Love, Morality, Virtue, and its Subsistence in our Discourse

I have an question for all those Love fanatics.

Sure everyone has an opinion on it, we all channel its meaning differently. I believe wherein lies the problem, as love is not based on one substance, one truth, or absolute reality; it is based on many concepts and conceptual connotations. We experience ourselves, our thoughts, and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion on consciousness. I believe this delusion is a kind of prison for us. Personally, I believe love is selfish, impulsive, irrational, subjective, interchangeable, emotional, and is only pleasurable based. I often talk about the nature of virtue, but can love be virtuous. Can there be any moral rectitude in love?

 

I am a self-proclaimed love fanatic.

Until about six months ago I would deny being in love, it made me feel weak. I would do everything within my control so that others did not know I felt such a feeling, I had pride. So, being in love and admitting that I am in love helps weaken my pride, something I believe would make me a kinder, gentler, more evolved person.

And how do I explain that I know that I am in love when everything else seems to fall in place?!? I tend to be less lazy, be more productive, be more motivated, be more socially conscious, be kinder, be more generous when I feel "in love." Do I want to portray myself as a better person than I actually am??? Am I bitter when I don't feel romantic love???

I have decided that to be in love is a choice. I do not have to be in love. I have a wonderful family and group of friends, I am successful in my career, I am educated and have a desire for life-long learning, I am financially independent, I am healthy and have a positive body image, and I have peace in my spirituality. I do not need someone to love to feel complete. I am complete. However, I have made the choice that I want to love. ??????????????????????

 

Greetings 7Seven:

Two questions for you.

Which position do you take towards love - that of a behaviorist, physicalist or expressionist?

Will we be discussing all types of love (Eros, Philia and Agape?) Certainly, if we are going to discuss (first) the nature of love and (second) virtuous love then we must focus on all?

T2

 

Re: Love, Morality, Virtue, and its Subsistence in our Disco

I will assume you mean eros, the romantic love.

I disagree. Love has physiology. Our own brain chemestry changes when we are in love.

I agree and disagree. While love may be all those, it is also necessary. Love gives us those rose colored glasses needed to commit our imperfect selves to another imperfect being with the desire to build and raise a family.

Like love, virtue is subjective. What I find virtuous or rightous may not be what the next person does.

 

Okay, here is what I think: To begin with, lets bear in mind that without a deep emotional attachment (subjective or otherwise), how does a parent nurture a child day-in day-out for almost 20 years? Without love, how will a man stay with the mother of his kids, protect and provide for them through thick and thin?

Love, may be subjective I agree, but thank God for it. Love makes the unbearable bearable, and the unpleasant, manageable. (On love being subjective, ever seen a parent bring a scratchy stick-figure drawing made by his/her kid to work? ... that's love at its most subjective . No one but a parent can see any beauty in the etchings of a 2½ year old ... LOL )

And you're right, love can also appear selfish. Its almost always the reason why we do what we do. e.g. we obey laws because we don't want trouble from the authorities (self love). In fact, the those laws that don't require much enforcement are those in which our interest is naturally at stake e.g. looking after our kids (we love, them and tend to do this even when "big brother" isn't looking -- most of us do at least).

But this is not to say, there is no virtue in love. How about the man who consciously endangers his life to save his kid and dies doing so, or the patriot that dies on the battle. We surely can't call these people selfish because they have shown utter selflessness.

Romantic love is almost always selfish. But there are other kinds of love as well. Philia (brotherly love), Agape (Godly love), and Storge (familial love). These are rarely selfish. But even Eros has its redeeming quality. According to someone, romantic love (in a long term relationship) helps bind two people together while they discover a deeper non-sexual love (the other three?) for each other. Accordingly, their relationship is doomed if they don't discover this deeper love, before eros runs its course. So we may argue then that Eros has it uses .



PS:
7Seven I hope you don't mind me asking, but do you like WW? ...


PPS:
The subject of your post read like an essay topic. Are you sure you're not making us do your homework for you?

 

All excellent responses, I am a little pressed for time; so allow a bit more time formulate a worthy response for each.

 

Eros-- A passionate intense desire for beauty. That sounds like me in all honesty, but I do not believe this is the proper form of love; because, one is only desiring the physical. An idea of sorts and in its truest form is incomplete. I submit, I never had the joy to venture further into philla. I suppose, nowadays, I seek a person whom shares the same dispositions, some one who understands the same philosophies, one who is temperate of my fallacies, and one who admires me for who I am and not for what I can do for them.

In today's world, can such a notion be rational? Can any man or women solidify a friendship who are "Good and alike in virtue?" We also can develop Phila in less pleasurable relationships. An example often used would in business relationships, both have mutual interests. Even in your worst enemy we can develop Phila, once the business is at an end, the acquittance disperses then we become bitter enemies once again. Is Phila really so deceptive?

Agape-- "The Love of God." Brotherly love for all humanity. The person who seeks perfection in love. Absolute devotion to oneself and another. Can such a notion truly be asserted in humans? When you enter a realm of God, you are talking about the infinite, and human understanding is finite.

Surely love has a 'nature' but do we posses the capacity to understand it logically? It is often described, hinted at, in conceptual connotations but never really understood in itself. It seems love is generated by human action and never comprehended by mind or language. I submit, sometimes I become intellectually weak of the thought.

For me, as I stated before, I have never experienced the emotional side of love. I believe am outside of its grace. As of yet, love has been nothing but "physical response" to an idea, and one whom I was severely attracted to. If I were to endeavour my own behaviour, and ventured outside of the physical; perhaps I would be more of an Expressionist, but, she would surely be a grace which thereof uncontrollable of any logic.

Flygirl,
Can we say love is deceptive? Or should I say, is love really so deceptive? Surely we can agree virtue is of right action.

graphicsRat,
Surely, the man and women in this case, can be of excellent virtue? How would that coincide to their love of family? Are we not taught by an early age to be of moral integrity?

It is not a question of do I like WW, because I like any women who is attractive to me. I have had two serious relationships. One with an crazed German women, the other with an Japanese Czech.

Edited: College essay? :lol: No. Just a thought really. Deep thought has its way of doing that to you.

 

do you believe that for men in love, they want mostly to be admired and with women, they want mostly to be adored?

I would say more an amnesiac. Being in love doesnt decieve us, it just allows us to forget.

I was with a man for over 10 years who desperately wanted to get married. I didnt. I had this whole long list of things I wanted to accomplish and a whole nother list of requirements for my life long partner. Then I met my husband and suddenly I forgot all that nonsense. There are many reasons (I wont go into them on this board) that without love I never would have even been friends with him let alone his commited partner. Love allowed me to overlook many things I probably should not have, but just to hear his laugh makes it all worth it. Even with all this shit that came along with him, I am glad he came into my life. He made me a better person.

 

The dictionary defines love in a variety of ways. It is considered:

A) A strong affection for another rising out of kinship and personal ties

B) Attraction based on sexual desire

C) Affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests

D) Warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion

E) The object of detachment, devotion, or admiration

F) A beloved person

G) Unselfish (yeah, I know 7) loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another

H) An amorous episode

I) The sexual embrace

J) Inspired by affection

K) To hold dear

L) To feel a lover's passion, devotion, or tenderness for

M) To fondle amorously; to copulate with

N) To like or desire actively; take pleasure in

O) To thrive in

P) A deep tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

Q) A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make pair, the emotion of sex and romance.



Now, I have question for all those who responded to this thread: Which one is THESE is yours? Seems like everyone in here fits into one of these categories of love so far...

and does love necessarily rank up with morality and virtue in it's own way, or is that also subjective? So far, we can all agree that love is emotional and subjective in all forms, however, it isn't predictable by a long shot...

and even if love is flawed, is that part of what makes it so special and beneficial to mankind?

 

C) Affection based on admiration

E) The object of devotion or admiration

F) A beloved person

K) To hold dear

O) To thrive in

What's wrong w/ flaws?

 

I was just asking. I met 'even if'. I was in a hurry when I wrote it...

but, is that part of what makes it special?

