Reply
Thu 13 Dec, 2007 06:08 am
Theory of love
Occasionally when reading I run across a phrase or sentence or paragraph, which really rings a bell for me. The bell may be recognition of the compatibility of the point to my own conclusions or perhaps the point caused an epiphany, or other reasons. When I encounter such a point I often copy it and store it in a file for later analysis. One such point is as follows: "Platonic idea that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another's character, or the more passive growth under another's guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love".
My analysis of this sentence led me down a long trail over an extended period of time to an understanding of the meaning of the statement and to an agreement with the meaning of that statement.
When studying philosophy I had read some of Plato's work and had a slight remembrance of one of his Dialogues in which he dealt with the subject of love. After some study of the particular Dialogue in question and some further study of Plato's general philosophy I realized what was meant by the point made in the sentence I had saved.
Plato wrote, "An unexamined life is not worth living". I find this a bit hyperbolic but nevertheless agree with the general point. Plato also argued that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another's character, or the more passive growth under another's guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love. Plato judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth.
I would not attempt to explain why Plato's Idealistic philosophy leads to this conclusion but I think one can find justification for this point of view by considering the nature of the parent to progeny relationship. Considering the nature of evolution one might easily discover that the origin of love could be observed in the obvious relationship of present day mammals. The educational relationship between the animal mother and their progeny are evident to the most casual observer.
I often watch the Discovery Channel on TV. As you probably know this channel often has a great documentary on animal life. Their audio/visual presentations give the viewer wonderful insights into the life of animals. Often the animals in question are large mammals such as lions, gorillas, monkeys, etc. I find verification of Plato's theory every time I see the relationship between mother and progeny in these documentaries.
Evolutionary Psychology is based on the theory that all human psychological traits, such as love, must be traceable to our evolutionary ancestors. The source of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals (perhaps).
I find this theory of love makes sense. Do you agree?
"I love my wife, but oh you babe!"
Nothing maternal or infantile there...
contrex wrote:"I love my wife, but oh you babe!"
Nothing maternal or infantile there...
The reason you love your wife and others is because you inherited the instinct from our ancestors.
coberst wrote:contrex wrote:"I love my wife, but oh you babe!"
Nothing maternal or infantile there...
The reason you love your wife and others is because you inherited the instinct from our ancestors.
OK, then, professor, why do I love Mozart, or France, or the rock music of Indochine, or the poetry of Christina Rossetti?
contrex wrote:coberst wrote:contrex wrote:"I love my wife, but oh you babe!"
Nothing maternal or infantile there...
The reason you love your wife and others is because you inherited the instinct from our ancestors.
OK, then, professor, why do I love Mozart, or France, or the rock music of Indochine, or the poetry of Christina Rossetti?
I love chocolate, I love mom, and I love April in Paris. Love is an instinct and love is an abstract idea. Remove all the contingencies and you are left with the emotion we call love. That feeling resulting from the emotion is really what we are speaking of. We attach that feeling to many things. Just as we attach fear to many things and these emotions help the species to survive.
coberst,
Whereas I endorse your focus on "innate tendencies" I think you will find that Plato's concept of "love" was particularly illustrated by him in the form of homosexual "love" between young man and mentor. Love for or by woman was considered an inferior form by Plato and his contemporaries.
I suggest you read "the Symposium" if you have not already done so.
fresco wrote:coberst,
Whereas I endorse your focus on "innate tendencies" I think you will find that Plato's concept of "love" was particularly illustrated by him in the form of homosexual "love" between young man and mentor. Love for or by woman was considered an inferior form by Plato and his contemporaries.
I suggest you read "the Symposium" if you have not already done so.
Symposium was my source for the quote in the OP.
Quote:Symposium was my source for the quote in the OP.
There's reading and there's READING*.
The quotation you have selected refers specifically to homosexual or "heavenly" love and is therefore inappropriate.
However, Plato
does attempt to temper this by citing the views of Diotima (the wise woman) but this is geared to the view of "love" as a "yearning for immortality". In order to use Plato to support your thesis you would therefore need to make a connection between the concept of "love as immortality"and that of the role of the status of
individuals vis-a-vis transmortality of
the species by transmission of "knowledge".
*If you read Derrida you might appreciate the view that "text" can never stand "in its own right". Plato's texts have "significance" firstly with respect to the zeitgeisst of ancient Athens, AND only secondly with respect to the context of the observation event of a specific reader. Your "bell ringing" involves the latter but not the former.
fresco wrote:Quote:Symposium was my source for the quote in the OP.
There's reading and there's READING*.
The quotation you have selected refers specifically to homosexual or "heavenly" love and is therefore inappropriate.
However, Plato
does attempt to temper this by citing the views of Diotima (the wise woman) but this is geared to the view of "love" as a "yearning for immortality". In order to use Plato to support your thesis you would therefore need to make a connection between the concept of "love as immortality"and that of the role of the status of
individuals vis-a-vis transmortality of
the species by transmission of "knowledge".
*If you read Derrida you might appreciate the view that "text" can never stand "in its own right". Plato's texts have "significance" firstly with respect to the zeitgeisst of ancient Athens, AND only secondly with respect to the context of the observation event of a specific reader. Your "bell ringing" involves the latter but not the former.
Good point. So would you say that we have an instinctive drive for immortality? I think that Freud might agree with you in that regard.
I suspect that the instinctive feeling caused by love is displayed in our self love that is also our survival instinct. We call it the survival instinct but it is probably the love instinct as focused upon the self. Therein we also see the "yearning for immortality".
Not quite,
Freud, if I remember correctly, said the"death wish" was a powerful instinct (the yearning to return to the quiesence of the womb). Dawkins on the other hand, with his concept of "the Selfish Gene" implies that species survival takes precedence over survival of the individual... hence the hypothesis for the existence of an "altruism gene". Widely interpreted, "altruism" could include nurturing behaviour.
In spiritual terms, it is the transcendence of ego (i.e. the
death of "self") which is the door to
holistic immortality.
Quote:Where the self is, love is not.
J. Krishnamurti
fresco wrote:Not quite,
Freud, if I remember correctly, said the"death wish" was a powerful instinct (the yearning to return to the quiesence of the womb). Dawkins on the other hand, with his concept of "the Selfish Gene" implies that species survival takes precedence over survival of the individual... hence the hypothesis for the existence of an "altruism gene". Widely interpreted, "altruism" could include nurturing behaviour.
In spiritual terms, it is the transcendence of ego (i.e. the
death of "self") which is the door to
holistic immortality.
Quote:Where the self is, love is not.
J. Krishnamurti
I do not know enough about Eastern religion/philosophy to comment about such a matter.
Quote:I do not know enough about Eastern religion/philosophy to comment about such a matter.
...yet you felt your knowledge of Plato and Freud was sufficient ?
fresco wrote:Quote:I do not know enough about Eastern religion/philosophy to comment about such a matter.
...yet you felt your knowledge of Plato and Freud was sufficient ?
I have studied these two individuals but have never studied Eastern religion/philosophy.
coberst,
Your use of the word "study" is the critical issue. Unless you have attended classes or have engaged in "compare and contrast..." or "discuss..." type assignments and submitted them for academic comment, "study" is prone to be self-delusional . But of course I realise you are likely to reject this view as it does not sit comfortably with the picture of yourself as the apocrphyal "September Scholar". (As a typical contrastive example with respect to your "self-directed" mode, the evening course on "the Symposium". which I attended last year, involved eight two hour sessions plus assignments.)
Do you mean "nonsense"....that your your investment in the "September Scholar" syndrome makes you reject the view ?
BTW. While you consider your answer to that, here's an interesting coincidence regarding your "study" of
Becker (whose major interest in "immortality yearning" was surprisingly not raised by you !).
Allan Gulette. University of Tennessee wrote
Quote:In his argument, (in Denial of Death) Becker relies heavily on ontological assumptions in formulating the "problem" to which he tries to provide a "solution." It seems to me that he sets up his problem in such a way that its solution is nearly impossible, logically speaking. In discussing this, I will state my own ontological prejudices and suggest how the "problem" at issue might be solve or dissolved. This will entail criticism of the basic assumption of the universality or necessity of the fear of death. I will criticize Becker's ontological biases, expose his ignorance of mysticism and Eastern religious philosophy, and defend the latter against his criticism.
A theory of love? Certainly, this concept is fun to tinker with, but I feel the same major reservation with "theory" here that I do when I encounter people and/or their behavior's being analyzed by number. Love (between human animals) strikes me as far too complex to be approached with a theory; rather, love would seem to generate an endless number of hypotheses.
The theory that is presented above definitely has intellectual merit, but I believe that, at best, it describes only one characteristic of love--not the whole experience. Where is the pleasurable craziness that is almost universally involved in love--even lasting love? That aspect of love does not lend itself to theory. We are, thankfully, individuals, and our love relationships with other individuals quite naturally will have an immensely complicated base, a complication futher intensified and expanded by the fact that our vision is changing all the time, as are the exterior circumstances of our lives.
If I were to grow to love another, and I had never sensed with this person moments of strong imblance or fleeting connections to infinite possibility, I'd know that I wasn't genuinely in love. On the other hand, we might be extremely good friends, with similar sensibilities and beliefs, and with a very deep intellectual and emotional rapport. Such a friend might well be more demonstrably valuable to me--and I to the friend--than a lover. Even knowing that, I am attracted to Romantic love, with its strange vicissitudes, because its innate randomness better echoes the human condition for me.
I suspect that the instinctive feeling caused by love is displayed in our self love that is also our survival instinct. We call it the survival instinct but it is probably the love instinct as focused upon the self.
Without the guidance of the parent the young cannot survive. As I watch these shows of animals in the wild on the Discovery Channel it seems so clear to me that this is the origin of the instinct we call love.
Truth for a lion cub is what is the correct manner to deal with a snake, or an elephant, or etc. All of which the cub learns from the mother.
Love is an instinct without which mammals would not have survived.
We have all kinds of ways to use the word love. If we remove all the contingencies we will find that in all cases the essence of love is an emotion, i.e. an instinct.
I love chocolate, I love mom, and I love April in Paris. Love is an instinct and love is an abstract idea. Remove all the contingencies and you are left with the emotion we call love. That feeling resulting from the emotion is really what we are speaking of. We attach that feeling to many things. Just as we attach fear to many things and these emotions help the species to survive.
We assign the same word to many things. I suspect that in many cases we are assigning the improper word. When I say I love cookies I suspect we are using the wrong word. However there is a feeling that results from emotion, which is an instinct, and that feeling like the feeling of fear can save or life. Without such an instinct the species could never have survived.
The notion of "instinct" has been discredited in zoological circles since about 1930.
Quote:As I watch these shows of animals in the wild on the Discovery Channel
So that's where you get all that knowledge from! I did not realise just what a rigorous scholar you were, Oberst-Leutnant.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace