From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:44:54 GMT
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.

In article <1992Sep4.035939.17938@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>From article <1992Sep2.125759.16731@mips2.ma30.bull.com>, by fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper):
>> 
>> There seems to be a great deal of effort in this thread to divorce the notion of
>> love from that of feelings or emotions. The gist of this effort, if you do not
>> opt for simple selfishness as some here do, seems to consist  
>> in reserving a place for love that is beyond the "fleeting" character of "feelings
>> and emotions". Since the notion of God is at best uncomfortable, somone 
>> came up with "policy", which has the character of behaviour maintained
>> over time and circumstance.  

I did not come up with "policy" because "God" makes me feel
uncomfortable and I needed a replacement.  I consider the
identification of "God" with "love" to be incoherent.

[theistic mode ON]

Certainly God "loves" the world (and notice that this "love" is
disinterested and not an emotion; God does not have emotions!); He
"takes care of it" (not necessarily for _our_ sake).  But God is not
the attribute of "loving"; God is the attribute of "being".  If God is
to be identified with a relation rather than a predicate, I would
think that the appropriate one is the universal relation (the one
which everything has to everything else); this is not love.

[theistic mode OFF]

The notion of God introduced in the bracketed text should be
understood to be a philosophical notion.

This is an intersting and, I think, important
>> discussion in a group where much of the dialogue centers around issues
>> concerning what we can and cannot know about something being called
>> "objective reality".  I think the confusing expressed by Peter Cash is
>> an approprate response to this thread,  and I would answer affirmatively
>> to his question,  yes, we should be able to think about this.  
>
>Perhpaps what is most important is not the simple divorcing of emotions
>from love, but the accepting of other emotions as love as well.  For
>some reason, love as happiness and love as "being burned" are priveleged
>and this privilege is subject to revision.  It seems to me that whenever
>love is view upon this very dichotamy, of happiness and "being burned,"
>we are dealing more with the "healing" aspects of love from shame.  The
>problem being, of course, that love does not "heal" in and of itself.

If healing were involved, the lover is interested in healing the
beloved, not himself.  Actual attempts to benefit the beloved or
protect the beloved from harm are evidence of love, not tender
feelings (these could be merely sentimentality without love); this is
what I am driving at when I say that love is _not_ an emotion at all,
but a way of acting (a policy).  Emotional heat is not a necessary
condition for love (although it may be a cause of love or even an
effect of its operation), and may even interfere with its effective
action.

>
>> 
>> fjc 
>
>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
>Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
>University of Chicago
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta