| | Hi Joe,
This has become a very interesting and revealing thread. I really do not like to take the time to address this, but I see so many wrong things here, I feel compelled to at least attempt to address some of them.
I have been very surprised by three things that seem to be asserted unquestionably by various posters:
The first is that "love" for family members is in some sense automatic and based on nothing more than the fact that they are family members.
The second is that there is something "abnormal" about not loving family members, especially close family members, barring unusual circumstances.
The third is the tacit assumption, not stated, but implied throughout, that "love" is some kind of feeling.
I begin with the last.
Feelings
Love is not a feeling. You, yourself, Joe, seem to imply that in your own statements, "I don't feel any sort of love for them," and this, "They know that, perhaps, it's silly to love somebody by (as Firehammer adequately pointed out) an accident of birth, but they still, nevertheless, feel an inexplicable love."
The feelings we feel as a result of love, and sometimes refer to as love, are not the love itself, but, like all feelings and emotions, are our response to our own thoughts, values, and principles. Love, like all our other evaluations produces profound feelings, but the feelings themselves are not the love.
This is a long quote from Ayn Rand, and it addresses another issue altogether, the true nature of the integration of reason and emotion, but how the principle that applies to love will be obvious:
An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others. [Ayn Rand, "Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand," pamphlet, page 6.] Ayn Rand frequently used the expression, "To love is to value." [For example, see The Virtue of Selfishness, Page 32] But here is a better example:
"To love is to value. ... When it comes to love ... you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if you're incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; you are not so careful to protect the meaning , the nature and the dignity of love. ... Love is the expression of one's values...."
Isn't love for family members, just because they are family members, no matter what kind of people they are, no matter if the are of any value to you or not, "causeless love?" Isn't love for someone for which one cannot explain the reason beyond, "well, she's my sister," or "he's my brother," or "she's my mom," or, "he's my dad," the very kind of inexplicable, "feeling," that ought to be considered pathological?
Normal
This brings me to the second false assertion, "there is something "abnormal" about not loving family members."
This idea is entirely the product of two sides of the same coin, religion on one side, psychology on the other; the coins name is credulity. Religion demands belief in its teachings on the basis of "faith" and "revelation." Psychology demands belief in its teachings on the basis of "science" and "authority." It is obvious what is wrong with "faith" and "revelation," and even "authority," but what is wrong with "science?" If psychology were legitimate science, nothing would be wrong with it, but psychology is not science at all; psychology is possibly the biggest fraud every perpetrated, couching logical absurdities in the language of science. It is the ultimate quackery.
The whole purpose of psychology, as it is actually practiced, both clinically and academically, is to identify anything that is the least bit unusual in behavior as a psychological disease. Whatever is not, "normal," which in psychological terms means whatever most people do or what is currently accepted (either by society at large or political expediency) is a "disease of the mind," requiring, naturally, the services of a professional, "disease of the mind" doctor (which in former times were called "witch doctors").
Natural
The idea that anyone who does not "feel" familial love is abnormal is a baseless, immoral teaching propounded by the two great superstitions of our day, religion and psychology. If there is anyone with a "psychological problem," it is the person whose feelings are "inexplicable;" the person who just, "feels love for their family," because ..., well, just because they do, which is the first assertion being made on this thread. It's, natural, it's "normal," it's involuntary like a yawn or a burp, and just as valueless. Why do people have these inexplicable familial feelings? Religion explains it is the way God made you. Psychology explains it is the way biology made you.
Why Joe said, Just that I'm in an unusual situation, in that I don't, and, as far as I can tell, never have, loved any member of my family in virtue of the people being members of my family. I have a hard time understanding how it is that the rest of the world seems to do so.
That is unusual, Joe. All virtues are unusual.
Individuals who think for themselves are unusual, most people think whatever they have been taught to think, by their family, peers, and whatever assorted authorities they have chosen to follow. People who are fully self-sufficient and self-supporting are unusual. People who are ruthlessly honest are unusual. People who do not go through life with inexplicable feelings, desires, passions, and whims are unusual.
Why does, "the rest of the world," seem to have these feelings of love that are foreign to you? It is just because they do have it backwards--instead of understanding their emotions are the automatic response to their values, they make their feelings the cause of their values. In stead of trying discover the cause and reason for their inexplicable reasons, they attempt to justify their feelings by adjusting their values to fit them. When they cannot do that, to seek the aid of their religion or psychologists.
The, "rest of the world," are whim-worshippers, which on another thread, Gordon Ellis got exactly right.
He says, quoting Rand,
"A 'whim' is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause." ... referring to people who blindly act on their desires, whatever those desires might be. Or perhaps more to the point, "whim-worshipping" is elevating your desires to be the standard of morality (i.e. "It is right because I desire it"). Regi
|
|