 

I meant to answer that as "yes!" That is what makes it special. Nothing humanity touches is "perfect." That's too much pressure. Like I've said, what is it worth if doesn't take effort?!?

 

Ah, I see. Perfection would leave less of a challenge then, I suppose.

 

It is hard for me to say what men feel when they are "in love." Though I have had two serious relationships I do not believe I was "in love." I do not think men like me are capable of being "in love." Maybe infatuated. Yeah that Eros love. :lol: :lol: :lol:

See this is where I find myself in a quandary. Does being "in love" require you to always have on the rose glasses?

 

well as these are all opinions and personal conjectures, I can say without any hesitation that for me LOVE is not any of those thing the first poster said. As a christian, God is Love so love is perfect, true love is not selffish or carnal or biased or unforgiving, it is virtuous beyond all virtue and powerful and unearthly.

 

7Seven, sorry its taken me a while to post this brief rejoinder. I am somewhat amazed that you've never been in love. I remember being love struck as early as 8 or 9 years old, and I dare say those feelings are the same as any adult would have -- only that a child is incapable of making the sort of commitment that will make a relationship work or last.

Do you really mean to say, you've never cared about anyone and wanted to be with them, and not necessarily to have sex? ...

So you've had two relationships. How did you feel when those relationships ended? (I'm sorry if I sound like a shrink LOL )

Never been in love before? ... :smt017

Are you saying every responsible :lol: family man, stays with and supports his wife and kids out of duty only and never for love? Surely not.

 

I believe 7 when he says that he has never loved. I have only "loved" twice and sometimes I wonder how "in love" I was. As the years grow since I last felt that for a particular person I wonder how authentic the feelings were. I also know now that I have much more "love" in me to give another person that I didn't/wouldn't/couldn't give to those other two men.

I have been smitten, I have had crushes, I have liked someone a whole helluva lot, but love. That is something I do not throw around lightly. And from what 7 says on this forum, I would doubt that he does either.

So, the feelings you have when you split up with a man/woman is the determining factor on how much love you have for that person??? I would say that when a relationship ends I feel disappointment that my expectations of what it could have been have not been fulfilled. I would say I have felt more secure when the two "loves" have ended because they ended for a purpose - we loved each other but that wasn't enough. That gives me more peace than it ending and I am unsure why or what could have been. (Well, sometimes it is very clear.)

 

Nice answer lainarain. I wonder how much 7Seven's view will differ. I'm just amazed when people say they've never been in love. I have been in love with several people some of whom I no longer feel anything for. But even though I no longer desire them, I know in that I once loved this person so much (do you get a whiff of a story here?) .

 

Let me tell you why men like me do not fall hard over one women. It is simple, I am too self-aware about human nature. A skeptic, about "love" if you will. Which is why some will say "ignorance is bliss." It pays to NOT know too much. I can say, it is of human nature for men and women to be selfish. Who can you trust? That is the bigger question. Those who claim to be "in love" do the most unseemly things. I can never see myself that "out of touch" with oneself. I have never had the urge to be in a violent rage of jealousy. So many of these love fanatics seem to be out of touch with reality. If to be "in love" is to be "out of touch" with oneself, then by definition I am outside of its grace.

 

Have you thought of it this way: that you are "self aware" and can afford to be SO analytical about the subject because you appear to be incapable of being "in love", instead of the other way round?

One more thing. There are people with Doctorates in psychology, sociology, anthropology and related fields, who in spite of their truly vast knowledge of human behaviour still manage to fall in love. Love, the feeling/impulse is quite ovehelming and often defies the sound logic the mind dishes out (anyone who's felt it will tell you so). Your logical mind will give you true and perfect reasons who you shouldn't (go after a woman for example) but your heart cannot listen. That's the way it is -- sometimes.

I am not invalidating your feelings. I pretty much believe you when you say you haven't felt love before, but I cant help but be amazed. Its quite easy to take for granted that everyone feels this way. Here's an agony-aunt(esque) column that I found on the subject.

I'm still thinking about it. Never felt love? ... :smt017