Universal Love

[LouisB]

I still don’t know if you love me, though.

[Czarcasm]

@LouisB

I still don’t know if you love me, though.

I love you long time, yankee.

[LouisB]

@Czarcasm

I love you long time, yankee.

You make me so horneeeyyyy.

[Blalron]

I’m a couple months late to the party, but I think this thread would be incomplete if nobody brought up Metta, the Buddhist concept of universal love.

The Pali word metta is a multi-significant term meaning loving-kindness, friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, inoffensiveness and non-violence. The Pali commentators define metta as the strong wish for the welfare and happiness of others (parahita-parasukha-kamana). Essentially metta is an altruistic attitude of love and friendliness as distinguished from mere amiability based on self-interest. Through metta one refuses to be offensive and renounces bitterness, resentment and animosity of every kind, developing instead a mind of friendliness, accommodativeness and benevolence which seeks the well-being and happiness of others. True metta is devoid of self-interest. It evokes within a warm-hearted feeling of fellowship, sympathy and love, which grows boundless with practice and overcomes all social, religious, racial, political and economic barriers. Metta is indeed a universal, unselfish and all-embracing love.

There has been scientific research on the brains of people who have practiced metta extensively:

@Wikipeda

An EEG study by Richard J. Davidson of people who meditate in metta, with a minimum of 10,000 hours practice, showed substantial differences in the magnitude of gamma waves as well as gamma synchronization, particularly during meditative sessions, and directly afterwards. During baseline states, where the subject was not doing metta, there was a signature brain wave pattern that distinguishes the metta practitioners, lay people as well as monks, from people, at baseline, who have not extensively practiced compassion meditation. This study also showed, during meditation, an increase in the activity of brain areas such as the temporoparietal junction, insula, and amygdala and increase the subject’s ability to see things from another’s perspective

[panache45]

@Czarcasm

Thereby diluting the word “love” as to make it worthless?
I don’t think so.

This. Universal love makes as much sense as universal hatred.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

They should try not to hate without reason and nurture compassion to the extent that they are able. I don’t think it’s possible to literally love everybody in the world,though…at least not without a buttload of ecstasy.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Someone in love might unilaterally declare they are coming to your house, expecting to spend the night, twice in the same week week. Then, if the very next day you cancel a date to catch up on what you missed, you’re in the doghouse.

That is people I already know and like. Random strangers behaving like this on a constant basis would drive me utterly insane.

So yeah, universal love could sort of ride the fence from a utilitarian perspective.

Here is another example. (yah I know the link is crap, you’ll probably have to go to the library.)

[Blalron]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Someone in love might unilaterally declare they are coming to your house, expecting to spend the night, twice in the same week week. Then, if the very next day you cancel a date to catch up on what you missed, you’re in the doghouse.

Being “In love” with everybody, would not be desirable. It’s basically a form of temporary insanity that evolution cooked up to get us to reproduce. Not something that can or should be sustained indefinitely. The problem with the word “love” is that it can be used from anything to romantic love, to the “love” that a person has for ice cream!

But if we’re talking about an unselfish, unclinging, altruistic love like Metta (lovingkindness), I think that’s a worthwhile thing to aim for. I don’t mean that I’d invite anybody in the world over to my house, but I can wish for everyone’s happiness and not harbor any ill will towards them.

[kayaker]

IMHO, most of the people I interact with on a daily basis could be lumped in with Stalin and Hitler.

[Blalron]

@kayaker

IMHO, most of the people I interact with on a daily basis could be lumped in with Stalin and Hitler.

Even in difficult cases like that, it’s still possible to extend lovingkindness towards them. That doesn’t mean endorsing whatever they’re doing (or have done in the past). For example, I can wish Kim Jong Il finds a wholesome form of happiness that doesn’t involve oppressing his country.

[Blalron]

@Czarcasm

Thereby diluting the word “love” as to make it worthless?
I don’t think so.

