From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: What is Love?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:52:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Aug21.182031.18858@abo.fi> CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi () writes:
>In article <something.something> Peter Cash writes:
>>>In article <403@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> skataria@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca
>>>(skataria) writes:

>>> WHAT IS LOVE?
>>> Can somebody give me a convincing answer?

>>What kind of love? As any classical scholar knows, the ancients had several
>>different words that are today regrettably subsumed under the same English
>>word...

>They don't make languages like they used to, eh?

Not since the Tower of Babel, no.

>You think we are confused and puzzled about the meaning of 'love'?
>Always, or only sometimes? 

Well yes, I am sometimes confused--confused even about love. I don't know
whether _you_ are confused or not, Chris.

>And it's because the word for eros, and the
>word for caritas are spelled the same in English?

Eh? This seems to be a non-sequitur. What has spelling to do with it?
Spelled the same as what?

>I claim (humbly, ever humbly) that ordinarily we have no problems with the 
>meaning of 'love'? You do love your children, don't you? You do love your
>wife? You know God loves you, right? You love your friends? Wouldn't
>you (sometimes) even say that you love your roses? Where is the mystery?

>It seems to me that the problem is the question ('What is...'), which
>is a bit fuzzy around the edges. 

>What is the worry? How did the
>question arise? What would count as a good answer? (Would it have been
>easier to answer if it had been more 'precise', 'What is eros', or
>'What is caritas'?)  (Peter, didn't you recently write something about the
>difficulty of understanding outside contexts? Isn't this connected?)

Grrr. I hate it when you do this: remind me of things I wrote when I was in
a wiser mood.

You're right about this: the question, "What is love" would never occur to
me, of course. But it _did_ occur to someone, and I thought I understood
his question, and had a hypothesis about what drove the questioner to ask
this particular question.  You're saying that my hypothesis is
wrong-headed--that I either didn't understand the question at all, or it is
somehow radically deficient. (Hmmm.  Could old Chris have a point here? No,
No--I'll never admit it! Never!)

My hypothesis was that the author of the question had seen many different
kinds of things called "love", and that he was confused by the breadth of
the spectrum. And I thought I could help him by pointing out, "Well, there
are many different _kinds_ of love, you see..."

And I still don't think I'm wrong about this. There is a big difference
between being struck by Cupid's arrow and being a Good Samaritan.  Surely
forgetting the breadth of the spectrum of things called "love" leads people
into making mistakes about what love is. For example, people sometimes talk
as though love were a feeling--an emotion.

Is love an emotion? Is it an emotional state that one can "fall" into?
Certainly, young lovers often think so. To them, the question, "Am I in
love" means, "am I feeling the proper emotions, the emotions we call
'love'?". This doesn't necessarily mean that they're asking themselves
whether they're "in lust"--they may be asking themselves, "Do I really care
about this person?". Still, in the context of romantic love, "caring" may
seem like an emotion or an attitude.

But if that's what love is, then what sense can we make of the occasions
when love is a duty? For example, consider the commandment, "Love the Lord
with all thy heart, mind and soul" How can one be _commanded_ to feel
certain emotions? And can one be condemned by God for _not_ feeling the
proper emotions? This certainly makes no sense to me--unless love is an
_action_ that is under our voluntary control.

Similarly, a mother has a duty to love her children. I have heard of cases
where a mother is tormented by guilt because she does _not_ love her
newborn child. In such cases, the mother is convinced that failing to have
the proper emotions is somehow a culpable thing--that she is doing evil by
not feeling these emotions. But that is nonsense. I love my children--but
the emotions I feel toward them vary rather widely. If love were an
emotion, then there would be times when I love them, and other times when I
do not. But that's silly--I love my kids even when I'm peeved at them.

You ask if I love my friends. But of course you're not an American, or
you'd never ask such a question. Here, a man can't say that he loves his
friends--since "love" is inseperable from eros in our culture, to love
one's friends implies a sexual interest. So of _course_ I don't love my
friends. 

The selfless love of a saint seems rather mysterious to me if I try to see
it in the same light as the way as romantic love--though maybe I can
understand it better if I think of the way I love my children.

But as I'm saying all this, it comes to me that you're right--though I see
nothing wrong with the things I'm saying about "love", I'm not really
answering the question. I'm not answering because I didn't understand it.
Do I not know what love is? Well, sure I do. As you point out, there are
other questions that have this form ("What is hate?"), that I probably
can't answer either.

The right way to respond to the question "What is love?" would have been,
"What do you mean? What are you puzzled about? Are you wondering whether
you love your girlfriend? Are you wondering if you love God, or God loves
you?" Instead, I assumed--without grounds--that I understood what was
troubling the questioner. You're right again, Chris. I hate it when you do
this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Other peripheral left-overs]
...
PC>Mind telling me how erasing the distinction between a lust-crazed teenager
PC>and Mother Theresa is in any way illuminating or [swallow gorge]
PC>_empowering_?

CB>I'm a bit puzzled by this conflation of meanings/erasing the 
CB>distinction-business. I mean, a word has many uses, right? Think of 
CB>'passion'. Or 'heaven'. Or 'bread' ('I am the bread from heaven'), etc. 

We're pretty much stuck with our words; if I gave the impression that I
want to "reform" language, then I recant. However, it is helpful to be
mindful of the history of language, and of the changes in meaning that
words have overcome. I think it's helpful to remember that there were once
several different words for "love", and that they covered different parts
of the spectrum. 

CB>I think I lean towards Mr Cushman's view. At least this much: I think it is 
CB>important that we use the same word for so different things. It was a long 
CB>time since I read CS Lewis on the four loves, but I think one of his points 
CB>was that there are important connections between eros, caritas, friendship 
CB>and affection. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these connections were 
CB>lost if we stopped using the word 'love' in all the ways we currently do.

Yes, that's right, and I really have no business arguing against this. But
I do think that the opposite is also true: the distinctions are as
important as the connections. 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta