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
No one doubts that imbalanced, or unharmonious, interpersonal love typically results in psychological pain to one party if not to all. — javra
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
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
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
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
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
Does God qualify for "interpersonal" love? — Judaka
What do you mean by imbalanced and unharmonious? On what basis does this love "typically result in psychological pain..."? — Judaka
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
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
my argument that "love" is a concept we invented, not a thing to be understood or discovered. — Judaka
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
I reject the entire question of "What is love", and view it as a misunderstanding of language. — Judaka
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).
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."
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,
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.
...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.
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
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
As though everything psychological concerns concepts we invent rather than aspects of our own ontological being we discern introspectively — javra
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
"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.
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".
I imagine most would agree or disagree based on their preferences and personal experiences.
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
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
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
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. — javra
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
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
In short, given the premise you've affirmed, what then makes an unloving life preferable to a loving one? — javra
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
There are so many permutations for unhappiness. — schopenhauer1
Attraction — schopenhauer1
emotional connection — schopenhauer1
Sexual function — schopenhauer1
Relationship — schopenhauer1
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
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: — schopenhauer1
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.