In what sense do you mean love? English is sadly deficient in describing love, it only has one word for it. I recall The Simpsons making a bit of a jest of this ambiguity… “Do you mean the love between a man and a woman, or the love between a man and a fine Cuban Cigar”? To try to bring some clarity to the OP, let’s look at the Greek words for the different types of love and see if any of them are worth univeralizing:

@Wikipedia

* Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē[1]) means "love" (brotherly love) in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (Σ'αγαπώ), which means "I love you". In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of "true love" rather than the attraction suggested by "eros". Agape is used in the biblical passage known as the "love chapter", 1 Corinthians 13, and is described there and throughout the New Testament as sacrificial love. Agape is also used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.

* Éros (ἔρως érōs[2]) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love;" however, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia, love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.

* Philia (φιλία philía[3]) means friendship in modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.

* Storge (στοργή storgē[4]) means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Blalron

Being “In love” with everybody, would not be desirable. It’s basically a form of temporary insanity that evolution cooked up to get us to reproduce. Not something that can or should be sustained indefinitely. The problem with the word “love” is that it can be used from anything to romantic love, to the “love” that a person has for ice cream!

But if we’re talking about an unselfish, unclinging, altruistic love like Metta (lovingkindness), I think that’s a worthwhile thing to aim for. I don’t mean that I’d invite anybody in the world over to my house, but I can wish for everyone’s happiness and not harbor any ill will towards them.

Yes, that metta is a pretty good link for me at this time. I’m still suffering from the oil spill, which like apparently nothing else has got me in touch with my own hate. This has not done me a lot of good. Scientifically probable? To me, maybe not to everyone.

My previous gf was, coincidentally, a practicing Buddhist. The only problems were circumstantial really. Nowadays, well, here’s a good quote from you link:

It is one of the ten pāramīs of the Theravāda school of Buddhism, and the first of the four sublime states (Brahmavihāras). This is love without clinging (upādāna).

The current one is, I suppose, a little clingy. She pulled the same move yet a third time- today, now. In the scheme of things I guess it isn’t that big of a deal. She has her issues, she could use some support frankly. She hasn’t destroyed any vast landscapes or anything, so maybe I can maintain some compassion.

[Hennessy]

I dunno, Satin sold me lies in the past. He must burn in hell!!! Or is it too late

[Marley23]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/love

An intense feeling of affection and care towards another person.

A profound and caring attraction towards someone

No, it’s not possible to have intense affection or profound attraction to someone whose existence you are only nominally aware of. I do think the other definitions here are more plausible. I think it’s possible to have universal compassion for people as part of an understanding of the transient and unpredictable nature of our existence, for starters.

[MrDibble]

@Blalron

For example, I can wish Kim Jong Il finds a wholesome form of happiness that doesn’t involve oppressing his country.

He’s just a ronery rittre guy…

As to the OP, while I’m down with metta, I wouldn’t call it love. And what I would call love, I think is pretty much restricted to some fraction of your monkeysphere. The theoretical best one can hope for is get the equation N[sub]monkeysphere[/sub] - N[sub]love[/sub] = 0, and I don’t think anyone can achieve this.

[fuzzypickles]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I try to love everyone although in some cases as with Hitler or Charles Manson or Stalin it is almost impossible.

In cases like Hitler & Manson, people don’t hate the individual as much as they hate what they did to other people. It’s impossible to genuinely hate any person you’ve never met (aside from prejudice, I suppose) but when it comes to actions speaking louder than words, there’s little room for shades of grey.

@panache45

Universal love makes as much sense as universal hatred.

Hate is not the opposite of love – it’s the flipside of love. You can’t hate somebody unless you feel some kind of affection for them, on some inner level. Only when you cast aside your feelings entirely and feel indifference are you free of the love/hate trap.

@MrDibble

He’s just a ronery rittre guy…

LULZ!

[Der_Trihs]

@fuzzypickles

In cases like Hitler & Manson, people don’t hate the individual as much as they hate what they did to other people. It’s impossible to genuinely hate any person you’ve never met (aside from prejudice, I suppose) but when it comes to actions speaking louder than words, there’s little room for shades of grey.

That makes no sense at all. We don’t hate people because they give off some sort of short ranged hate radiation; we hate them because of what they’ve done, or because of prejudice, or for some other reason that doesn’t require that we meet them.

@fuzzypickles

Hate is not the opposite of love – it’s the flipside of love. You can’t hate somebody unless you feel some kind of affection for them, on some inner level. Only when you cast aside your feelings entirely and feel indifference are you free of the love/hate trap.

No, that’s wrong too. Just because you aren’t indifferent to someone doesn’t mean you feel affection for them.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Gawd! Sorry my posting gets so disjointed sometimes. I was in a hurry.

I would say that I tend to be impressed by/drawn to/taught by people who would answer ‘yes’ to the OP. They can likely find reasons to appreciate Stalin and Hitler too, for reasons that are maybe abstract or unexpected for you. It takes humility to ‘love’ everyone (depending on how we define that of course); the practice will render you ‘virtuous’ i.e. people will probably enjoy you more, and in that you’ll make the world a better place.

[fuzzypickles]

@Der_Trihs

That makes no sense at all. We don’t hate people because they give off some sort of short ranged hate radiation; we hate them because of what they’ve done, or because of prejudice, or for some other reason that doesn’t require that we meet them.

You can go ahead and hate all the historical figures you want, but to invest that much energy in someone you’ve never met is a waste of time, IMHO. Never mind Hitler (he’s a special case); naturally, I’d kill Hitler if he were still alive, and anyone descended from survivors of the Holocaust has perfectly valid reasons to invest hate in him. OTOH, Charlie Manson seems like a really interesting guy. Naturally, his actions were beyond the pale – but if I ever wind up in San Quentin, I wouldn’t mind being his cellmate. (Unless he starts using my toothbrush w/o permission…)

But think of it this way – let’s say a person invaded your privacy, stole your identity, spread libelous rumors about you, destroyed your possessions, or possibly even attempted to murder you or someone you love. Under what circumstances would you forgive them? Could you forgive them? Does it make a difference if you knew them before the event?

@Der_Trihs

No, that’s wrong too. Just because you aren’t indifferent to someone doesn’t mean you feel affection for them.

No, you’re wrong. Indifference = you feel nothing for them, whether good or ill befalls them. It’s a reflexive statement.

[Marley23]

@fuzzypickles

In cases like Hitler & Manson, people don’t hate the individual as much as they hate what they did to other people.

Who are we if our actions are not part of who we are? Just brains floating around in the ether or something, or ideas of what a person is, or thoughts we don’t share. You can hate a what a person does without hating the person, but I doubt you can hate a person and not hate what they’ve done. I’m always suspicious of love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin reasoning. A lot of the time it’s just word games.

It’s impossible to genuinely hate any person you’ve never met (aside from prejudice, I suppose)

I’m not sure about that. If as stranger murdered my family and was shot to death by police (so I’ve never met him in the example), can we really say I don’t genuinely hate that person? I think not. I’m guessing you would say I hate what he did, but I think it’s a distinction without a difference.

You can’t hate somebody unless you feel some kind of affection for them, on some inner level.

This is definitely not universally true. Hate often comes from feelings of rejection, but what you are describing is an attachment to people you hate. That’s not affection.

@Try2B_Comprehensive

They can likely find reasons to appreciate Stalin and Hitler too, for reasons that are maybe abstract or unexpected for you.

I did say yes to the OP and I can’t think of anything to appreciate about either of them or people like them. (Despite what fuzzypickles said in another post, Hitler is not a special case. Even if you accept him as the worst of the worst, there have been plenty of other people like him.) What I would say is that I think it’s unfortunate they became the people they did and that they had the opportunity to do so much damage. I don’t want to get too butterfly effect-y about it, but in different circumstances I think they could have been deeply screwed up people who didn’t do too much harm to anyone else instead of having primary responsibility for the deaths of maybe 30 million to 50 million people each.