Love & Lust

[cynicist]

@cynicist: I view definition 2 as just a positive example of definition 1. Denoting a neutral nature explicates the capacity both for positive and negative occurrences. Would you agree?

 

Yeah it's just that you said "attachment doesn't denote attitude", which depends on your definition of attachment. Bleh it doesn't matter though, I thought you and mpah were arguing about different definitions but I was mistaken, judging by a second look at the conversation.

[jpahmad]

A theory that I have been playing with in my mind for the definition of love:  

 

Love is understanding at its highest level. 

 

Notice I am not including lust in the equation at all.

 

 

This way, I have been able to explain love for a pet using the same criteria as I do explaining love for my child, or my friend, or my wife. 

 

If I could think of an example of someone who I understand completely, but who also invokes negative emotions in me (emotions that I would not associate with love) then I would completely change my theory.  So far, no contrary example has occurred to me.

 

 

Any help?

[Wesley]

A theory that I have been playing with in my mind for the definition of love:  

 

Love is understanding at its highest level.

 

Notice I am not including lust in the equation at all.

 

 

This way, I have been able to explain love for a pet using the same criteria as I do explaining love for my child, or my friend, or my wife. 

 

If I could think of an example of someone who I understand completely, but who also invokes negative emotions in me (emotions that I would not associate with love) then I would completely change my theory.  So far, no contrary example has occurred to me.

 

 

Any help?

I think I could fully understand that 2+2=4 or that red is a certain wavelength of light reflecting off of a surface and I don't think I would love these things.

 

I also think I could understand my abusive parents or why Hitler did what he did or the blood-lust of politician and still not love them.

[jpahmad]

I think I could fully understand that 2+2=4 or that red is a certain wavelength of light reflecting off of a surface and I don't think I would love these things.

 

I also think I could understand my abusive parents or why Hitler did what he did or the blood-lust of politician and still not love them.

 

Do you really understand why Hitler did what he did?  Do we really understand sociopaths?

Understanding a person implies that we can relate to this person on some level. 

 

 

I certainly do not understand why someone get's pleasure as a sadist. 

[dsayers]

Do you really understand why Hitler did what he did?

 

Could you be more specific? Hitler did a lot of things, including eating breakfast in the morning. I can certainly understand why he'd do that.

 

I certainly do not understand why someone get's pleasure as a sadist. 

 

Understanding isn't the same as sympathizing.

[jpahmad]

Could you be more specific? Hitler did a lot of things, including eating breakfast in the morning. I can certainly understand why he'd do that.

 

 

Understanding isn't the same as sympathizing.

 

 

You're right.  If someone asked me if I understood Hitler, I would say "what do you mean."  But, Wesley claims that he thinks he could understand why Hitler did what he did.  So, maybe you should ask him. 

 

 

 

 

I also think I could understand my abusive parents or why Hitler did what he did or the blood-lust of politician and still not love them.

 

 

I know that I certainly couldn't make the claim that I understand Hitler though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding isn't the same as sympathizing.

 

I would love to be able to take your word for it on the above statement, but because this is philosophy, I'm going to have to ask you to define both terms.

[Wesley]

 But, Wesley claims that he thinks he could understand why Hitler did what he did.  So, maybe you should ask him. 

I said that I could in a theoretical sense if I were to spend enough time studying the subject and reading up on it. 

 

You also seemed to have passed by the much easier things of my parents, and simple math and science in order to intentionally go toward the one that might be harder to justify outside of theoretical musing. I would prefer some of those to be addressed in light of your definition.

[jpahmad]

I said that I could in a theoretical sense if I were to spend enough time studying the subject and reading up on it. 

 

You also seemed to have passed by the much easier things of my parents, and simple math and science in order to intentionally go toward the one that might be harder to justify outside of theoretical musing. I would prefer some of those to be addressed in light of your definition.

 

O.K., your're very smart, you noticed how I purposely skipped the harder ones

 

Now I have to do some work here.  Let's see, your parents.  For my theory to hold, I would have to prove that on some level, you don't understand you're mother or father's behavior.  Let's take one of them, you pick.  Give me a brief synopis of the ethical situation involving this parent.

[Wesley]

O.K., your're very smart, you noticed how I purposely skipped the harder ones

 

Now I have to do some work here.  Let's see, your parents.  For my theory to hold, I would have to prove that on some level, you don't understand you're mother or father's behavior.  Let's take one of them, you pick.  Give me a brief synopis of the ethical situation involving this parent.

I would like to very much point out that you are still ignoring that my understanding of abstract concepts does not lead me to love them. That in itself would require a definition refinement before we work on the theoretical cases that take a lot of work.

[jpahmad]

I would like to very much point out that you are still ignoring that my understanding of abstract concepts does not lead me to love them. That in itself would require a definition refinement before we work on the theoretical cases that take a lot of work.

 

Wait, I assumed that you didn't love your parents.  Is this correct?

[Wesley]

Wait, I assumed that you didn't love your parents.  Is this correct?

I was talking about the statement "I understand that 2+2=4 and I do not love 2, 2, 4, or 2+2=4"

 

Your definition must exclude abstract concepts to which love is not possible in order to even be considered for further examination.

 

I understand many things in my mind, and love very few.

[jpahmad]

I was talking about the statement "I understand that 2+2=4 and I do not love 2, 2, 4, or 2+2=4"

 

Your definition must exclude abstract concepts to which love is not possible in order to even be considered for further examination.

 

I understand many things in my mind, and love very few.

 

Yes, let's exclude abstract concepts.  Although I do love the fact that 2+2 reliably always equals 4

[Wesley]

Yes, let's exclude abstract concepts.  Although I do love the fact that 2+2 reliably always equals 4

Your definition, as it stands, includes them. Your definition needs to be changed in order to correct it.

[jpahmad]

Your definition, as it stands, includes them. Your definition needs to be changed in order to correct it.

 

 

 

can you help me re-word it?

[Wesley]

Well, not exactly because I don't think it is on the right track. I have always been partial to how Stef defines love.

 

Love is the involuntary response to virtue.

 

Understanding I would consider to be a possible and small component of what is necessary in order to recognize and respond with love to virtue.

 

As I showed above, there are many possibilities where one could understand things, in actual or theoretical terms and it does not necessitate love.

 

I was only trying to show you that understanding was not the right path. In fact, a torturer or manipulator can fully understand you and your motivations in order to use them against you and may not even be capable of love, just as another example.

[jpahmad]

Well, not exactly because I don't think it is on the right track. I have always been partial to how Stef defines love.

 

Love is the involuntary response to virtue.

 

Understanding I would consider to be a possible and small component of what is necessary in order to recognize and respond with love to virtue.

 

As I showed above, there are many possibilities where one could understand things, in actual or theoretical terms and it does not necessitate love.

 

I was only trying to show you that understanding was not the right path. In fact, a torturer or manipulator can fully understand you and your motivations in order to use them against you and may not even be capable of love, just as another example.

 

O.K, I'll do it myself. 

 

Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of understanding or perceived understanding.

 

A torturer can not achieve a high level of understanding with me, you, Stefan, or anybody on this forum.  A torturer has no empathy.  We have empathy.  They can't understand something that they don't experience.  Their understanding of us, is equivalent to our understanding of a frog; not a very high level

[Wesley]

They can't understand something that they don't experience.  Their understanding of us, is equivalent to our understanding of a frog; not a very high level

So your argument now is that nobody can understand anything to a high level that they do not experience themselves? By this argument I could understand nothing except myself and no one could every understand me.

 

If you say that something can be close to my experience and still count, then where is the arbitrary dividing line? Frogs and I both eat and breathe. Are you saying I can love a pet dog but I can't love a pet frog?

[jpahmad]

So your argument now is that nobody can understand anything to a high level that they do not experience themselves? By this argument I could understand nothing except myself and no one could every understand me.

 

If you say that something can be close to my experience and still count, then where is the arbitrary dividing line? Frogs and I both eat and breathe. Are you saying I can love a pet dog but I can't love a pet frog?

 

 

Wesley, first of all, thank you for going through this with me.  It helps tremendously and forces me to think of every angle.

 

Secondly, the answer to your first question is yes.  I can easily discard what you said next, because in my theory I included "perceived" understanding as well. 

 

For example, we don't understand our pets.  Your right we can't, we have never experienced what it is like to be a frog, dog, whatever.  But we think we understand them (perceived understanding), obviously to a degree enough to illicit the feelings of affection we're talking about.

 

I'm exited about my theory, because it could explain a lot of things that Stefan's theory doesn't.  If my theory is valid, then it encompasses all types of affection; love for family, friends, children, infants, and pets.

[Wesley]

"I think I understand my dog" does not mean "I love my dog"

 

I think I understand Hitler" does not mean "I love Hitler"

 

You also are saying that I cannot love a frog, but if it was a pet then I could. What magically changes about an entity when it becomes a pet? There is a lot of ambiguity entering here and it is making me more confused rather than less confused.

[jpahmad]

"I think I understand my dog" does not mean "I love my dog"

 

I think I understand Hitler" does not mean "I love Hitler"

 

You also are saying that I cannot love a frog, but if it was a pet then I could. What magically changes about an entity when it becomes a pet? There is a lot of ambiguity entering here and it is making me more confused rather than less confused.

 

 

Saying you understand "X" pre-supposes that you think you understand "X"

 

Saying "I understand 2+2=4"  means that you think 2+2=4

"I think I understand my dog" effectively means the same thing as "I understand my dog."

[Wesley]

Saying you understand "X" pre-supposes that you think you understand "X"

 

Saying "I understand 2+2=4"  means that you think 2+2=4

"I think I understand my dog" means the same thing as "I understand my dog."

Ok....

 

If we continue going around in circles I will not want to continue posting here as it will only frustrate me.

 

You seem to pick out small bits of my posts and address them while skimming over the main points and content.

 

I have pointed this out a few times and would like to point it out again.

[jpahmad]

Empirically, I don't know anyone who acts like they don't understand their pets.  I mean, we all actually project human traits onto our pets!

[Wesley]

Empirically, I don't know anyone who acts like they don't understand their pets.  I mean, we all actually project human traits onto our pets!

Projection is very much not understanding. It is specifically not even knowing about the other entity, and just projecting your own stuff onto them.

[jpahmad]

Ok....

 

If we continue going around in circles I will not want to continue posting here as it will only frustrate me.

 

You seem to pick out small bits of my posts and address them while skimming over the main points and content.

 

I have pointed this out a few times and would like to point it out again.

 

Don't get frustrated.  Let's try only dealing with one thing at a time.  Obviously it would be a lot easier if we were talking in person.  Just put one point of dispute at a time and let me address that.

Projection is very much not understanding. It is specifically not even knowing about the other entity, and just projecting your own stuff onto them.

 

Yes, you are correct.  That's why I included "perceived understanding" in my theory.  Wesley, don't skip over the fact that I said people "act" like they understand their pets, which is obviously not the same thing as really understanding them.  I even put in in italics

Also, going through logical processes, which includes defining almost everything, is extremely laborious and can be really frustrating.  That doesn't mean that we should just drop it.  It's important.

[SamuelS]

it seems like you're trying to come up with a "catch all" definition for "love" that encompasses many/all of the various uses...this, I think, is anti-helpful --

 

- communication, to be effective, must be clear

- clarity requires precision

- creating a blunt definition can only serve to make clarity more difficult

- if the goal is communication, the tool (definition) must be precise

 

I think you may have inadvertently solved this, however, with the word "affection". Affection is a term with a wide focus, we can narrow it down with more precise language to modify the meaning.

 

The word "love" may, in a practical sense, be nearly useless at this point for communicating anything clearly. The definition has been extended and manipulated to the point of being nearly unrecognizable on it's own -- we can say we love our friends, dog, parents, pie, cars, and nobody bats an eye, but if one were to say "I feel romantic love for my (dog/parents/pie/car)" we might raise some eyebrows.

[jpahmad]

By the way, the reason why I'm addressing only one of your points out of maybe all 3 or 4 is because I am multi-tasking here and only have time to formulate and write out a response to one thing at a time.  Later this evening, I can write more words in one sitting.

it seems like you're trying to come up with a "catch all" definition for "love" that encompasses many/all of the various uses...this, I think, is anti-helpful --

 

- communication, to be effective, must be clear

- clarity requires precision

- creating a blunt definition can only serve to make clarity more difficult

- if the goal is communication, the tool (definition) must be precise

 

I think you may have inadvertently solved this, however, with the word "affection". Affection is a term with a wide focus, we can narrow it down with more precise language to modify the meaning.

 

The word "love" may, in a practical sense, be nearly useless at this point for communicating anything clearly. The definition has been extended and manipulated to the point of being nearly unrecognizable on it's own -- we can say we love our friends, dog, parents, pie, cars, and nobody bats an eye, but if one were to say "I feel romantic love for my (dog/parents/pie/car)" we might raise some eyebrows.

 

 

Thanks for working with me SamuelS.  Give me a minute and I'll address what you said more in depth.  But you are certainly correct about clear communication.  I'm trying my best

[jpahmad]

SamuelS, I'm not quite sure if I'm trying to put forth a definition or a theory when I said this:

 

 

 

 

 

Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of understanding or perceived understanding.

 

 

 

 

What would I call this?

 

 

Also, whether it's a definition or a theory, could you tweak it or replace some of the words, or even add some words so to make it satisfactory as far as you're concerned?

So your argument now is that nobody can understand anything to a high level that they do not experience themselves? By this argument I could understand nothing except myself and no one could every understand me.

 

 

 

Thank you Wesley, this is true and I agree.  So I am only going to only use "percieved understanding" in my theory.  Whether or not the perception is correct, in terms of conforming to actual objective reality, is not important. 

 

Here is a concrete example: 

 

If I walk up my driveway after work and see my dog wagging his tail and jumping around and all happy to see me, this gives me a feeling of affection for this creature because it appears that he is happy to see me.  If however, I find out somehow, through a scientific study,  that the dog really is behaving that way because they are purposefully trying to manipulate me into giving them a bone (having learned this through behavioral reinforcement) than my warm feelings of affection suddenly simmer down to a null, or at least, alot less than what they were before.

 

So as you can see, although I falsely understood the animal, I still felt genuine affection for it. 

 

side note:  I chose to use the word "affection" instead of "love" because to me, "love" is a word that might be better reserved for a much higher degree of affection; one we can't feel for animals, but one we can feel for humans.  I would say this is because our "perceived understanding" of humans, those that we claim we love, is usually much deeper and more encompassing than it is for animals.

 

 

I think the same example can be converted to human/human affection.  We all know the girl who fell hard for the good looking, slick-talking, deceptive douchbag.  She really loved him.  Then after she found out she was being deceived, because he was sleeping around on her, she fell "out of love" with him.

 

Now, you certainly can't understand someone if you are being deceived.  But, you can think you understand them.  This perceived understanding, is what illicited the feeling of love.  It didn't matter whether it was real understanding or not.

 

 

So my new definition:

Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of perceived understanding.

[SamuelS]

So my new definition:

Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of perceived understanding.

 

combine that w/ Stef's definition (Love is our involuntary response to virtue.) and you may get -- "love is our involuntary response to perceived virtue." which is pretty much the same, just taking perception into account.

 

the problem you're going to run into is that the word "love" has been diminished by culture to the point of being nearly nonsensical gibberish...you'd almost be better off making up a new word.

 

I love my dog/friends/lover/parents/car/pie. Remember, people say all those things, the word love has nuanced meanings in each sentence, but how would you explain that to an alien?

comparing the two definitions again...

 

"Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of perceived understanding."

 

could be reduced to "Love is our response to perceived understanding."

 

and this simply does not fit, IMO. To borrow the Hitler example, it's not unreasonable to think one could understand the man's motives, but to love the man is another matter.

 

I think we're back to Stef's definition being spot-on...I don't understand the motivations of Mother Theresa any better than Hitler's, but I know which one I would rank higher on the virtue scale.

[jpahmad]

combine that w/ Stef's definition (Love is our involuntary response to virtue.) and you may get -- "love is our involuntary response to perceived virtue." which is pretty much the same, just taking perception into account.

 

the problem you're going to run into is that the word "love" has been diminished by culture to the point of being nearly nonsensical gibberish...you'd almost be better off making up a new word.

 

I love my dog/friends/lover/parents/car/pie. Remember, people say all those things, the word love has nuanced meanings in each sentence, but how would you explain that to an alien?

comparing the two definitions again...

 

"Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of perceived understanding."

 

could be reduced to "Love is our response to perceived understanding."

 

and this simply does not fit, IMO. To borrow the Hitler example, it's not unreasonable to think one could understand the man's motives, but to love the man is another matter.

 

I think we're back to Stef's definition being spot-on...I don't understand the motivations of Mother Theresa any better than Hitler's, but I know which one I would rank higher on the virtue scale.

 

 

Thanks for the input.  I like how you shortend it up.  I think it would be more accurate if I said:

 

"love is our involuntary response to a high level of perceived understanding."

 

and this simply does not fit, IMO. To borrow the Hitler example, it's not unreasonable to think one could understand the man's motives, but to love the man is another matter.

 

 

 

 

I think this is where I may be getting hung up

A man wants to kill me and he is holding a gun to my head.  I ask him why he wants to kill me and he says "because I will get paid $10"

 

Now, I can understand his motif on one level, but on a different level I don't understand it.  Yeah, I think that's where I'm getting hung up.

Think about it.  If I somehow survived that encounter.  And re-told the story of what happened to my friend or whoever, the friend could respond to my horrific story by saying the words:

 

"wow, he was gong to kill you for $10?  I don't understand why someone would do that!  In fact, I don't understand why anyone would kill anyone for money.  It's just so wrong! I don't understand these people!"

 

 

Now, my friend was clearly demonstrating that he understood the motif, but also did not understand the motif.

 

So which one is it?  Does my friend understand the killer's behavior, or not?

[jpahmad]

Here's the link:

 

http://www.fivemoreminuteswith.com/2011/03/the-real-meaning-of-kin/

 

 

I just copied the text and pasted it below.  I think it does a wonderful job of explaining my position on love.

 

 

 

 

The following is a quote:

 

***

Author Forrest Carter is perhaps best known for his popular novel “The Outlaw Jose Wales,” which was made into the movie “Gone to Texas,” starring Clint Eastwood. But many believe that Carter’s one great novel was “The Education of Little Tree,” his autobiographical remembrance of his orphaned boyhood with his Eastern Cherokee Hill country grandparents during the 1930s depression.

Little Tree recalled that when, late at night, he heard his grandpa tell his grandma, “I kin ye, Bonnie Bee,” he knew that he was saying, “I love ye” – because of the feeling in the words.

“And when they would be talking,” Little Tree recollected, “and Grandma would say ‘Do ye kin me, Wales?’ and he would answer, ‘I kin ye,’ it meant, ‘I understand ye.’

To them, love and understanding was the same thing. Granma said you couldn’t love something you didn’t understand….Granpa and Granma had an understanding, and so they had a love….And they called it ‘kin.’”

Little Tree’s grandpa told him that “before his time ‘kinfolks’ meant any folks that you understood and had an understanding with, so it meant ‘loved folks.’ But people got selfish, and brought it down to mean just blood relatives; but that actually it was never meant to mean that.”

“Kin” is a small but powerful word that brings together two beautiful actions that are inseparable: love and understanding. When we feel understood, we feel loved. And when we feel loved, we trust that we will be understood.

To be understood is to be heard, validated, accepted, and valued. One of our greatest needs is love that understands – from other persons and from our Creator.

Love that understands requires the courage to express ourselves – to reveal our feelings, thoughts, differences, secrets, faults, and our pride as well as our shame.

Our greatest fear is that if I tell you who I am, you may not love me. (The courage to take such a risk is strengthened if there’s already some measure of trust within the relationship.)

At the same time, such love requires the will to understand the other – to listen with empathy and patience…without pre-judgment, criticism, or advice.

It resists claiming, “I know exactly how you feel.” And when told, “You don’t understand,” determined love responds, “I want to understand. Can you tell me more?” and then waits in silence.

Stephen Covey believes that one of the habits of highly effective people is to “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” My temptation is to let my own need to be understood, helpful, or right undercut my “hearing the other person out” in a way that might enable them to feel heard and valued.

[WWW]

I would describe love as a deep conscious connection to the quality or virtue present in a person/animal/thing with the respect to his/her/its ability to enhance the condition and overall progression of life in general (your life, his/her/its life, mankind, etc.) as it relates to the human experience. So "I love lamp" could potentially be a valid statement . The more conscious a person or animal the larger the capacity it has to love or to be loved.

 

Lust is more so derived from sex-drive (a short term desire) as opposed to virtue or quality (a long term desire).