What is True Love?

Since I couldn't do a text impression of Zizek with a link (sorry whatever mod deleted the post), he has an interesting view on love. At least romantic love.

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. They should still be loved when you piss them the hell off and fail as a partner - and they reprimand you for it. Love, as a category of thought is aligned with the particular and the singular, what is unique in the person, not with the universal and repeatable.

Click here for a link giving a pithy exposition of his views on it.

The best thing I've read on love is 'In Praise of Love' by Alain Badiou, which essentially advocates the above as well, but also attempts to locate love metaphysically too.

I like Kierkegaard's Works of Love.

Wouldn’t Spinoza be helpful here? Our human love is finite and is an expression or mode over God’s infinite love. I think uses of love in the example of food is just a linguistic confusion. Love is only of people. There may be some psychological examples where people love inanimate things as if they were people. A better example would be loving a teddy bear (or a car that you name and rain to) rather than a “Love” of nachos. I don’t ever talk to my nachos.

When I look at my dogs, who are said to love me for what I am, and when I listen to all these lyrics on the radio about unhappy love, it strikes me that the object of love must have the potential to leave you. My dogs are depending on me for their safety, it would be a catastrophe for them if I left them. When I hear a singer cry out his despair over the beloved who has left him it sounds as if the baby, crying, when being abandoned by his mother, finally has put words into his despair.

Is that love of a little higher degree than that of nachos, cellphones etc.

Or, to put it this way, the love a mother feels for her new born baby, is it the same kind of love as the baby feel for the mother. Isn't the mothers love for the child more “metaphysical” than the child's more earthbound, dependency.

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.

Source.

Quoting Lone Wolf

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.

I think I cannot say, from here, what love is. Perhaps it is love to say, brutally, to a friend, you are walking over a cliff. But perhaps if I say it, and even if it is true, it is not love. 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.

Friends can be like that when they're walking over cliffs.

It's how my dog and I feel about one another.

Quoting fdrake

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.

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?

Quoting MysticMonist

Our human love is finite and is an expression or mode over God’s infinite love.

Yes, I think you are right here; but what is it? What are the elements of love?

Quoting MysticMonist

I think uses of love in the example of food is just a linguistic confusion. Love is only of people.

Yeah, it is annoying when people actually think a love of food is love; they misuse the word.

Quoting Nessuno

it strikes me that the object of love must have the potential to leave you.

Wouldn't that be the trusting side of love?

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.

Quoting unenlightened

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.

Wouldn't that mean that your friend was not loving if he did not respect and consider your view? Therefore, love was not completed?

Reply to charleton But what exactly do you feel? Trust? Security? Hope? Kindness? Is love just a fleeting emotion? Do you love your dog even when you feel angry at him/her for chewing on your brand new expensive shoes?

Reply to Lone Wolf You list a few things that love may consist of, but could you define love by itself?

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. So, I guess I believe in truer love, not true love :o :)

Quoting Buxtebuddha

could you define love by itself?

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.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

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.

I think I agree here lol. This seems logical. But now what exactly does good will consist of?

A combination of lust and trust? Maybe? Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly certainly faked it well.

Reply to Lone Wolf The feelings are various. you can nominate as many words to describe them, but love seems to cover it. I'd argue that such a feeling is part of what it means to be a mammal.

Quoting Lone Wolf

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.

This is cart before the horse. "IT" is not a collection of virtues, but the concepts of those virtues are imposed on those feelings to hope to describe it.
It is what precedes all concepts. This is why it is so hard to explain.

Reply to Lone Wolf Quoting 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.

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.

But mainly what i think he is saying is that love is needed at the beginning; it cannot be something that is attained from, or by the state of lovelessness, and it cannot be something one has a bit of. This is where I differ from @Buxtebuddha, I think.

