is only hormones in animals, why not humans too? — charleton
Virtues, then, like honesty, compassion, you name it - these also are goods which ought to follow if one is loved. — Buxtebuddha
Hmm, that could be too. So then the virtues might really be only "symptoms" of love. :P Then the only way to describe what love really is must be to describe the "symptoms". So maybe love is actually unknowable. Thank you for the link! — Lone Wolf
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.