About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 6:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Today at work, I was sitting around waiting for someone, and overheard two girls talking.  One of them was complaining about her boyfriend, and how he'd go get drunk with his friends at strip bars on the weekend, or something.  I grew bored, but focused on the conversation when she said "I just can't leave him though, we love each other unconditionally."
Weird stuff.  So I started to think about that little phrase.

The term is used often in Christian religions for the love of God, and how our love as men ought to be like His.  This is curious to me, since the phrase does not appear anywhere in the Bible.  It seems to have been an invention or misinterpretation throughout the years.  In fact, the New Testament is very clear that the reverse is true, or that God loves those who keep his commandments.  I guess it makes people feel better to say "God loves us all the same."
 

Whether you believe in God or not, an analysis may be useful.  If God’s love is indeed unconditional, it would mean that he loved someone who had murdered innocent children in cold blood as much as his faithful follower.  Remember, the fact that you did not kill children in cold blood is a condition, or qualifier.  Is this how we should love?  Perhaps God’s love will never stop entirely, but it may decrease.  It should thus be called infinite and eternal, in order to avoid confusion.

 

What most people mean when they say “unconditional” is that they will love forever.  It is best, however, that we understand that this is not truly unconditional.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to love someone more throughout the years, or as you saw the best inside of them.

 

Under unconditional love for all, you would be required to love the murderer as much as your family.  The fact that they are your family, and that you know them, is a condition.  Remember that the next time your sweetheart tells “I love you.”  If it were unconditional, it would be equal to saying “You are a human.”  Since all humans would be loved the same, without condition.  Touching, isn’t it?

 

 A qualified love is so much deeper, and so much more meaningful.  I do not mean to imply that loving people is as simple as adding up their best qualities vs. their worst.  I only suggest that we must understand and appreciate the best parts of that person in order to truly love them.  I have not attempted to explain, nor shall I ever attempt to detail all of the feelings that love may produce.  The joy and the pure feeling of endearment cannot be expressed adequately, and never are felt quite in the same way. 

 

Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir, no?


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As Joseph correctly noted, unconditional love is a myth.  Perhaps we will love him more if he corrects the spelling in the subject line of this thread to add a "c"!  ;)  Just click the magnifier icon, Joseph.

I think part of the motive behind "unconditional love" arises from the feelings of it we had as infants.  If ever a time arises to call for love without conditions, it comes during birth and infancy.  A baby demands attention and care, i.e. love, around the clock during its first weeks.  Those feelings of total love and total security get lost as we grow older and our parents begin to expect more of us than just to eat, sleep and excrete.  Some people want to get them back no matter what.  Hence, the mythology of God the Father who loves his children no matter what came into being.

Another motive comes from the need to give love as well as to receive love.  Some people have such an urge, for whatever reason, to express love that they will pick targets willing to receive it even if those targets have profoundly destructive flaws.  Look at the women who marry men on death row.

This need for love arises from the more general emotional need for bonding.  Friendships, romances, kinships of various degrees, collegial organizations, etc. all serve as a means to that end.  While Ayn Rand considered man fundamentally as a rational animal, she also recognized him as a social animal as well.  Those who focus on their social nature while ignoring their rational nature can fall into the trap of "unconditional love."


Post 2

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Very well said.

Rand had little to say about development -- how we grow from totally dependent infants who can do nothing for ourselves into rational, social, independent and interdependent adults.

I don't think it interested her much or she didn't have the time, given the enormous number of other crucially important issues she addressed herself to.

How this development occurs is an understudied area in objectivism.

I have an article coming out in the next JARS (November) introducing objectivists to a powerful theory of emotion and how it operates in developing one's early "preverbal sense of life."

Steve Shmurak

Post 3

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, I would like to read that article.  I do not subscribe to JARS.  Will I need to order that particular issue of JARS or can you e-mail it to me?

Post 4

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There will be a Video CD that should be viewed along with reading the article. It will be included with the article in the next issue of JARS.

The CD shows infants displaying the nine innate affects that are the basis of all valid theorizing on emotion. These innate affects are the ostensive definitions of the basic emotions and need to be viewed and grasped along with reading the article.

So I will not be emailing the article out.

Information on subscribing to JARS is at

http://www.aynrandstudies.com



Post 5

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 4:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Steve.  I will see if I can order the issue upon publication.  Until that time, if you could synopsize the nine emotions, I would appreciate it.

Post 6

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

One of the strengths of objectivist epistemology is that all concepts are ultimately grounded in observables that can be pointed to -- ostensive definitions.

I want to follow that rule strictly and not label anything until people have the observables (the infants showing emotions on the CD) that the labels capture in front of them.

So, I'm going to have to leave you waiting until you get the issue of JARS.

The whole area of emotion has been open to terrible fuzziness due to the lack of ostensive definitions.

If I were to tell you anything now, before you have the ostensive definitions, I would just be compounding that error.

Steve

Post 7

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The writings of Piaget and Montessori go  long ways to enlarging on the development of emotions and particularly of love  among the infants and children....

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.