Reply to charleton Not so sure about the mammal part, as I have had many, many animals over the few short years I've lived, and not noticed love (at least not what is said to be experienced from human to human) from the animal's part. Only satisfaction in their want for leadership and having needs met. They'd leave you if someone else provided such in most circumstances.

Quoting unenlightened

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.

Hmm, but not all children in those types of institutions are treated without love, nor is the situation always bleak. I've seen different. Not sure about the fascist regime, but I do not believe all inhabitants under such circumstances experience no sense of order even if it is only internally, such as through a religious belief.

I can see your point of needing love in the beginning, that makes sense.

Quoting Lone Wolf

and not noticed love (at least not what is said to be experienced from human to human) from the animal's part.

Then you are not paying attention. Love is the glue that has given mammals a major advantage and is the feeling that encourages a mother to give her substance over to others. These are most often her own offspring but can even include young of species that can predate the mother.
If you have never seen a troop of elephants risking their own lives to save a calf, or many other cats of mammal bravery then open your eyes.
Examples are numerous.
Love exhorts co-operation and fellow feeling, and is common to all mammals, from rats to cats to bats.

Quoting Lone Wolf

They'd leave you if someone else provided such in most circumstances.

Love is not possession. Such is foolishness of our peri-christian world of chattel/marriage.

Reply to charleton I have seen mother animals abandon their own offspring many times, and having to watch the babies die slow painful deaths while none of my efforts are effective. All I saw was that the mother never had the hormone experience that causes her to want to care for her offspring after birth. For animals, it is just a hormone experience necessary for survival. Instinct, not love. They don't choose to do the things they do, they just do them.

Quoting charleton

Love is not possession. Such is foolishness of our peri-christian world of chattel/marriage.

Well, it's not being alone either. And I don't know what a Christian view has to do with anything, some other religions don't counteract it. So why is it foolish?

Reply to Lone Wolf So I've heard humans torture and murder their fellows, even christians.
But we are not exhausted by love or hate, but have those aspects in us. Reptiles don't have much, but it's likely that the feeling emerges from an evolutionary need to protect the young, as that is on the cutting edge of natural selection. I do not see humans are different in kind, but different in degree.
Can you explain this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCmtiYtiW6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTHsyIQI2L0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr8B0yb9y8Y

If you think love is only hormones in animals, why not humans too?

Quoting Lone Wolf

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.

Quoting Lone Wolf

I think I agree here lol. This seems logical. But now what exactly does good will consist of?

While I don't entirely agree with Aquinas here (mostly because I'm not a believing Christian), his first reply in the following link I find to be an insightful distinction between will and appetite - take a look if you'd like:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm

Contrary to some of the views in this thread, I don't think love is a feeling or a sentiment. The mother, say, who experiences (feels) attachment, desire, happiness, pleasure - all these are goods. They aren't all "loves", so to speak, but are emanations from love. In other words, to experience attachment, happiness, and so on, one must first be willed them - to be loved. Virtues, then, like honesty, compassion, you name it - these also are goods which ought to follow if one is loved.

True love, though? I still think that it's an empty phrase, mostly.

Quoting charleton

So I've heard humans torture and murder their fellows, even christians.

Not real Christians, as it is prohibited in Scripture. But yes, humans are very capable of being ruthless. And the point is?

Quoting charleton

Can you explain this?

Yep. Simple instinct. Nothing special that I can see. I've also seen animals in the wild and domestic purposely trying to kill the young.


Quoting charleton

If you think love is only hormones in animals, why not humans too?

Because humans think and make choices.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Virtues, then, like honesty, compassion, you name it - these also are goods which ought to follow if one is loved.

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!

Quoting Lone Wolf

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!

I think so, too. In the Christian sense, we can't ever understand it otherwise we'd be God. Metaphor's the best way understand love, though, in my opinion.

All of those things can be considered love, if one thinks of love as approachability. The opposite of aversion. Just superficially, a smiling, waving person, hygienic, well dress, friendly, warm, engaging, all of those things make you wish to approach. Approachability can also be seen in the broader sense as well, that something can be approached, with insurance that it will deliver on something. With a person, as a true love, they would be maximally approachable not because of just the qualities they have, but those, just their skills, or what services they could and couldn't deliver on, but also their services. It's the fact that their motivation, rather than being selfish, or for money or whatever else, they do it because of the extremely high sense of value they put on the individual, so that their welfare, and being approachable to them becomes the higher in significance, in relation to the value they hold to the individual.

Not true love, choosing the wrong one, even abusive family is all about convincing, or realizing that some people that people think are approachable for things that favor their welfare, flourishing or actually hold them with very high value at all, don't actually, and the ones you thought were the dangerous, unapproachables were the good ones all along. .

This view not only accounts for all the forms, but allows me to map it onto actionable forms. This allows me to ask, just how approachable am I? Ohh... but... ohh...

Quoting Lone Wolf

Not real Christians, as it is prohibited in Scripture

No True Scotsman FALLACY.

Reply to charleton Obviously you're not going to answer my other questions. :-} Please tell me where in the Christian Scripture that murdering and torturing are encouraged.

I liked that video Bitter Crank. That was amazing.

True love is ... peace ...equilibrium ... stillness of the mind. Only then can you see anything for what it truly is.

Ten years ago, I was sitting on my couch in my little studio apartment, with this girl, watching a movie. And I felt totally at peace. I felt safe and protected. I turned toward her and told her I loved her (only person I've ever said that to).

Reply to Lone Wolf Christian "scripture" has bugger all to do with what Christians do; never has, never will.
How many Christians would follow THIS advice from Matthew?
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
None!

Reply to Lone Wolf How about this one, next time you cast your eye over a woman? How many 'christians' are going to take this advice?

5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Quoting charleton

Christian "scripture" has bugger all to do with what Christians do; never has, never will.
How many Christians would follow THIS advice from Matthew?
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
None!

Well, I am a Christian, and I do follow that. It doesn't just apply to clothing, but also other aspects of one's life. I have put up with a lot from other people when it hurt me a lot. Being angry at another doesn't benefit anyone, so why not give more?

Quoting charleton

How about this one, next time you cast your eye over a woman? How many 'christians' are going to take this advice?

I am a woman, and I do follow this principle. If you are stuck in a completely literal interpretation, then, of course, it will mean something entirely different than the intended concept. It simply means to avoid things that will cause you to fall.

Reply to Lone Wolf Neither of your responses are relevant. It is simply a case in point that Christians do not follow scripture and I prefer to judge them by their deeds and not their words.

Quoting Lone Wolf

Please tell me where in the Christian Scripture that murdering and torturing are encouraged.

You shall not suffer a witch to live.
Aside from that the Bible is basically a litany of smiting, war and conquest.

Reply to charleton You act as if all two and a half billion of the Christian population are warmongering lunatics. Please, cut the hyperbole.

Reply to Buxtebuddha Who started the last 50 wars on earth??? Christians.

Reply to charleton If you think that all the world's wars are a direct result of Christian thinking, you're smoking something quite sharp.

Reply to Lone Wolf

Love is the state of maximum acceptance.

As opposed to evil, which is the state of maximum denial.

God is the one who is absolute love, for example. As such, He allows even evil on this world to exist. And He gives us command to love our enemies and bless them.

On the other hand, as a state of maximum denial evil ultimately wants to cease to exist, to be destroyed, and that's what will happen.

Reply to Buxtebuddha "Christian thinking" is an oxymoron.
I don't think Christians think much, but there's no doubt that Christians are locked in an ideological war with Islam.

Reply to charleton Pretty sure it's now apparent that most Christians think more than Charletons.

Quoting charleton

Who started the last 50 wars on earth??? Christians.

Christians have plenty to atone for, but it's a very tired canard that religion is the cause of war, or that Christians are unusually war like.

War is far too expensive to be justified by religious interests. There is usually a quite earthly reason to go to war: political expedience, economic resources, failed diplomacy (war is diplomacy carried out by other means), control of resources, power, and so forth. There have been some wars which have more religious roots. One example would be the Peasants War of 1524.

"Reformation preaching, changing economic conditions, and a history of revolts against authority also likely played a part in the rebellion’s initiation.

The rebels were not rising against the Holy Roman Empire, which had little to do with their lives in any case, but against the Roman Catholic Church and more local nobles, princes, and rulers."

The expansion of Islam out of Arabia was kind of war-like. The Crusades were kind of war like. Do you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are enemies over different strands of Islam? Some, but mostly it's about regional control, politics, and power.

People may confuse "religious people being in charge of a war" with "war being fought for religion".

Reply to Bitter Crank Christians are proud to state that belief is in the majority. Presidents, elder statesmen , and high ranking army officers are always proud to declare their Faith.
But when it comes to Christians taking responsibility for what they do in the world they are happy enough to point the finger at Islam but want to avoid responsibility for their own actions.

Christianity is the dominant ideology in the West. And the West seems to thrive on warfare. If you disagree with what I am saying then why the fuck do not so-called Christians do something about it?
They prefer to support Israel and jump at any excuse to attack countries all over the world.

Quoting charleton

Presidents, elder statesmen , and high ranking army officers are always proud to declare their Faith.

Yes, it's a disgusting performance.

Quoting charleton

But when it comes to Christians taking responsibility for what they do in the world they are happy enough to point the finger at Islam but want to avoid responsibility for their own actions.

That's true, but then, which religious/ideological power block actually does take responsibility for their actions?

Quoting charleton

Christianity is the dominant ideology in the West.

It is certainly one of the tap roots of western thinking, going back to the Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Whether it is still the dominant ideology of the west is doubtful. I think capitalism and a soft-peddled authoritarianism is a competing ideology.

Quoting charleton

And the West seems to thrive on warfare.

The West has certainly been warlike enough, but really, warfare is endemic in the species. EVERYBODY wages war, when what they want can't be obtained by other means, and there is no territory on the face of the earth free of local warfare.

Quoting charleton

If you disagree with what I am saying then why the fuck do not so-called Christians do something about it?

I find quite a bit of truth in what you are saying, but I am not responsible for the so-called Christians, who will have to decide to do something about it -- themselves. I am more of an apostate/heretic/heathen. The problem with many believers (Christian, Islamic, Hindu...) is that they have come to believe very deeply in their own bullshit. But then, so have a lot of atheists. Belief in one's own bullshit is probably the one TRUE faith.

It's interesting to read exchange about Christians between those who don't seem to have read the Word of God in any meaningful way.

Jesus Christ clearly states that many will speak of Him as their Lord and will claim to do acts in His name, but He will reject them at the judgement day with words: "Get away from me, I never knew you."

So right away we have direct testimony from God Himself that there are many who profess Him but they are not of Him, He never knew them.

Next we have direct command from Jesus to turn the other cheek, love the enemy and not take up arms.

Next we have direct revelation from Jesus that narrow is the way to salvation and wide is the road to destruction.

No human is perfect and every Christian fails in following God's commandments. But to talk about mostly masonic presidents and other "movers and shakers" who govern the society as being Christians' representatives, while they basically never mention words "Jesus Christ" let alone talk about Jesus as their saviour, is absurd.

Bible clearly reveals that governance of the world is given to the fallen one.

There is only one representative of Christians and that's Jesus Christ.

Reply to Henri No true Scotsman fallacy.
See what Christians do, not what they say.

Reply to charleton

No it's not. Direct testimony from God reveals that many will claim to be His followers yet He never knew them.

Reply to Henri So when did God tell you that? LOL

[redacted] lol

Quoting Cosette Brazeau

Attraction: this one's pretty obvious, but one simply cannot maintain a healthy relationship with someone that they don't personally find attractive, it's the "imagine kissing him" test. What I'm arguing here is that lust in fact does play a real role in love

Given that the attractiveness of a person is substantially objective (at least within cultures) does that mean that an "unattractive couple" are less likely to be in true love compared with an "attractive couple"?

Quoting Jake Tarragon

Given that the attractiveness of a person is substantially objective (at least within cultures) does that mean that an "unattractive couple" are less likely to be in love?

If both people in the relationship are attracted to each other, there is a potential for love. So, to answer your question, an "unattractive couple" isn't necessarily less likely to be in love, but I suppose its more likely that one or both members wouldn't find the other attractive.

Reply to Cosette Brazeau
But I thought you said that attractiveness is a necessity for love??!!

YUP
so sorry. i didn't make that clear in my last post. what i mean is, "unattractive couples," in general, aren't necessarily less likely to be in love, but case by case, it may be more likely that one or both members wouldn't find the other attractive.

Reply to Cosette Brazeau
Sorry to sound like a bullying barrister/antagonistic attorney, but are you, or are you not saying that attractiveness is necessary for love? Or are you now saying that attractiveness is merely a help towards love?

Nope, no worries. I am saying that attractiveness is necessary for love

Reply to Cosette Brazeau Therefore, an unattractive person cannot be loved - this is a logical corollary of your claim, yes?

Well yeah. Attractiveness is subjective of course (someone might find me attractive, and you might not), but if one finds a person to be unattractive, that unattractive person cannot be loved by them, in a long term, marital scenario. True love, encompasses some lust, I believe

OK, so what you mean to claim is "subjective attractiveness is necessary for love".

That is a much watered down claim. It is almost like saying "only lovable people can be loved". Almost a tautology.

Reply to Jake Tarragon
That's true. I thought it necessary to include it, because, in the experiences of some of my piers, it's possible to walk into a relationship, thinking that you may be able to pursue a person romantically, and find out that you just don't feel comfortable kissing that person, etc.

However, attractiveness is only partly subjective. It is perfectly reasonable, scientifically speaking, to rank people in order of attractiveness. It's not an absolute ranking order,because of the subjective element, but generally speaking people occupy a rank for general attractiveness . The objective part of this rank is partly due to reasons of evolutionary psychology, partly cultural influence.

My question is this: do objectively more attractive couples enjoy sex more than plainer couples?

My apologies for such a long delay in replying. :( Hopefully, I can get to this soon.

Quoting Henri

Love is the state of maximum acceptance.

That's all it is? Acceptance?

Quoting Henri

On the other hand, as a state of maximum denial evil ultimately wants to cease to exist, to be destroyed, and that's what will happen.

Could love then, be a system that creates order? Whereas if evil is lack of love, then it is as chaos?

Reply to Henri Yes, I think that would be a better description. Individual interpretations generally do not reflect the original.


Quoting Cosette Brazeau

Attraction: this one's pretty obvious, but one simply cannot maintain a healthy relationship with someone that they don't personally find attractive, it's the "imagine kissing him" test. What I'm arguing here is that lust in fact does play a real role in love

Hmm, I think I love my dad, but I would never kiss him!

Quoting Cosette Brazeau

If a partner depends on you for economic stability or other kinds of stability, there's an imbalance of power, and therefore a lack of respect. Respect is ever so important because, to maintain a solid and stable relationship, both parties have to respect the other as their equal, or everything falls out of wack

Then, say, a poor person may not love as a friend a rich person or vice versa?

Quoting Cosette Brazeau

-Similar interests: There must be a basis for love. It could range from something as simple as you both have a zest for life, or something as complex as you both are fanatically obsessed with bird watching.

Perhaps in a marriage, but as to love as friends or in general, I don't think this is necessarily true. Such as, just because I do not have an interest in bird watching does not mean that I will hate someone who enjoys that particular hobby.