Necessary love?
February 19th 2007 05:48
Some love-talk treats the fact of love (and occasionally the force of it) as necessary. You find elements of this in romantic discourse of soulmates and destiny, and you find elements in evolutionary discourse of pheremones, pair-bonding, and maternal affection.
Such beliefs are convenient. It's comforting to think that destiny brought and keeps you together -- and discomforting to contemplate the fragility of any situation, the lack of guarantees.
If you were raised to believe in necessity, then there will be humorous moments (I'd suggest) when the lie begins to shatter. The older you get, the more you're struck by possibility.
In fact, the more you tend to believe in choice -- no destiny, but only choice; no God, but only choice.
On this view, there is no right person, nor any wrong person. And it's not the world's job to deliver you a partner, but your job to go and find one. And it's not written anywhere who you do and don't end up with, but the matter is in your hands.
Perhaps no one ever felt love. Only closeness, attraction, tenderness... -- but not love.
We know love as abstraction. We know love description-built, out of many particulars. We know love as hidden cause. "This is done out of love." "That was done because of love." "This is an example of love."
But if the causal throne is empty -- if there's no unitary spring from which diverse rivulets flow -- well mightn't the language retain meaning?
Isn't hidden cause already as good as no cause at all?
In this case, love would only ever have resided in the external, and not the interior, and it wouldn't be an emotion. To speak of love would be to talk neither of states, nor of causes, but only of doings, of actions.
So the daily experience of love might be of doings, not feelings; and of options, with no necessity that you'll love or be loved.
Practical language already embraces this conclusion. Instead of "love", one speaks of "relationships" -- and a relationship is a concrete thing, that's nothing to do with spirit, and is always precarious.
One takes little for granted.
One talks of healthy and unhealthy, of maintaining and nurturing, of courting and wooing, as if there ways to create love, or to make people fall for you.
One signs prenuptials, discusses the pros and cons of work romances, makes rules about not dating friends' exes.
The myth of destiny meets the learnable techniques of the pickup artist -- and loses.
And romance meets existentialism -- and whatever worlds love might conquer, free will is not among them.
And would you want necessary love?
Perhaps the necessary, choiceless love is no love at all.
Such beliefs are convenient. It's comforting to think that destiny brought and keeps you together -- and discomforting to contemplate the fragility of any situation, the lack of guarantees.
***
If you were raised to believe in necessity, then there will be humorous moments (I'd suggest) when the lie begins to shatter. The older you get, the more you're struck by possibility.
In fact, the more you tend to believe in choice -- no destiny, but only choice; no God, but only choice.
On this view, there is no right person, nor any wrong person. And it's not the world's job to deliver you a partner, but your job to go and find one. And it's not written anywhere who you do and don't end up with, but the matter is in your hands.
***
Perhaps no one ever felt love. Only closeness, attraction, tenderness... -- but not love.
We know love as abstraction. We know love description-built, out of many particulars. We know love as hidden cause. "This is done out of love." "That was done because of love." "This is an example of love."
But if the causal throne is empty -- if there's no unitary spring from which diverse rivulets flow -- well mightn't the language retain meaning?
Isn't hidden cause already as good as no cause at all?
In this case, love would only ever have resided in the external, and not the interior, and it wouldn't be an emotion. To speak of love would be to talk neither of states, nor of causes, but only of doings, of actions.
***
So the daily experience of love might be of doings, not feelings; and of options, with no necessity that you'll love or be loved.
Practical language already embraces this conclusion. Instead of "love", one speaks of "relationships" -- and a relationship is a concrete thing, that's nothing to do with spirit, and is always precarious.
One takes little for granted.
One talks of healthy and unhealthy, of maintaining and nurturing, of courting and wooing, as if there ways to create love, or to make people fall for you.
One signs prenuptials, discusses the pros and cons of work romances, makes rules about not dating friends' exes.
***
The myth of destiny meets the learnable techniques of the pickup artist -- and loses.
And romance meets existentialism -- and whatever worlds love might conquer, free will is not among them.
***
And would you want necessary love?
Perhaps the necessary, choiceless love is no love at all.
| 122 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
MS Paint Art
And what of parental love? It seems to fill in a few of the holes.
Go out and get it? Around every corner I look, if I see anything at all I usually don't like the look of them.
But there are exceptions. Sometimes being a realist is like a harness and romantic love can lie hopelessly far in the other direction.
katyzzz
Comment by Anonymous
Then later on you say perhaps love does not exist at all (only attraction, tenderness etc). What about a love a mother has for her children? Is this merely duty? Biological programming?
Interesting topic choice.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I love is a delusion the sometime it is better to be deluded and happy than realistic and unhappy.
Comment by Anonymous
Of course, maybe it takes thinking to grasp what you just said, and I can't do that so good right now. I'll revisit and rethink when I'm a little less bent.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Katy,
I think parental love is pretty much the same as any other kind. It's not unconditional (the impulse of love doesn't trump every other impulse), it's not necessary (it's always in the parents' power to walk away), and it's mostly a matter of doings rather than feelings (there's little distinctive subjective experience that distinguishes it from other emotions -- happiness, tenderness, closeness, etc).
Dear first Anon,
A very hard set of questions to answer.
As you might or might know, I'm pretty much a determinist when it comes to free will. That is, I believe that every "choice" one makes is a result of a cause and effect chain. As Hume says, we never have a direct experience of free will -- we only experience one sensation following another.
There's several cop-out answers I could give, none satisfying. But the first that comes to mind is the necessity of operating under the illusion of free will -- as if you had it -- even though you don't. And the illusion is always with us -- it's always in our power to actively make a play for someone to form a relationship with them, or to walk away from an existing relationship.
Well, it's not that I doubt love, as such. But I suggest that it might not be what people think it is. Just like Santa Claus comes out of all the various descriptions attributed to Santa Claus, so love is the equivalent of all its various descriptions. That is, it's a "hidden cause", an imaginary placeholder, and the meaningful part of it is the acts that are supposed to attach to it. It's a single place from which all these different acts are supposed to flow -- whereas, in reality, perhaps acts of love come from diverse places.
I don't know that maternal love is an exception, though I'm open to being persuaded that it is. At the moment, I think all the acts that are attributed to it come from diverse places, including the intimacy of living with this lifeform inside you for 9 months. There's no unitary spring in your head called "love".
Dear Damo,
You non-romantic you...
Dear second Anon,
It's important to call bullshit when you see it -- especially in the context of this blog. All these ideas are experimental, hypothesizing, testing...
When I talk about choice and love, I mean, for instance, that you always have the power to walk away, that there's no love that's strong enough to guarantee a relationship.
This doesn't mean you won't cop the consequences; it doesn't mean you won't suffer emotional withdrawal.
So I'm not saying we have rational control over emotions. But I'm making love out to be mainly a matter of actions, and saying that we do have control over these.
Comment by MelissaA
Fun Facts
I have to point out the obvious here as a parent myself, but for you to have that opinion Adrian clearly points to the fact that you have no children of your own.
If possibly one day in the future, the dilemma should present itself at your feet as the father of a new born baby Adrian, I can tell you now that you will realise just how wrong you are about this one.
To have a child of your own that is a part of you - the warmth and overpowering love that you feel for that child is greater than any other force, love or otherwise in the world. But alas, you can never truly appreciate what I am saying until that moment occurs.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
When I talk about love not being unconditional, I'm mainly thinking about extreme cases. My previous post was about this.
And, in thinking about your comment, I don't think you really disagree with me. I think it's more a matter of my not having made my argument clear enough.
So here it is...
There's a question firstly about what acts count as "committed out of love". Say that protection of the loved one's life is one of these.
Well, the sorts of extremes I'm thinking about are: Would you kill yourself and your partner to save your child? Would you cannibalize and torture innocent people to save your child? Would you detonate the rest of the world to save your child?
If you wouldn't, then the impulse of love isn't "overpowering" in the sense that it doesn't trump every other impulse.
I'm also thinking about the fact that people abandon their children all the time, and many cultures have endorsed infanticide under certain circumstances.
It's true that I don't truly appreciate the strength of parental attachment to children -- I can only go by my own experience of the world, and by my own actions and feelings.
But, based on these, I feel I'm entitled to the view that even parental love is not unconditional, and not necessary...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
The more I think about it, the less unconditional and necessary parental love seems to me... Making me think I've missed your point?
It seems to be everyday experience that parents neglect their children... If caring for a person's welfare counts as an act committed out of love, then it seems that parents routinely put other impulses ahead of this one, that love is not always first.
Bumped into the following quote from a biography of Carl Sagan:
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Perhaps I should explain what i meant.
Many people belive mathes are made in heaven but kept on Earth.
Some men court angels but find they have married witches. Some women find a prince that become a toad. The reality is that it takes sacrifice to make any relationship work. Sacrifice, hardwork and putting selfishness aside so that you can enjoy each other.
Something are worth sacrificing for.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
But why believe that they're made in heaven at all? Perhaps they're both made and kept on earth...
I think it's rather cynical of you to treat love as a matter of enjoying each other.
At best, this regulates love to second-place. Its value becomes instrumental, not intrinsic -- it serves happiness.
Comment by Wendi
I believe people most often confuse love with other processes - obsession, control, co-dependency, need for acceptance, lust, a need to breed. That's not to say true love doesn't exist, but that it is most often attributed to thoughts/emotions/actions that have little to do with "love".
I stand with the parents on this one... romantic love is one thing; parental love is a different thing entirely. And keep in mind, "loving" someone doesn't always mean doing what's in your own best interest. Where true love exists, you do what is in the best interrest of the one you love, even if it means letting them go. That applies to parental love in addition to romantic love. The need to possess does not equate to love. Don't give me that, "... but I can't live without you" B.S. - yes, you can.
I absolutely and positively do not believe in the whole "one true love" charade. Soul mates? Perhaps, if loosely defined and not confined to one perfect match. We're all soul mates, but the amount of impact we have on one another varies.
Loving and being "in love" are not the same.
There. I did it. I never claimed it woud make sense. *SMILES*
W
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
"Business marriages" are becoming more popular in the states especially in second marriages. Both parties create cost benefit analysis, compare results, hire lawyers and financial planners, get medical records, and complete background checks. If both partners pass muster then a plan for courtship is made. Wow truly love american style. So much for soul mates and true love.
Mis
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
finished the post. Will comment again on here when my brain decides to work again.
JZ
Comment by MelissaA
Fun Facts
OK, I was in a bit of a bad mood when I posted (don't ask), so I was experiencing a certain degree of tunnel vision.
I was considering my relationship to my kids, which is exactly what I commented on, as to me, them and my husband are my only REAL family.
However, I later reflected on my own negative upbringing and realised that to some extent that's what you were talking about. How ever, in those cases the word neccessary, yes, does apply, but not love. It is more a case of looking after your kids ( to a degree) because you brought them into this world and no-one else is going to do it for you - but that's not love. However for many, that is family.
I also must apologise for not having time to read your previous post - I didn't even notice the title of it until I finished my post and thought 'how ironic' that i used the same exact words!
There are not enough hours in my day! ; )