Both the old testament and the new teach that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. I think too, that other religions promote the loving of others (I’m sure other here can chime in and tell me). I don’t think this is a bad idea, even if you are a non-believer. It’s just that, I’m not too good at this loving thing - and beyond telling you that you should they don’t seem to tell you how. Mind you, I’m not hateful and mostly I’m a pretty nice guy. But perhaps not as nice as I could be and I don’t know how to love others. Sure, I love my mother, and my friends. Beyond that, I try to be nice, but can’t say that I *love * people.
How do you learn to love strangers? I mean, can someone point me to a step-by-step set of exercises that teach me how to be more caring? Is it possible to learn this skill?
I was not exactly sure where to put this. It is vaguely religion related, and it might create a bit of debate. On the other hand, at least part of it will have a factual answer and a lot of it will be opinion. Mods, please forgive me, I just was not sure.
Perhaps this will help you? From C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, the chapter on charity (heavily snipped):
Essentially, according to Lewis, you’re supposed to try to act as if you truly desired other people’s wellbeing and happiness as much as you want to be happy and well yourself. Keep it up, and before long you will find that you do actually desire their welfare more, and will continue to increase in goodwill.
This is what jumped to mind as I read your post (since I often have to remind myself that I don’t need to like people, I just have to love them!). I don’t know of any step-by-step programs for loving your neighbor, other than this.
That’s very nice for C.S. Lewis to say, but he doesn’t really support it with anything, does he. He just says to act like you care, and in so acting, that will cause you to care.
It sounds good, but…cite?
What is the evidence that acting will produce the real emotion? What if I’m a socipath, incapable of empathy. No amount of acting is ever going to produce any genuine love.
I would say that it’s still good to act like you love people and treat them well, not because it will make you care but because it’s already ipso facto the right thing to do. If it gives you a glow inside, that’s a bonus but it isn’t necessary.
I think Lewis’ point is that far too many people wait until they feel the glow inside before they perform any loving actions, and by extension will not respond with loving actions toward those they feel no glow for. Therein lies the root of prejudice and racism - those that are most different from us are also those it is hardest to “feel the glow” for, and therefore those that we are least likely to act lovingly toward. Lewis turns this on its head - the actions should precede the glow. As you say, it is the right thing to do in and of itself, and we shouldn’t be loving so that we may feel loving, but feeling loving is often a side-benefit of acting with love…
In another thread recently (on Polyamory) I tried to explain to folks that love is not an emotion, it is a choice. They couldn’t handle it. No wonder their relationships are all falling apart while mine endures.
Anyway: infatuation is an emotion we often mistake for love. Often possession and control get mixed up with what we call love, too.
Loving, as has already been said, means wanting the best for the object of one’s love, even if that is not what is best for you emotionally. Love is giving them freedom to choose when you are hoping they will choose you, and than accepting their choice with grace and contentment. (and happiness for their happiness)
Step by step?
[ul]
[li]Imagine that the other is you.[/li][li]What would you want others to do for you?[/li][li]Do that unto them.[/li][/ul]
Not too hard, on paper, but to really give others that freedom, especially when you want them to do things to satisfy your desires; that is love.
I think you’re confusing different [ur=http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/l/lo/love.html]types of “love” here, Khadaji. When one speaks of “loving strangers”, it is not [symbol]eros[/symbol] (eros) or [symbol]filius[/symbol] (filius), but [symbol]agape[/symbol] (agape) you speak of. This can be characterised as the general, charitable wish that others be well, an overriding niceness, that you said you try to achieve (even, and this is the hard part, if others are not being nice).
Even though I am as strong an atheist as one can be, such that were God to literally appear before me I would think I was being technologically deceived, I still wholeheartedly agree with Jesus and (the more popular!) John Lennon when they say All you need is love.
Did you miss the first sentence of the C. S. Lewis quote?
But it’s not at all far fetched to believe that our behavior can influence our emotions; I think modern psychology would accept this. For example, I’ve heard several references to the idea that, if you deliberately smile, your mood will improve as a result.
No, but I thought it was a distinction without a difference. He defines it as a “will,” and then follows that with a non-sequitur about “wishing well” for others. That’s an emotion, no matter what he says.
That’s a valid point, DC, and to address it I think we have to separate emotional love (infatuation, lust, possessiveness [like I love my bank account], and security [like family love, I love you cause of what you do for me]) from the love that Christians call “agapé” and I refer to as love by choice.
A sociopath is probably incapable of love in these terms. They do not have the well-being of others in mind, and would likely choose selfishness.
(We need a term to describe love-not-lust, infatuation or ownership. “Love” for most of us has all these meanings and most people can’t relate to love-as-choice, IME.)
Personally, when I talk of “love” it is love-by-choice I talk about, but our society “falls in love” (infatuation), “loves” their sexual partner (lust), “loves” their possessions (possessiveness), and “loves” those who provide for them (gratitude, security) and doesn’t have a clue about what I think is the most important type of love.
In my example, you don’t have to “act” anything. You choose. You don’t even have to like the object of your love; you just decide to love, and then align your actions with that choice.
When I first met my current wife, my immediate reaction was desire for possession; she was beautiful and I wanted to “own” her. As our relationship developed, I added lust in there, then gratitude (boy can she cook!) and security. Over time my feelings for her developed into a genuine desire to give her everything she wanted, so far as I am able. I realized that it was no longer lust, possessiveness, security, gratitude or infatuation that held us together, but a genuine concern for the happiness of the other.
That has also been a factor in transforming my relationships with others, and I love not only my wife, but others as well. I have realized that I have loved many others, but my societally-imposed notions of “love” have ruined many good relationships I have had in the past, and I went back and repaired those I could. This type of love, unconditional love, makes the world a better place in which to live, and I believe was the intent of Jesus, Gandhi, John Lennon and others who sought to set us free.
My family is polyamorous, but intimacy is not necessary to love others. You can love many others in many types of ways and in many degrees: as you choose.
IMHO, if you don’t choose, it isn’t love; you’re being fooled.