From: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:15:08 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech (VPI & SU)


I'd like to put my own meager cent or so into into this topic, and
possibly take it on some tangents, but I humbly acknowledge that I don't
know one blasted thing about love aside from random and insane
ponderings...

     Currently -- I say "currently" because my convictions rarely stay
fixed for more than a few months at a time -- I am what you'd call a 
pessimist on the subject.  A spoilsport, almost.  That is to say, I 
don't believe in love.  At least, not the way people usually think of it.

     I say that Love is determined individually, by what gives a person
pleasure, because all human action is motivated by selfishness.  I do
not believe in altruism; people act in ways that are called
"altruistic," and hence the word has value for its descriptive power,
but I believe "love" and "selflessness" are fundamentally motivated by
the needs of the self.

     Perhaps the jaws are not agape at this idea.  Perhaps it has been
heard before and dismissed.  I know I sure did; I'd heard this in crude
forms many times and said, "What a crock of phony baloney!"  I felt that
way because I knew its proponents didn't really believe it, and that
lessened its persuasive weight.  However, as my observations of human
nature have developed, I'm coming to believe it, although I sort of wish
I didn't.

     Consider the Human Atom.  In the universe are things to which we
are attracted, things to which we are repelled, and things to which we
couldn't give less of a damn about.  Our desires are complex, but even
the simplest person has passions of the intellect, of the emotions, and
of the body.  In the first I include all things recreational, from the
enjoyment of swimming with friends, to collecting stamps, to a
philosophical conversation.  The second is less "rational" than the
first, because feelings take the helm and do things to you that you
often cannot control or explain in words; it normally comes from the
activities of the intellect in conjunction with another person.  The
third is the pleasures of the flesh, from simply staying fit and living
healthily, to fulfillment of the needs that necessitate alt.sex.  All
three of these categories can arouse attraction, repulsion, or
neutrality in us.

     The attractions are our loves.  The love of card games and the love
of man and wife start in the same place, though one is a stronger magnet
than the other: if in conflict, the man may be pulled more strongly to
his wife than to a poker table.  Quite naturally we all are inspired by
a multiplicity of loves, and speak of them all differently.  I think it
was Peter Cash who earlier compared the classical spectrum of many
words for "love" to the modern (English?) with our one single word; this
is a remark on how modernity and English-speakers treat love.
(Americans at least; I am not well-traveled enough to speak for the
others.)  If we were not so afraid to deal with love, we would have 
different words for the different kinds of love instead of having to 
qualify the word as "romantic love," "saintly love," and so on.  Watch a 
sidewalk on a busy street in our individualist America and notice the
contortions contrived to avoid physical contact; watch a TV show and
look at the jokes about male friends expressing their feelings for each
other; view the movies and listen to the conversation -- love is sexual
unless you qualify it!

     Simplistic attitudes help obscure what I believe is the basis of
love, but unrepressed caring -- though more than commendable in my book 
-- is still selfish.  The expressions of lovers gives a clue: "I need
you, I can't live without you."  Love is a _need_, a human desire that
cannot be ignored.  The self of the pariah is unfulfilled, and the self
of the cherished is full and happy.  Unfulfilled loves bring frustration
proportional to the importance of the desire.  Frustration is repellent,
and we work to avoid it and bring the opposite sensation.

     The atomic movements are determined by random factors I do not yet
understand, although the camps of both Darwin and devout have valuable
input.  Both the genetic brainprint and the first decade of molding
an impressionable child form the final work that will endure for a
lifetime.  I say, therefore, that who we are and what we desire is
almost entirely beyond our control.  Regardless of the method, by our
mature years we are irrevocably magnetized, such that certain stimuli
will always attract us, others will always repel us, and yet others will
have no effect on us.  Therefore, the laws of probability ensure that 
one person's love is another person's repulsion, and neither is "better"
or more "true" than the other.  Both are random, both are accidents.

     So let us look at "selfless" love again.  Romantically or among
friends, we look at it with admiration and amazement because it is 
sacrifice, it goes against the self-interest of the lover: a man or 
woman may wait in the rain for hours, waiting for the other to appear; 
one loses sleep and skips other engagements to prepare something special 
for the beloved; they are so kind and benevolent to one another, it 
brings a smile to our heart.  Or consider saintly love, doing the same
thing for a complete stranger; a samaritan helping a person crouching in
the gutter, giving him food and clothes and shelter, though the person
might as soon have killed him.  The samaritan endangers his life and
lives ascetically so that he might benefit the interests of others
rather than himself.

     But why do they do it?  For what reason other than selfless,
altruistic Love?  I hold that it is love, but not selfless.  It is the
human invention of Mutual Benefit, without which the institutions of
society could not exist.  The lover's self is so constituted that he 
feels pleasurable sensations from knowing he has brought pleasure to
someone else.  He may undergo certain physical discomforts to receive a
greater emotional satisfaction that comes from expressing his love.  A
word on love from "duty": attraction to duty is as valid an attraction
as one to physical pleasure.  It all depends upon his hierarchy of 
pleasures, determined for him by his DNA and by his upbringing.  Indeed 
I am the same way.  In my life I have taken great pride in my efforts 
to be nice to people, and to understand them (though it was not usually 
successful), but I've come to believe that all this does not make me a 
"good" person.  It's just the way my personal Clockwork Orange was 
shaped.  Perhaps I should be more of an asshole (I'm sure I am 
occasionally), but I can't help wanting not to be one.  I am locked in a 
self that was made for me.

     We can love, but we like to hide its baser root, which is
ourselves.  Love became valuable along the same routes that Morality
became valuable: we all need as much help from others as we can get, so
we praise those who do good things for others, for it will eventually
come back to benefit us.  After centuries, it becomes "truth" and a 
secure anchor to hold on to.  After a couple of thousand years it
becomes as undeniable as the earth we stand upon.

I meant to quote and discuss some of the things others have said in 
this thread, but I guess I got carried away.  A penny for your
thoughts...

Daniel Kranowski
email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu