What is love?

[Gekken]

What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
Oh, baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

What is love
http://www.patrick-pecher.de/dvd/images/a_night_at_the_roxbury.jpg

 

[jasonlf]

What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
Oh, baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

What is love

Someone doesn't read the Smart-Alec answers thread.

You're a week too late.

 

[Gekken]

Someone doesn't read the Smart-Alec answers thread.

You're a week too late.

crap.

 

[TaintedB]

I don't agree with CS Lewis's four-part love typology--or maybe I don't think it's right for me, at least at this time in my life. The agape business is where I get off the bus. First of all, it seems to be an apology for and a defense of his religious beliefs, rather than an accurate or actual observation, although it is mixed in with accurate and actual obseravations of other kinds of love, and that combination suggests a subtle attempt to decieve that I instictively cannot trust. I am a down-to-earth, practical sort. I believe, if I can use that word to describe anything I think, in what I directly experience, percieve, understand. I take very little on faith. The concept of agape requires faith. It is something much larger than us, something we do not fully experience or percieve (because it's a godly sort of love that god feels and that humans, at their best, only skirt the edges of). But what is worse for me is that a belief in it draws one away from the sort of love that is real and actual and wonderful and genuinely percieved and experienced by people and makes you dissatisfied with it, and longing for some vague thing that is supposedly higher or better. I'm not saying it's wrong to try to improve oneself, but if you are a firm believer in Lewis's version of agape (there are many other definitions of this term, some very ancient) then you are going to think that even the greatest human love you experience is pretty shitty, that there is always something better around the corner. This perpetual dissatisfaction and seeking of perfection can destroy the most wonderful of merely human loves. I once found something so good and wonderful in all of its human inperfection that I would give up all opportunity to expection some vague inexpressible godly love just to have that simple human version back again. I don't care if there is something much better out there: what I had with another mere human, ranging from the animal touch and reassurance, to the complementing and meeting of emotional and mental needs was the best, and all I ever need or will need. Two people can enhance each other, make each other much stronger than if they were isolated and alone, and together they present an awesome team. The feelings between them are as real and certainly more poweful then they themselves as individuals are. Agape as Lewis describes it--as a goal that an _individual_ egotistically strives for on his or her own, to benefit or uplift only his or herself, entirely apart from whatever is going on with the human that one loves--can go screw itself, as far as I'm concerned. If I "go somewhere" I'm taking my beloved with me all the way, if I have such a person in my life. I won't let my own spiritual development take precendence over that of my beloved's. They go with, or I don't go at all. Get that, creator of agape? :/

Well, that sounds like a fate-tempting sort of comment, doesn't it, lol? That's me, in a nutshell. You'll always find me where those proverbial angels fear to tread. But I also have a firm philosophical basis for my attitude, or maybe it's just another fancy excuse, like agape may be an excuse for dissatifcation in what one has. I entertain strongly the hypothesis that the real (corporeal, physcial, actual, tangible) is the pathway to the divine. The real is where I prefer to live and work. If some elements of the divine come knocking, I'll incorporate them into my sphere of reality, as that would be the practical thing to do, but I'll not go seeking them out on my own nor imagining I've found them when I hold naught but empty air and phantastic hope in my hands. Did more than enough wild-rainbow-chasing in my youth, and it brought me nothing but grief and confusion and maybe a little humble knowledge, which may have, if I've been fortunate, lessened my FQ (Foolish Quotient) by a couple of points.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I don't agree with CS Lewis's four-part love typology--or maybe I don't think it's right for me, at least at this time in my life. The agape business is where I get off the bus. First of all, it seems to be an apology for and a defense of his religious beliefs, rather than an accurate or actual observation, although it is mixed in with accurate and actual obseravations of other kinds of love, and that combination suggests a subtle attempt to decieve that I instictively cannot trust. I am a down-to-earth, practical sort. I believe, if I can use that word to describe anything I think, in what I directly experience, percieve, understand. I take very little on faith. The concept of agape requires faith. It is something much larger than us, something we do not fully experience or percieve (because it's a godly sort of love that god feels and that humans, at their best, only skirt the edges of). But what is worse for me is that a belief in it draws one away from the sort of love that is real and actual and wonderful and genuinely percieved and experienced by people and makes you dissatisfied with it, and longing for some vague thing that is supposedly higher or better. I'm not saying it's wrong to try to improve oneself, but if you are a firm believer in Lewis's version of agape (there are many other definitions of this term, some very ancient) then you are going to think that even the greatest human love you experience is pretty shitty, that there is always something better around the corner. This perpetual dissatisfaction and seeking of perfection can destroy the most wonderful of merely human loves. I once found something so good and wonderful in all of its human inperfection that I would give up all opportunity to expection some vague inexpressible godly love just to have that simple human version back again. I don't care if there is something much better out there: what I had with another mere human, ranging from the animal touch and reassurance, to the complementing and meeting of emotional and mental needs was the best, and all I ever need or will need. Two people can enhance each other, make each other much stronger than if they were isolated and alone, and together they present an awesome team. The feelings between them are as real and certainly more poweful then they themselves as individuals are. Agape as Lewis describes it--as a goal that an _individual_ egotistically strives for on his or her own, to benefit or uplift only his or herself, entirely apart from whatever is going on with the human that one loves--can go screw itself, as far as I'm concerned. If I "go somewhere" I'm taking my beloved with me all the way, if I have such a person in my life. I won't let my own spiritual development take precendence over that of my beloved's. They go with, or I don't go at all. Get that, creator of agape? :/

Well, that sounds like a fate-tempting sort of comment, doesn't it, lol? That's me, in a nutshell. You'll always find me where those proverbial angels fear to tread. But I also have a firm philosophical basis for my attitude, or maybe it's just another fancy excuse, like agape may be an excuse for dissatifcation in what one has. I entertain strongly the hypothesis that the real (corporeal, physcial, actual, tangible) is the pathway to the divine. The real is where I prefer to live and work. If some elements of the divine come knocking, I'll incorporate them into my sphere of reality, as that would be the practical thing to do, but I'll not go seeking them out on my own nor imagining I've found them when I hold naught but empty air and phantastic hope in my hands. Did more than enough wild-rainbow-chasing in my youth, and it brought me nothing but grief and confusion and maybe a little humble knowledge, which may have, if I've been fortunate, lessened my FQ (Foolish Quotient) by a couple of points.

 

[jasonlf]

I don't agree with CS Lewis's four-part love typology--or maybe I don't think it's right for me, at least at this time in my life. The agape business is where I get off the bus. First of all, it seems to be an apology for and a defense of his religious beliefs, rather than an accurate or actual observation, although it is mixed in with accurate and actual obseravations of other kinds of love, and that combination suggests a subtle attempt to decieve that I instictively cannot trust. I am a down-to-earth, practical sort. I believe, if I can use that word to describe anything I think, in what I directly experience, percieve, understand. I take very little on faith. The concept of agape requires faith. It is something much larger than us, something we do not fully experience or percieve (because it's a godly sort of love that god feels and that humans, at their best, only skirt the edges of). But what is worse for me is that a belief in it draws one away from the sort of love that is real and actual and wonderful and genuinely percieved and experienced by people and makes you dissatisfied with it, and longing for some vague thing that is supposedly higher or better. I'm not saying it's wrong to try to improve oneself, but if you are a firm believer in Lewis's version of agape (there are many other definitions of this term, some very ancient) then you are going to think that even the greatest human love you experience is pretty shitty, that there is always something better around the corner. This perpetual dissatisfaction and seeking of perfection can destroy the most wonderful of merely human loves. I once found something so good and wonderful in all of its human inperfection that I would give up all opportunity to expection some vague inexpressible godly love just to have that simple human version back again. I don't care if there is something much better out there: what I had with another mere human, ranging from the animal touch and reassurance, to the complementing and meeting of emotional and mental needs was the best, and all I ever need or will need. Two people can enhance each other, make each other much stronger than if they were isolated and alone, and together they present an awesome team. The feelings between them are as real and certainly more poweful then they themselves as individuals are. Agape as Lewis describes it--as a goal that an _individual_ egotistically strives for on his or her own, to benefit or uplift only his or herself, entirely apart from whatever is going on with the human that one loves--can go screw itself, as far as I'm concerned. If I "go somewhere" I'm taking my beloved with me all the way, if I have such a person in my life. I won't let my own spiritual development take precendence over that of my beloved's. They go with, or I don't go at all. Get that, creator of agape? :/

You are half right, and half wrong, imo.

Yeah, there's some Christian coloring to that definition. C.S. Lewis was the kind of man who put a chrisitan twist on everything (did I mention I like him ). However, his definition is mainly an adaption of the definition of the different greek forms of love.

I much prefer the greek words to describe love than the English ones. To me it's disrespectful to "I love pizza" then "I love my mom" then "I love my sexy wife"... it just doesn't feel right.

 

[Netzach]

The Greeks started that whole high flown mind/body split thing though. If you're questioning that, chances are you're perfectly ok with one word meaning almost infinite things.

I like the agape notion because it does cover the idea that you can love someone so much that *their* development becomes more important than your desire, your immediate desire for them. It's very rare, it's very hard, but I do think the letting-go love is the most elusive and there's something special about it.

 

[Marquis]

The Greeks started that whole high flown mind/body split thing though. If you're questioning that, chances are you're perfectly ok with one word meaning almost infinite things.

I like the agape notion because it does cover the idea that you can love someone so much that *their* development becomes more important than your desire, your immediate desire for them. It's very rare, it's very hard, but I do think the letting-go love is the most elusive and there's something special about it.

 

[Gekken]

You are half right, and half wrong, imo.

Yeah, there's some Christian coloring to that definition. C.S. Lewis was the kind of man who put a chrisitan twist on everything (did I mention I like him ). However, his definition is mainly an adaption of the definition of the different greek forms of love.

I much prefer the greek words to describe love than the English ones. To me it's disrespectful to "I love pizza" then "I love my mom" then "I love my sexy wife"... it just doesn't feel right.

I adore CS Lewis, (I am an atheist, but hey he was fooking brilliant) He was trying to explain the concept of nous and pre-existential thinking surrounding love to his public-school students. Most of his books (not Narnia, those were for his kids) are to be read alongside some brilliant lectures that I can't remember the name of right now.

Screwtape Letters has an interesting bit about agape, and it's hysterical

 

[TaintedB]

The Greeks started that whole high flown mind/body split thing though. If you're questioning that, chances are you're perfectly ok with one word meaning almost infinite things.

I like the agape notion because it does cover the idea that you can love someone so much that *their* development becomes more important than your desire, your immediate desire for them. It's very rare, it's very hard, but I do think the letting-go love is the most elusive and there's something special about it.

Questioning one relgious writer's use of an ancient love typology isn't exactly the same as saying that you're statisfied with one word for everything. I just tend to invent my own typologies.

To me, normal down-to-earth human love relationships automatically cover loving someone so that their deveopment means more to you than your own desire. If you don't do that, why are you in a relationship to begin with. Standard, par for the course love. No need to call it agape or connect it with spirituality. If it is spirituality, though, it's only the very first basic rung on the ladder (the "love thy neighbor as..." one, I would think) and nothing to pat oneself on the back over.

 

[jasonlf]

To me, normal down-to-earth human love relationships automatically cover loving someone so that their deveopment means more to you than your own desire. If you don't do that, why are you in a relationship to begin with. Standard, par for the course love. No need to call it agape or connect it with spirituality. If it is spirituality, though, it's only the very first basic rung on the ladder (the "love thy neighbor as..." one, I would think) and nothing to pat oneself on the back over.

Whether you call it superlove, chickenbutt, or plunkenheizen, what you describe, I'd call agape

 

[Gekken]

Whether you call it superlove, chickenbutt, or plunkenheizen, what you describe, I'd call agape

chickenbutt is a racist term.

cocks of the world unite!

 

[jasonlf]

chickenbutt is a racist term.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Gekken]

What the hell are you talking about?

nothing. joke. chicken AV.

that is all.

 

[TaintedB]

Whether you call it superlove, chickenbutt, or plunkenheizen, what you describe, I'd call agape

All right then, given what you say above, totally selfish me-first who-cares-about-you fucking is "agape."

I'll try one more time.

The point I'm trying to make is that if agape is, as CS Lewis said, _God's_ love, then we imperfect humans, no matter how arrogant and godlike we believe ourselves to be, fall far short of it. What I am describing is ordinary human love, which most people are capable of, if they want it. Agape or godlike love is something I don't know or understand, nor ever expect to given my atheist stance. Even if I were a believer, I would consider it far beyond me, humanly. I've known maybe two people in my life who seemed capaple of something stronger than love of individuals, just two who could "love mankind." I wasn't one of them. And I wouldn't go so far as to call a generic "love of mankind" agape either, even though it's far more than most of us are capable of.

You can call agape anything you want to, but then we're not talking to each other nor are we talking about the same thing. I'm personally trying to come to grips with Lewis's very specific "agape is not everything else in the world" definition. You seem to be saying anything anyone calls love is agape. We are riding different trains going in opposite directions.

 

[Marquis]

You're right Tainted, being mere humans, we will always fall short of God-like love, but I think we do have a responsibility to strive for it. It is the only love that is entirely selfless, and although there will always be some degree of self-interest in our decisions and our perspective is limited by our being embodied creatures, the more we put aside our selfish desires, the closer we are to this love.

In terms of the actions that come out of this, it will likely be reflected differently through different people's moral priorities. However, we never really do judge actions as much as we judge the people that do them, so I would suggest that someone who puts a selfless love above more selfish forms of the affliction is doing the right thing.

But what do I know, I'm just a kid.

 

[jasonlf]

You're right Tainted, being mere humans, we will always fall short of God-like love, but I think we do have a responsibility to strive for it. It is the only love that is entirely selfless, and although there will always be some degree of self-interest in our decisions and our perspective is limited by our being embodied creatures, the more we put aside our selfish desires, the closer we are to this love.

In terms of the actions that come out of this, it will likely be reflected differently through different people's moral priorities. However, we never really do judge actions as much as we judge the people that do them, so I would suggest that someone who puts a selfless love above more selfish forms of the affliction is doing the right thing.

But what do I know, I'm just a kid.

You're saying what I shoulda said about three days ago on this thread. Excellent

 

[Netzach]

You're right Tainted, being mere humans, we will always fall short of God-like love, but I think we do have a responsibility to strive for it. It is the only love that is entirely selfless, and although there will always be some degree of self-interest in our decisions and our perspective is limited by our being embodied creatures, the more we put aside our selfish desires, the closer we are to this love.

In terms of the actions that come out of this, it will likely be reflected differently through different people's moral priorities. However, we never really do judge actions as much as we judge the people that do them, so I would suggest that someone who puts a selfless love above more selfish forms of the affliction is doing the right thing.

But what do I know, I'm just a kid.

I kind of hear what she's saying though, why do you need to invoke God in order to do the right thing, love properly, fully and in a mature way, which allows for the other person to grow and be? I don't know that it has to get that lofty either, we have human models all around...parental, romantic, platonic, which can teach us. I think we also have tons of "what not to do" object lessons surrounding us too.

 

[timberwolf05]

lessons

I kind of hear what she's saying though, why do you need to invoke God in order to do the right thing, love properly, fully and in a mature way, which allows for the other person to grow and be? I don't know that it has to get that lofty either, we have human models all around...parental, romantic, platonic, which can teach us.
-----------





I think we also have tons of "what not to do" object lessons surrounding us too.

===============
there you go. what he said!

the wolf

 

[Marquis]

I kind of hear what she's saying though, why do you need to invoke God in order to do the right thing, love properly, fully and in a mature way, which allows for the other person to grow and be? I don't know that it has to get that lofty either, we have human models all around...parental, romantic, platonic, which can teach us. I think we also have tons of "what not to do" object lessons surrounding us too.

Well I'm sort of thinking of this in the Four Loves model that specifically draws a distinction between the love of Eros and the love of agape, or as he calls it, Charity.

But if you want to call it a mature love I think that works very well indeed.

 

[Gallant Man]

The Greeks started that whole high flown mind/body split thing though. If you're questioning that, chances are you're perfectly ok with one word meaning almost infinite things.

I believe your speaking of the classical mind/body problem in philosophy and you associate it with the Greeks meaning I would think the Greek philosophers? I don't exactly see the connection to this discussion on love.

 

[Marquis]

Love is a sham and a farce.

We're all about maintaining our survival and procreating. You guys can keep living like colony ants if you like, but I am going to regress into bacteria mode. From now on, I impregnate as many women as possible and avoid all responsibility. I am also going to eat whatever I want, if fat wasn't good for you it wouldn't taste so good.

 

[Netzach]

Love is a sham and a farce.

We're all about maintaining our survival and procreating. You guys can keep living like colony ants if you like, but I am going to regress into bacteria mode. From now on, I impregnate as many women as possible and avoid all responsibility. I am also going to eat whatever I want, if fat wasn't good for you it wouldn't taste so good.

*running amok with a turkey baster and a steak*

 

[Netzach]

I believe your speaking of the classical mind/body problem in philosophy and you associate it with the Greeks meaning I would think the Greek philosophers? I don't exactly see the connection to this discussion on love.

Yes yes and how is it hard to see? When you go breaking everything into agape, eros and filias you are hearkening back to a classical mode, and some of these forms of love are more corporeal than others.

 

[Marquis]

Yes yes and how is it hard to see? When you go breaking everything into agape, eros and filias you are hearkening back to a classical mode, and some of these forms of love are more corporeal than others.

Indeed.

From now on, only the most corporeal of loves shall receive any of my attention. Bacterial love I shall call it.