From: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:18:42 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

Shortly before I read Randall Holmes' reply to my last post, I realized
that I agreed with him!  (Gasp!)  Then I saw his reply and realized we
were even more in agreement -- mostly, but significantly.  There are
some differences.
     But I started thinking this way: I still love X and Y even when I'm
not consciously thinking about them, the same way that I like my car
more than my bike even when I'm not thinking of them, either.  Thus the
love is ongoing and continual, a statement of preference that
consistently describes my self.  When I have emotions or feelings of
love for X and Y, they are consciously in my mind; otherwise they are
stored in my subconscious, unchanging.  To me, "policy" suggests
continual existence, encompassing the temporal conscious appearance of
feelings and the continual subconscious presence of a preference.
     The example in my last post of the friend with the cold who was out
of mind once out of sight means this to me: it demonstrates that we are
far more antisocial and selfish than we would like to admit, even in
conventional terms (not counting what I add to the definition), as we
spend most of our lives thinking only in terms of "I."  It could be said
that the more another individual enters our consciousness, the more we
love that person.
     It could be said, but not by Randall Holmes.  :)  This is where we
begin to part.  He wrote: 
	Love (in the narrow sense in which we say that one person
	loves another -- not "I love ice cream") is not an emotion.
	Tender feelings are not evidence of love; they may be evidence
	of sentimentality.  Evidence of love is found in concrete
	efforts to benefit the beloved or protect the beloved from
	harm; this is why I say that love is a _course of action_ (a
	policy).  

     As a minor point, I disagree that "I love ice cream" is not an
emotion.  I view "emotion" and "feeling" as nearly synonymous ways to
refer to our reactions to things we encounter or think of, though both 
must be qualified by some description of the strength of the reaction.  
For example, the desire for ice cream is usually not as strong as the 
attraction to another person.
     The major difference is that Randall says Love is volition, doing
things.  A feeling may impel you to action, but since it is not an act
of will itself, he does not view it as love.  On the other hand, I think
that a person without the will or wits to perform acts of love can still
love.  It may not occur to someone to explicitly demonstrate his love.
When I wrote,
	Love is giving up your free time to do something special for your
	loved one.  Love is giving a meal to someone in the street who looks
	hungry.  Love is staying alert to anything that might endanger your 
	loved one.  Love is paying attention to what the other person says and 
	really thinking about it.

I should have included, "Love is thinking about the loved one.  Love is 
giving a damn."  This is what I envision when using the word "policy."
Not necessarily action, but continual presence.

Randall Holmes also wrote:
	Now we also act to benefit someone who is
	blackmailing us -- but as a mere expedient; we envision
	circumstances under which we would act quite differently!  I
	tried to express this by saying that the policy is "sincere";
	perhaps I should say that it is "unconditional" -- but of
	course it may remain conditional on changes in the nature of
	the beloved.  Provisionally, "Love is a policy of regarding
	the welfare of the beloved to be essential to one's own,
	conditional on nothing outside possibly changes in the
	perceived nature of the beloved".  

I'd thought of responding to the blackmail example before.  Since I
understand what you mean by "policy" now (and since you know what _I_
mean by "policy" now :), I'd offer this definition:
	Love is the policy of regarding the good of another person as
	essential to your own, without compulsion from your immediate 
	interests.
Perhaps this says almost the same thing as what you said above.

I wrote earlier:
	And third, yes the presence of love in X is why he feels pain at Y's
	pain.  To restate something Randall Holmes said (to make it agree with
	my view :-), X's love regards the good of Y as essential to his own.
	Thus X loves Y.  If Y is unhappy, X cannot be satisfied.
And Randall responded:
	But I do agree that love is selfish.  However, I don't consider
	selfishness a vice, nor do I consider selflessness a virtue.

And neither do I.  What startling similarities -- I'm almost a convert!


Daniel Kranowski
email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (soon to be defunct)

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech