It's a word used to describe a chemical-emotional reaction when a pheromones react with your senses, which cause the characteristic sweating, rapid heartbeats, blood pumps faster, causing your face to turn a shade of red... Which triggers an emotional reaction that, if done properly, will result in the propagation of the species. "love" and "reproduction" are intertwined.
I disagree. I believe that women have a real interest in being loved, but why? Perhaps it is about feeling valued.
Perhaps. But then wouldn't it be better for them to be "valued" by lots more than just one male(or female)? And if so, does that translate to "love" being something different than is normally thought ...that of "love" of one special individual? I don't know ...but I suspect it's like a lot of things that we "say", but don't know what the hell it is nor do all people feel the same about it. We just "say" it, and hope that others know what the hell we mean (which they usually don't!). (We use many such terms ....see the thread on "Society" as a case in point.) Baron Max
Why hate -is-, assuredly, the opposite of love: A while ago I took a philosophy class, which came to for prerequisites of love, which might serve as the foundation for all forms of love (eros, philia, agape, et cetera): 1. One must know the object of one's love. 2. One must care for the object of one's love. 3. One must respect the object of one's love. 4. One must value the object of one's love. Hatred is the polar-opposite of the second, third, and fourth aspects of love, sharing only the first, which is necessary for all emotions. Or for the sake of clarity... Hatred's prerequisites are: 1. One must know the object of one's hate. 2. One must not care for the object of one's hate. 3. One must not respect the object of one's hate. 4. One must not value the object of one's hate. On Whether Love is Real or Not: We seem to be focusing merely on sexual/romantic love here. Whether sexual love has some hormonal and pheremonal aspects is besides the point, as it is not the only type of love, though it is also evident that romantic love has an emotional/intellectual level that makes it no less of a psychological reality than anything else. Moreover, there is no hormonal and pheremonal aspect to philia or agape. Rammifications of Darkman's Original Theory: If love is creation and hatred destruction, due to the highest manifestation of each being as such, then one must say that love requires hatred and hatred requires love. For in order to create, one must destroy, and in order to destroy, there must be something created.
Hmm, I don't know. All of these indicate that love has "objects." But if love is seen as a relation rather than as an emotion, then the emphasis is not on two objects, but rather on the intersubjective relation, i.e., that which joins two co-subjects. All direct relation between co-subjects, prior to the (apparently inevitable) development of objectification, will be creative. It is when objectification forms, and thus objects, that subject is cut off from subject, and subject thence relates to object, and the seed of destruction (or at least pain) is sown. As far as hate, that truly requires objectification. But not so much that the love, or potential for love, is absent. For we cannot really hate a rock or an automobile so much as we hate a person. We have the potential to love with a person, but not with a rock. Thus, there must be some other factor to hate...something internal. I think it is perhaps self-objectification, or a cold shell set up between a person and what he/she COULD have a subject-to-subject (love) relation / creation with.
Onefinity: What joins the two co-subjects but what they value in one another and the bond that results from such, which necessarily requires one to know of them, care for htem, respect them, and value them? Moreover, by "object" I mean what the love is towards. This is just to clarify if, as I think you might have, you misunderstood me a bit. How is this destructive at all? Whilst beings are easier to love and hate as there is an interaction absent in relationships with inanimate objects, one can still most assuredly love or hate the by the definition presented. For indeed, I can know the rock, I can respect the rock (not destroy it, polish it), I can care for the rock, and value the rock's existence. I could similarly do the exact opposite. The only thing is that the rock could not love or hate me back, which is important in the growing of a relationship from that love. As to a "cold shell", I disagree. I think it is simply a result of that person doing things which inspire hatred, or exemplifying something which one all ready hates. For instance: One does not put up a "cold shell" to someone that murders one's family, but rahter one's family is murdered and thus some wonderful relationships one had, and the people who were apart of them, have been abruptly and unjustly ended.
I have to admit I haven't read this entire thread, but there is something interesting, to me, in your initial question: "But does an act of love work against hate when the being created will die?" The simple answer is, yes love still resists the element of (substance of) hate. There is tangible substance created through both acts of love and hate, though the act of love that participates in creation is not the one and only act of love. You are asking, “so what good is love?” from an almost nihilistic position, but love, by unconventional terms (which I prefer personally), requires nothing in return, else we would all forever be indebted to other participants in our self- affirmation, or they forever would be indebted to us for our affirmation of their value and creation, or their reality! Love defined in simplicity as an ‘inter-relationship’ from one to another and in exchange for something… is only able to make distinctions from rocks plants and humanity, but there (by nature of the word itself) is something to transcend. It is the self, that must be transcended, and then follows, the product whether the creation of another life, or merely the existence of a tangible effect of the substance of your word, both are the anti-hate, you speak of. Anti-self, against selfishness, (selfishness I believe was mentioned) at some personal cost, creates tangible substance out of this intangible word… ‘Love’. If there is no personal cost, there is no substance and your definition will always remain unreachable, the intangible! Even if a being is created as a result.
Scott Myers: Love requires nothing in return? Nonsense. Love is produced by finding value in that person. If those values cease to be, and are realized to have ceased to be, then love dies. One cannot love that which one does not value. So love requires that value remain in return for love's continued presnece. The self to be transcended? Why? As Ayn Rand would write in The Fountainhead, "You can't say 'I love you' without the 'I'." Yet love is precisely -for- the benefit of the self. Love is based in value, value of what one perceives in another, and what that perception pleases oneself. It ius, as all actions, fundementally selfish at the core. Yes, one has to "pay up", at times, for the things that one value to persist, but one is doing is for benefit. Just as one can buy a car and not be any poorer than one was, for one's money has transfered into something which one now owns, so too can one "pay" for love and be no poorer, and indeed, one might subjectively value what one got more than what one ost, and thus one would have -gained- in the end! Hapsburg: Leben? I am unfamiliar with the term?
I don't know this "Leben" either. Prince James... As business relationships are concerned, I conceed your measure of value, of worth, of loss and of gains, but why is there a word 'love'? It is (according to many along with you) impossible for anyone to do anything for purely unselfish reasons, for the sake of the value that is intrinsicly contained within another human being by nature, or God, and also not projected by oneself. If we have found ourselves incapable of denying the self, is it reasonable to subject all of humanity to our personal limitations, by our decree?
It's a german word that translates as "love" or "dearest"...often in reference to women, alchohol, food, and germany itself. EDIT-Shit! No, no, I meant "lieben". That's the word I was looking for. Damn google translator...
Scott Myers: The value itself promotes a relationship, which in turn produces a semi-emotional connection, which we call love. I don't believe it is simply by decree, but rather by how things work as discerned by reason. Even if one denies oneself, one is doing it for a reason, such as religion, and thus the conception of value, and in the end, benefit for the self. Hapsburg: Why I didn't include "lieben" was that I was refering to the Greek-named philosophical categories of love.
But you deny the possibility of one purely unselfish act that goes beyond reason, by your own reasoning? It would be hard to show this is consistent with all human experiences, wouldn't it? You say.. "Even if one denies oneself, one is doing it for a reason, such as religion, and thus the conception of value, and in the end, benefit for the self." If the conception of value, given by religion, is to deny oneself and offer the self to others, you deny that this is in any way possible? Whether or not you believe there is any reality to, or a deity behind any religion, or anything outside each and every self, you are subjecting other-selves to your deterministic view of choice, regarding self-valuation? I just want to be certain I understand your perception... Could not an individual choose to do something nice, for nothing in return? If not then I hope you are consistent and leave no room for an open universe? Or is this just one of those things outside of our control? Choice has no place in this 'love' instance, or does choice play a fiddle in your universe at all? If your universe is naturalistically driven, can you explain what a member of a hive is doing, when it dies to protect the masses? Not that this is love at all, but even coldly mechanically driven, why would any organism even want to pass on it's genes to benefit the future of a species? It certainly does not serve the self to do so. What would that serve after death? A man takes a bullet to protect someone... why would he do that, at the greatest measurable cost to the self? He won't be around to reap any rewards, will he? There are prime examples of seemingly, granted, un-selfish acts; I would be inclined to shy away from claiming were acts of pure selfishness. I wouldn't want to say that about anyone who appears to have died to save the life of someone else, sorry. You are admitting that your motivation for anything you do is out of selfishness, and you may wish to bring all of humanity to accept that level of existence, but I don't think it's quite fair to asses the motivations, and the minds; if you will, of all of humanity, by some virtue of self-reasoning. I've gone on too much, but you understand my position I trust.
There is nothing which is "beyond reason". Logic will demonstrate a cause for the action which will, in turn, return to the self in one way or another. It is indeed impossible, for one is doing it because one values it, which means that fundementally the impetus comes from a selfish/centred foundation. If I do not value what the religion says. But yes, I would say this is universally true. It is not really necessarily a choice betwixt free-will and determinism, but rather, just to demonstrate that there is no choice in the matter here. Whether an individual can choose whether he wants to eat Rice Krisipies or Frosted Flakes is a matter of a true free-will v. determinism debate. I am simply here illustrating that it is impossible, by the very nature of the action itself. In the case you just asked, one would first have to value niceness and not expecting anything in return, thereby doing so to fullfill that value, and hence returning to the self. If one values charity, one loses nothing which one has not chosen to trade for the satisfaction of value. Just as one is not poorer for buying a car, but rather one may even be richer in subjective value, so too can one, if one values charity, not necessarily lose anything in the process of giving charity, but in fact gain the satisfaction of value, which may be subjectively more valuable. A member of a hive is programmed to value life of the hive over its own existence, and thus to satisfy its value, it sacrifices self. But it still acts selfishly as it is seeking to satisfy a value which it conceives as being supremely valuable, even moreso than continued existence. Moreover, I would argue that most species do not actually seek to benefit the future of the species, but rather, that they satisfy the sexual urge, and may or may not then value the offspring that may result from this coupling. When one is "horny", one seeks out satisfaction for this, and usually this is through sex for animals. Evolutionarily, this behaviour promotes itself through reproduction, and thus why we see it continue. He values the saving of that life more than his own. To satisfy that value - to satisfy the self - he destroys the self, paradoxically. Ayn Rand, when asked something similar concerning whether she would, self-interestedly, take a bullet for her husband, answered that she would, because she would/could not want to live without him. I do understand your point, most definitely, but still disagree wtih it. I am not saying that these people do not think that they are acting unselfishly, or what they do isn't noble and praise-worthy, but rather that it is simply not selfless. No value can be without self, as self-ascribes value, and thus even ultimately self-destroying behaviours are self-satisfactory in their achievement of value-satisfaction.
Very good response. I had never really indulged in this particular debate, but maybe a new thread would be in order; regarding motivation for actions period, and the environmental and or genetic roles played out in day to day lives of organisms and humans.. etc.
Scott Myers: Thank you for thinking the response was good. I am glad I could please. But yes, let us start another thread. It will be interesting!
Well, this can be made logical by saying "it saved that other person by dying." If said man jumps in front of his girlfriend to save her from a bullet, taking the bullet and dying...well, if he didn't do that, she'd have died. Someone was going to die, but said man decided that it is better for him to die than her. Logic, like life, finds a way.
