We need a definition. How about this tentative attempt?: Love consists of 1) an unconscious or instinctive sentiment that invites connection, and 2) a conscious commitment to the person (or community?) that is the object of this sentiment.
Given this starting point, I would perhaps say that nature offers us an invitation to love, but can’t give us love. For it to be love, we have to accept the invitation and engage our own will in the effort.
Haha. A subset of 1), but specific to sexual attraction. Not sufficient to motivate the raising of children or maintenance of long-term healthy relationships.
For many years, I’ve thought that love is a strange defense mechanism against a different form of violence. I realize that sounds weird, and believe it or not I’ve never had a traumatic love experience; in fact, I have been with my partner (and now, our daughter) for about 15 years. I think I’ve been in love at least a few times or more, but the concept of love seems to be so rooted in self-defense, universal, that it’s hard to not see love in dimensions of self preservation. To make matters more muddied, I doubt a plurality of children are even born as a function of love, but rather lust. I’m not sure love and lust are necessarily correlated. When I think of love, I think of an asymptotic approach to something that never connects. The sensation is that one is moving toward a specific endpoint, but that place never arrives - it’s always somewhere else, on the continuum of approach. And quite often, it’s that continuum of approach that makes love last.
It seems that humans only have a few first order (or “first class”) emotions, the most notable is fear. I don’t deny, but I question, whether love is its own first-class emotion. I don’t think love and fear are necessary different sensations. I’m not saying that love is violence, only that the sensation can be experienced in dimension of fear.
We need a definition. How about this tentative attempt?: Love consists of 1) an unconscious or instinctive sentiment that invites connection, and 2) a conscious commitment to the person (or community?) that is the object of this sentiment.
Given this starting point, I would perhaps say that nature offers us an invitation to love, but can’t give us love. For it to be love, we have to accept the invitation and engage our own will in the effort.
That’s great.
How would you define lust?
Haha. A subset of 1), but specific to sexual attraction. Not sufficient to motivate the raising of children or maintenance of long-term healthy relationships.
For many years, I’ve thought that love is a strange defense mechanism against a different form of violence. I realize that sounds weird, and believe it or not I’ve never had a traumatic love experience; in fact, I have been with my partner (and now, our daughter) for about 15 years. I think I’ve been in love at least a few times or more, but the concept of love seems to be so rooted in self-defense, universal, that it’s hard to not see love in dimensions of self preservation. To make matters more muddied, I doubt a plurality of children are even born as a function of love, but rather lust. I’m not sure love and lust are necessarily correlated. When I think of love, I think of an asymptotic approach to something that never connects. The sensation is that one is moving toward a specific endpoint, but that place never arrives - it’s always somewhere else, on the continuum of approach. And quite often, it’s that continuum of approach that makes love last.
“love is a strange defense mechanism against a different form of violence.” I don’t understand this. Can you please elaborate?
It seems that humans only have a few first order (or “first class”) emotions, the most notable is fear. I don’t deny, but I question, whether love is its own first-class emotion. I don’t think love and fear are necessary different sensations. I’m not saying that love is violence, only that the sensation can be experienced in dimension of fear.