From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:13:52 GMT

In article <6437@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski) writes:
[...]

>    The second view against "merely feelings" comes from Randall Holmes.
>First Dan O'Connell wrote,
>        To say that love and/or hate is a "policy" would imply to me that
>        one had control over what one felt, i.e., love or hate;
>to which Randall Holmes responded:
>        But, of course, what I am saying is that love or hate is not how you
>        feel, but a principle informing your actions which may be caused
>        (partially) by your feelings or have effects which are feelings.
>
>A "principle"?  "Informing" our actions?  Are you saying that it is a
>universal essence we choose to draw from, an adjective to describe
>something, a motion we go through of our own accord?

	I am being much more concrete than that!  See below...

  I don't get this at
>all.  It seems to me that you are trying to explain the place of "love"
>within a sentence, but I don't have any further grasp on what you think
>it _means_.  Earlier you agreed with Ken Bell that love "is usually
>thought to be something stable and a stabilizing influence on humankind,"
>but that also is vague, IMO.  So I ask, "what is meant, and why?"

	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).  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".  Difficult cases remain;
	there are cases where we love someone whom we need not help or
	cannot help: we may love God; a small child may love his
	mother; we may love someone who is doomed.  In the first case,
	we simply delight in the existence of the beloved; its
	"welfare" is essential to our own, but it is secured, so we
	don't need to do anything.  In the second case, we are
	similarly frustrated.  But the disposition of the will toward
	the beloved is still the essential thing, not the emotion.  If
	we have a policy to promote something which happens
	automatically, the only evidence for our policy may be our
	satisfaction; that does not make the policy itself an emotion!
[...]
>    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.

	But I do agree that love is selfish.  However, I don't consider
	selfishness a vice, nor do I consider selflessness a virtue.

[...]
>    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.

	This sounds like a policy, not a feeling!  Have I made a
	convert? :-^)

[...]
>
>Daniel Kranowski
>email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu


-- 
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