Love (Humans)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 12:28 (3933 days ago)

DAVID(under "Theistic evolution"): We are back to how do you know that you love your wife, or she loves you?-TONY: Fortunately I do not suffer with this. In my world view, love is an action word, completely demonstrable. If that action is accompanied by a feeling, so much the better, but feelings are flighty things which often waver in their strength, while action can be resolute. Which is better, to demonstrate love even when you are emotionally wiped out and numb, or to demonstrate it when you are happy and feeling good?-I would suggest that actions are motivated by feelings: if I love someone, I am likely to act more sympathetically than if I can't stand them. People can "demonstrate" love in order to deceive ... Mr X "lovingly" kisses his wife and kids goodbye (action) before flying off to a business conference that has long blonde hair and a negligee. But if he feels love for his wife and kids, I would suggest he's less likely to fly off.
 
How do we know we love someone or are loved by them? I'd hate to define love, but I recognize it when I feel it in myself, so I know I love my family because of my feelings, and I hope my actions show what I feel. Similarly, I believe my family feel what I feel, though I can only judge by their actions. "Feelings are flighty things": yeah, well everything human is flighty, but actions in my experience are generally short-term, and DEPEND on feelings! So I'm afraid I take the opposite view to yours: just as grief is the emotion that makes you cry (action), fear the emotion that makes you scream (action), love is a feeling which expresses itself when you say (action) or do (action) things that will help, comfort, bring happiness to those you love.

Love

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, June 14, 2013, 17:48 (3930 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID(under "Theistic evolution"): We are back to how do you know that you love your wife, or she loves you?
> 
> TONY: Fortunately I do not suffer with this. In my world view, love is an action word, completely demonstrable. If that action is accompanied by a feeling, so much the better, but feelings are flighty things which often waver in their strength, while action can be resolute. Which is better, to demonstrate love even when you are emotionally wiped out and numb, or to demonstrate it when you are happy and feeling good?
> 
>DHW: I would suggest that actions are motivated by feelings: if I love someone, I am likely to act more sympathetically than if I can't stand them. People can "demonstrate" love in order to deceive... I believe my family feel what I feel, though I can only judge by their actions. "Feelings are flighty things": yeah, well everything human is flighty, but actions in my experience are generally short-term, and DEPEND on feelings! So I'm afraid I take the opposite view to yours: just as grief is the emotion that makes you cry (action), fear the emotion that makes you scream (action), love is a feeling which expresses itself when you say (action) or do (action) things that will help, comfort, bring happiness to those you love.-I think the differences come from the assumption that my view depended upon an outside observer. What I mean is, it is obvious that the man in the example you gave does NOT love his wife, because his actions demonstrate that he does not. If his wife is unaware of his actions, or his mistress for that matter, it does not change the fact that he has demonstrated a lack of love for either one through his actions. The truth of a thing is independent from the observation of it. If all things were perceivable and the observer possessed perfect knowledge, it would be self-evident that the man did not love his wife. In short, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about the perception of love, as it is observed by the recipients or other outsiders, and I am talking about the thing itself. -As to whether it is motivated by feelings, let me give you an illustration. A few days ago I had a layover in Amsterdam, and took the opportunity to wonder around the city a bit and see what all the fuss was about. At one point during the evening, a very interesting and animated homeless man took it upon himself to give me a guided tour. He was such a likable fellow that I went along with it(though I was keeping a mindful watch on my personal affects and safety). Throughout the tour I witnessed him giving good, practical safety advice to at least a dozen different naive tourist without asking for anything in exchange or even waiting around long enough for them to say thank you. -This man is a wonderful example of what I am talking about. Though he did not know any of them, and thus could not have had any warm feelings towards them as individuals, he demonstrated loving kindness to them by the simple act of giving them warnings of possible dangers without asking or expecting anything in return. Likewise, he gave me a very enjoyable thirty minute tour of the down town area, without once asking or begging for anything. Why? As he said himself, he loved the town, and loved the people in it. -If he said he loved them, but failed to act, then he did not love. If he felt the emotion, but did not act, then he did not love. This is ultimately my point. While your emotions may in fact be the catalyst for your actions, and they do not have to be, if you do not ACT upon them, then the emotions themselves are meaningless. The man in your example may have indeed flown away regardless, but if he loved his wife, he would have been faithful to her. The emotion might be the catalyst for the ACT, but the ACT would DEMONSTRATE the emotion in a concrete way.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Love

by dhw, Saturday, June 15, 2013, 12:32 (3930 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: [...] actions in my experience are generally short-term, and DEPEND on feelings! So I'm afraid I take the opposite view to yours: just as grief is the emotion that makes you cry (action), fear the emotion that makes you scream (action), love is a feeling which expresses itself when you say (action) or do (action) things that will help, comfort, bring happiness to those you love.-In your reply, you have given us the delightful example of a homeless man who took you on a tour of Amsterdam.-TONY: Why? As he said himself, he loved the town, and loved the people in it. If he said he loved them, but failed to act, then he did not love. If he felt the emotion, but did not act, then he did not love. This is ultimately my point. While your emotions may in fact be the catalyst for your actions, and they do not have to be, if you do not ACT upon them, then the emotions themselves are meaningless. The man in your example may have indeed flown away regardless, but if he loved his wife, he would have been faithful to her. The emotion might be the catalyst for the ACT, but the ACT would DEMONSTRATE the emotion in a concrete way.-I see absolutely no difference between us, other than your insistence that love is an action and not a feeling. You wrote that "feelings are flighty things which often waver in their strength, while action can be resolute". I would argue that if the feeling is flighty (love her on Monday, hate her on Tuesday), the action will express the flightiness (flowers on Monday, door-slamming on Tuesday), and that is exactly the same as saying "the ACT would DEMONSTRATE the emotion in a concrete way." Emotion first, then action. Therefore love is the emotion, and action is the demonstration of the emotion, or "love is a feeling which expresses itself when you say (action) or do (action) things that will help, comfort, bring happiness to those you love."

Love

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, June 16, 2013, 06:29 (3929 days ago) @ dhw

But which comes first?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Love

by dhw, Sunday, June 16, 2013, 20:44 (3928 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony and I are discussing the nature of love, which Tony regards as an action, whereas I in my conventionality see it as an emotion. Tony in his previous post wrote: "The emotion may be the catalyst for the ACT, but the ACT would DEMONSTRATE the emotion in a concrete way."-dhw: I see absolutely no difference between us, other than your insistence that love is an action and not a feeling. You wrote that "feelings are flighty things which often waver in their strength, while action can be resolute". I would argue that if the feeling is flighty (love her on Monday, hate her on Tuesday), the action will express the flightiness (flowers on Monday, door-slamming on Tuesday), and that is exactly the same as saying "the ACT would DEMONSTRATE the emotion in a concrete way." Emotion first, then action. Therefore love is the emotion, and action is the demonstration of the emotion, or "love is a feeling which expresses itself when you say (action) or do (action) things that will help, comfort, bring happiness to those you love."-TONY: But which comes first?-In my commonsense world, as opposed to the quantum world, cause precedes effect, motive precedes action, and so love the emotion precedes the actions that express or demonstrate it. I still can't see how, using your own terms, the fact that an ACT DEMONSTRATES the emotion of love makes love an action and not an emotion!

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum