Human identification isn’t based on a “point of identification”. It’s based on our magical ability to track a moving target. Every single thing about you could change, and I could still identify you as you as long as they didn’t all change at the same time. Which means that none of the attributes is individually a condition for identification. Not one of them! And, similarly, not a single one of them is a condition for love.
For your position to be true, there would have to be a way that you could change that would stop you from being loved. There would reliably have to be such a way, for every instance of love. And this is simply not an assertion that you can support.
If you love a person but can’t identify them, perhaps due to having a blindfold, your love doesn’t cease. Love can be (and indeed, if you think about it, must be and always is) directed at the mental record of a person, and then from there to the physical instantiation of the person as they’re percieved by you in your senses, rather than at the physical person directly bypassing the mental record and senses. To require the latter direct connection doesn’t just fly in the face of the way humans think about people and objects - it defies the laws of physics.
Harping on the possible failings of the senses in the identification process is pretty much completely missing the point. You can unconditionally love somebody who no longer exists, because you (necessarily) direct love at mental records and not physical instantiations. That’s because the term talks about the emotion and not the senses at all.
I’m open to arguments that are sound, but the position that love that is specifically directed at a person isn’t directed at a person isn’t even internally coherent.
Individually, no, I agree, though in some cases they may well be. But collectively, sure. And certainly they may well be a condition for love - after all, if you love someone, you don’t love someone you recognise as not being them. They do not fulfil the conditions for you.
No? Death would seem to be a pretty good one. By most definitions, i’m really not around anymore to love - though some parts of me remain consistent. A person may still be in love with their image of me in their mind, a memory, but not with me. I don’t exist anymore. It’s pretty much final.
At the most basic level, all that I must do is simply change to an extent that the magical recognition ability no longer compares me (despite my changes) to the mental image of the person that loves me and comes out as “different, but still that person”, but instead, “different, and so not that person anymore”. Which is possible.
Only if you use the word “love” alone. I am perfectly happy with someone claiming that they love unconditionally. That would be in sole reference to the term. But once the claim is to love someone, then there are conditions in place - the “someone”. I’m not talking about the identification system failing, i’m talking about the identification system, even when working perfectly and accurately, still being a condition. If you say you love someone, then you have a mental image of that someone. That’s a condition. You may not love other mental images, and through that, persons. You impart conditions to both mental images - because we have quite a few of them - and the actual physical representations of that person. Unconditional love means that there can be no conditions whatsoever - that includes matching a mental image.
Huh? That’s the exact opposite of my argument. I’m saying that love that is specifically directed at a person most certainly is specifically directed at a person, hence, it has a condition. Unconditional love, because by its nature it cannot be directed at a person, cannot be directed at a person.
I thin we can boil the disagreement down to this. I think this statement is flatly and obviously incorrect. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the term - getting overly pedantic over one meaning of a word without recognizing the meaning it has in context.
This is like saying that there’s no such thing as a free lunch - because somebody has to pay for it. But of course nobody means it’s free for everyone when the lunch is free - the “free” just applies to the person eating it. And the “unconditional” in unconditional love doesn’t mean it can’t apply to an individual. That’s simply not what the term means.
I won’t go into details, partly because this isn’t the right forum, and partly because I don’t feel like it. But I want to be the kind of man who deserves their unconditional love,not just their great love, though at least one of them would say I am already that guy.
Ah, I follow you. You’re saying that, within the context of loving a person, love can be unconditional. That is to say, there may be conditions based on identification, but they are “outside” the context of the situation; that it may be accurate to call love for a person unconditional if you’ve already accepted the prior conditions made inevitable for the situation to exist. Is that right?
I’d disagree my interpretation is a pedantic or misunderstood idea of the term or its use. I really don’t think the “unconditional” in unconditional love inevitably refers to the situation solely within the context of already having accepted the conditions in the overall situation. It’s not, to my mind, akin to the “free lunch” example in that way.
That said, within the terms you’re using, i’d certainly be happy to say that you can have unconditional love within a specific frame of reference, including, potentially, conditions.
This is basically it. Question 1 is “Do you love Sue?” In answering that affirmatively, you’ve inherently accepted certain constraints such as being able to figure out who Sue is. If you are then asked “Do you love Sue unconditionally?”, the assumption is that you’re working within those prior constraints - adding the “unconditionally” doesn’t inherently contradict the implications of the “love Sue” part, mainly because we didn’t build the meaning of the phrase that way.
I think that love without a referent isn’t love, it’s being in a good mood.
I’m quite certain that people in general don’t understand the term to have that ‘untargeted’ meaning. I’m astonished to find people here who seem to think it does. But if I were to break my brain enough to entertain the idea that there are actually people that think “unconditional love” means “untargeted love”, I would suppose we could probably blame Christianity for that. According to some, God loves everyone unconditionally. Some people might absorb this claim without realizing that the “everyone” part of that is included separately from the “unconditional” part, as a separate word. And even with the extra word in there I don’t think that the idea is that God does his loving without any idea of who he’s lavishing his love upon.
Great! Now if I can just get you to admit that my use of the term is the generally correct use of the term, I will have won teh internets.
Typically unconditional love is applied to your children. It has to be unconditional (and I reject calling the fact they the child is yours a condition) because they haven’t done anything yet. Children will also do all sorts of obnoxious things as they grow. If you kicked your kid out into the cold because he broke your prize vase, there wouldn’t be many of us left. So it is a virtue because it is necessary for survival, and because in this situation you give more than you receive.
I don’t see much unconditional love between unrelated adults.
I would say that yes, you’ve inherently accepted certain constraints in the first case, but that’s because the content of the statement doesn’t necessarily contradict or cause problems for a questioned variable. Whereas in the second case, the content of the statement might well contradict the questioned variable; I don’t believe that the prior assumptions are necessarily accepted because of that possible contradiction.
I think the general point in those cases is that God does indeed know the particulars of the people on whom he lavishes his love, but that it does not matter to him - he places no conditions on the targets of his love, not even any form of identification. The point there, as I understand it (not being a Christian myself) is that for God, it doesn’t matter if you are Sue or not.
But that’s saying that “Do you love Sue unconditionally?” is meaningless, right? because you’re claiming that the term “unconditional love” is inherently incompatible with application to an individual. (In proud defiance of the common use of the term.)
And I think that “not even any form of identification” is inherently contradictory to the idea of loving Sue. (And so do you, I gather.) This makes this entire line of thought incoherent - in this scenario God’s not loving Sue, he’s just blindly doing his indescriminate broad-beam love attack, without regard or recognition for who it hits - because if he allowed recognition to color or effect his love-beam, it would cease to be so-called-unconditional.
By the way, what does “love” mean without a referent? By the proposed screwy definition of “unconditional love”, it has to be equally applicable to loving nothing at all, becuase conditioning it on the existence of the subject would be a condition. So, what actually happens when you love nothingness?
(Hint - I think that what happens is a syntax error - in my opinion love without a specific referent is inherently and on its own nonsensical, becuase love is the term for the level of affection the object has for a specific subject. This opinion of mine has negative effects on your proposed definition for “unconditional love”.)
No, because it could mean a love for Sue which actually is unconditional, in which case it is a love not specifically aimed at her. Or your interpretation.
I don’t disagree with your interpretation of God’s actions in the scenario, but I don’t see why it’s contradictory to the idea of loving Sue. It’s the difference between loving someone specifically and generally; loving Sue personally or loving her because she exists, essentially.
I have no idea, personally. Some people appear to have great love for nothingness, if some forms of meditation are any judge.
Not necessarily. My vision of unconditional universal love would require Utilitarianism, maximizing happiness across the population. So not only do I have to take into account the serial killer’s happiness, but also the unhappiness of his potential future victims. On balance, the most loving thing choice for everybody would almost always be to lock him up.
As far as staying with someone abusing you, remember that the recipient of this universal unconditional love would also include yourself. It’s unlikely that the happiness the abuser gets out of abusing will outweigh the unhappiness to oneself caused by staying with him.
More specifically to me, of course, you have to know what you’re loving before you can love it. This doesn’t necessarily preclude you loving everyone you see or hear about from the moment you see or hear about them (though that doesn’t sound like what I call love), but it does require you to first identify the victim of your affections, and then attack.
If people can be pedantic about the meaning and application of the word “unconditional”, then I can be pedantic about the meaning and application of the word “love”. Fair’s fair.
I really don’t want to get into yet another Ayn Rand hijack . . . but the phrase of yours that really stands out is that their goals were “noble-seeming.” They weren’t, at least by Rand’s usage of the term “noble.” All three of them were evil, in their stated beliefs as well as their actions. The only way they could be described as “noble-seeming” would be from the point of view of an altruist/collectivist. The only difference among the three is that Toohey understood what he was doing; Taggart and Mouch were pretty much “useful idiots.”
No, What you are not capable of is Agape or Unconditional love. Not everyone can love this way. Just because you can’t does not mean that it is impossible.
It has long been known there are 3 types of love, Eros or erotic love, Philos or love of a friend and Agape is spiritual love. The highest form of love is not human but divine love. Gods unconditional love for us, his children.
In essence Eros love is physical, Philos is mental and Agape is spiritual. The three fundamental elements of man are physical, mental and spiritual. Take one of these three away and you are limited.
I think Agape love is something that is something you see in spiritual people. In the bible you see it in 1st Corinthians 13-4-8. Love is patient, love is kind, Love is not jealous, etc. Or in the ‘Prodigal Son’ which is unconditional love of a wayward son by his Father.
As some parents have said they love their child unconditionally and I do also. There is nothing my son could do to me that would stop me from loving him. So in that sense Agape love is eternal. He could kill me and I would still love him. I would die for him, that is Agape.
How can I do that? Because God loved me unconditionally first. All love from me comes through the Father. As the father loves me so I can love others. This has not been an overnight thing for me but after years of perfecting it. It started with my children and then it has extended out to my friends and family.
I can’t see the hair you’re trying to split. The goals of Rand’s antagonists, and the concept of unconditional love, sound noble (in the novels, they’d have to be to drive the plot - if the antagonists were written as being convincing to nobody, the story would go nowhere) but in application can be used to justify quite a lot of really bad stuff.
