If our being was just love, then there would be no hatred in the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
Immanence is the reason his "in God" is not literal. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Where?Spinoza outright says he's not being literal in the passage you quoted. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I think it's fair to say that hatred and even indifference are modes of love, or care. We hate or are indifferent to some thing(s) only on account of our love for some other thing(s). With such negative emotions, our love is merely misplaced: we just care about the wrong things due to narrow understandings. — John
I think it's fair to say that hatred and even indifference are modes of love, or care. We hate or are indifferent to some thing(s) only on account of our love for some other thing(s). With such negative emotions, our love is merely misplaced: we just care about the wrong things due to narrow understandings. — John
I think that if we wanted to say that we have our being in love, we must associate love with will. But love is associated with emotions, and good is associated with will. That is why theologians generally associate being, or existence, with good. — Metaphysician Undercover
Timeline, it seems as though you want to disagree with the idea(s) in the passage you quoted, but your point of disagreement is not clear to me as yet — John
There is no real direct relationship between emotions and love but rather our emotions themselves play a determinative role that compels feelings that express our inability and ability to act, a passive language so to speak. — TimeLine
Love itself is moral consciousness, the latter of which is an autonomous and authentic condition of reason that willingly gives love or goodness to all things (love of God) without bias to particular objects or people, a capacity basically and consciousness is an awareness. — TimeLine
Sorry John, my conflict was with your association of emotions to the concept of love, the latter of which I was attempting to elucidate as being moral consciousness stemming from an autonomous agent of reason and thus can only be reasonable and good. — TimeLine
I'm not quite sure about that, it would depend on what love is. But it is clear that in order to love, you have to be a person, and in possession of both intellect (choosing the means) and will (desire).so, love is good will — John
I don't think that's true... I mean have you never felt hatred for someone you love? There are moments when such feelings appear - anger, hatred, etc. - but they are not lasting, love overcomes them. That's what is meant in the Bible by "Love never fails".If you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them. — TimeLine
I don't follow this.But two distinct meanings of "love" does not allow for reconciliation between "God is Love" and "God is loving" because "love" refers to something different in each of these cases. So these two must remain contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see how you can separate love from emotion. Love is an emotion. If you impose such a separation, what you refer to with "love" is not love at all, because love as we experience it, and what we always refer to with the word "love", is an emotion. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think that's true... I mean have you never felt hatred for someone you love? There are moments when such feelings appear - anger, hatred, etc. - but they are not lasting, love overcomes them. That's what is meant in the Bible by "Love never fails". — Agustino
I don't follow this. — Agustino
No, an emotion is a response to an action or inaction and love is an action. — TimeLine
Hmmm, okay, I have felt all three.No, I have never felt hatred, but certainly anger and indeed sadness but these emotions are derived from actions or inactions; — TimeLine
I disagree. I don't necessarily want my wife to be someone I admire. I'm looking for a few key character traits (religiosity, loyalty, compassion/kindness, humility, family-oriented), but those alone aren't sufficient to entail admiration. I generally admire people whose achievements put me in a state of awe - people like Aristotle, King Solomon, Alexander the Great, and so forth.Thus who we love must be someone we admire — TimeLine
No, I wouldn't desire to mirror my wife. Marrying someone like you is often a disaster. I'm too ambitious for example (in terms of everything I do pretty much) - if I married a woman who was equally ambitious, it would end in disaster. What did Alexander say - "there can only be one sun in the sky, and one Alexander on Earth".as someone that you would desire to mirror — TimeLine
Okay - obvious. So what? I don't really get your point. It seems to me to be some abstruse theoretical reasoning that doesn't do much to help us gain any insights into the subject matter...If you define "love" in one way, then define "love" in another way, then the two definitions contradict each other. — Metaphysician Undercover
Okay - obvious. So what? I don't really get your point. It seems to me to be some abstruse theoretical reasoning that doesn't do much to help us gain any insights into the subject matter... — Agustino
So why I say this leads to fundamentalism, which, as you say, got started in the the early 20th century US, is because the depth provided by Platonic realism had been completely lost and forgotten. — Wayfarer
And obviously failing. Love isn't restricted to only one definition that will cover all its aspects. It seems to me that you are stuck with a theoretic rationalism which cannot see beyond itself.I'm still trying to get you to realize that "God is equivalent to Love" is a mistaken interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover
it seems obvious that you are thinking of it this wayIf you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them. — TimeLine
I'm not quite sure about that, it would depend on what love is. But it is clear that in order to love, you have to be a person, and in possession of both intellect (choosing the means) and will (desire). — Agustino
Love is not an action. If it were, you could produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out. — Metaphysician Undercover
...I haven't been treating love as one emotion among others, but rather as the disposition of care, concern or interest which I think is really the human form of life. — John
Even in this connection, though I would say it is commonplace for people to feel conflicting emotions about others, So, to say that, if one has any feelings of hatred or even indifference towards a loved one, then one doesn't really love them, could only be right if you were defining love as an absolutely pure emotion, an 'all or nothing' affair; but human love is never that I would say. — John
I disagree. I don't necessarily want my wife to be someone I admire. I'm looking for a few key character traits (religiosity, loyalty, compassion/kindness, humility, family-oriented), but those alone aren't sufficient to entail admiration. — Agustino
Marrying someone like you is often a disaster. I'm too ambitious for example (in terms of everything I do pretty much) - if I married a woman who was equally ambitious, it would end in disaster. — Agustino
Yes maybe for two lovers, but building a family takes more than just love. It takes discipline and commitment as well, combined with singularity of purpose. Hence the two people who form a family cannot be two "independent" people. No they must be dependent - and whatever forms that dependency is valuable, whether it is love, need, religion, purpose. Having a leader amongst the two, and a follower, also helps. One flesh cannot have two heads.It is not competition but rather a state of positive growth when two loving people mature together and the improvement is to improve our minds, reason and our morality. — TimeLine
Not necessarily. It may be possible, but it depends on the circumstances and the people what's right.who is independent — TimeLine
Okay, agreed.morally conscious — TimeLine
Yes, but having a family is much more than sharing your life and continuously improving - that's sufficient for lovers, not for husband and wife.you share your life and continuously improve. — TimeLine
Agreed, deception is a no-no.or someone who is evil or deceptive. — TimeLine
With a social conformist you are right. But with "someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her" you are dead wrong. Unity of purpose is extremely important to success. That "mindless" person has saving virtues - humility and devotion - and is to be preferred over the independent mindful person who always wants to go their own way.It would be impossible to do this with a conformist, or someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her — TimeLine
That may be so, but I'm not sure it follows that "love is good will". Sure, without good will, love may be impossible, but does that mean that love is good will and nothing more?I find it impossible to think that if I love someone or something, that to the extent and at the times that I do love him, her or it, I do not, to the same extent, and at the same time, bear good will towards him — John
This activity is described through actions like brotherly love, erotic love, familial love, love of a child, unconditional love etc &c. — TimeLine
The intellectual love of God is the highest of these activities because God encompasses all things and it is, quite simply, to become one with the activity itself; the pursuit of God is the pursuit of Good and an immature or selfish love can present itself in people that may love one person or thing but not another. — TimeLine
But, it is the seeking itself that becomes the very product of our happiness. We have both positive and negative emotions and any negative emotions stem from negative actions or inactions. Love is not negative such as hatred or indifference so it cannot produce such negative emotions, — TimeLine
Yes maybe for two lovers, but building a family takes more than just love. It takes discipline and commitment as well, combined with singularity of purpose. — Agustino
With a social conformist you are right. But with "someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her" you are dead wrong. Unity of purpose is extremely important to success. — Agustino
I think the various forms of love have different compositions, but if we're speaking of charity/compassion then I'd say the fundamental characteristics are (1) a feeling of deep connection with others, (2) empathy, (3) good will, (4) openness. Obviously Eros or Love of God would also include desire, etc.It's an interesting question, and I don't have a ready answer to it. To reverse the question; what more could love be than good will? Desire, perhaps? If I desire something, do I necessarily have good will towards it? — John
Do you mean the seeking is the product of the happiness or the happiness is the product of the seeking? — John
...but my contention has been that we have negative emotion towards something only insofar as we have positive emotion towards something else. — John
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.