Love, Morality, Virtue, and its Subsistence in our Discourse

I suppose, I have 'free will' to be analytical. If 'free will' implies a will independent of conditions, independent of cause and effect. How can a will, or anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when the whole law of existence for being "in love" is conditioned and relative, and is within the law of cause? Basically, when 'trying' to understand 'human nature', have I given my 'free will' to be "in love?" I can self-analyze/endeavour my own behaviour and say: I do not generally live in the present time. To be "in love" you must live for the moment as some would say; but, rather I live in the past or in the future. I live somewhere else in my thoughts. Therefore I do not live in, nor do I enjoy, what I do at the moment; so I am detached, disconnected with the present moment. Naturally I cannot give myself fully to be "in love" with some else.

 

My thoughts in no particular order:
While reading your post the word stoic came to mind (I'm sure you know what that means).

If I understand you correctly, you have mastered your will/mind, and that's why you cannot fall in love -- but yet you try to try to understand human nature whilst excluding that which is arguably the prime motivator of human actions. What better way is there to understand the Irish than to live in Ireland?

Here is another thread I found while googling for "people who cannot love" (mind you the thread's posts are hard to follow).

By the way, I assume you have no problems expressing other emotions such as fear, anger etc. If so, wonder why 'love' is missing from the your bag of emotions.

Some people cannot feel love for other reasons e.g. attachment disorder sufferers, who find it hard to bond later in life because they weren't held and nursed as children.

 

:lol: I got the chuckles. Not because of your comment but because you reminded of some Hinduism and Buddhism philosophies. They say an intense sense of self leads to separateness. Karma!

I think 'fear' is an emotion that can do all humans 'some' good. 'Anger', is an emotion I repress, though, it is hard to convey that over a computer screen. As anything I say is interpreted as something else. I will say with absolute certainty, I am always calm and serene, and cannot be dismayed by changes or calamities, because I see things as they already are. Yes, strong "will of mind" indeed.

 

I do not claim to be speaking for 7, but I will take a guess why love is an emotion that he controls. (Seems to me, I have met a man or two with characteristics similar to him.) For a man, emotions such as anger are more socially acceptable than love. Love is identified more with femininity. How many friends have told another man that he is a "pussy" or "whipped" when he acts on his feelings of love?!? Also, love can make you do, or think, crazy things. But now that we have ubersexuals, who knows now (a bit of sarcasm).

Calm and serene??? Oh, I had to chuckle at that one.

 

Graphics,

Which definition of love best describes you? You seem to be a firm believer in it, and see it as an ingrained part of human nature.

 

I agree with each one of those definitions.

 

In corporate Germany, I am known to be "hartherzig sein mannsbild das seine Gedanken ordnen." Translation: "Hard hearted man, who collects one's thoughts."

 

This article is fitting for the context of this topic, I also find it thought provoking!

"Do we make War because we make Love?"
Morality of War: War and Love....




Could it really be that the death and destruction of war are necessary components to a meaningful life or even the ability to love? Some philosophers have argued exactly that - although the two positions are actually separate ideas, they both rely upon an apparent contradiction and so are discussed together here.

To begin with, why would anyone think that war is an important part of life? According to this argument, life as mere existence isn't very important; instead, what is important is a life "worth living." What this says is that it isn't simply in people's interests to preserve their life, but also aspects of life which give it significance: land, family, ideas, value, religion, etc.

Meaningful existence for human beings thus entails a willingness to preserve those aspects of human life which give it meaning. Indeed, human life demands that we be willing to act to preserve our most important values. But what happens when someone else is willing to harm or even kill us to suppress those values? Capitulation cannot always be an option because often that will result in meaningless existence.

Thus, we are left with dying or killing - and when this happens en masse, what we have is a war. Perhaps the horrible aspects of war should be lamented, but we should not lament the fact that people are willing to fight, die, and kill for their values because that is simply the way things must be for humanity. If we stopped fighting and dying for what we value, we'd be little more than slaves or robots for others.

A similar argument is made in defense of the idea that the willingness to engage in violence, even to the point of war, is part of our capacity as humans to love one another. This tends to be offered as a response to pacifists who argue that universal love for all of humanity should inspire us to set aside hatred and refuse to do harm to others. But how can it be argued that a willingness to kill is a part of our ability to love?

According to this defense of war, the ability to love someone requires that we be willing to defend that person. If we allow that person to be harmed or killed, then it would be difficult for an observer to conclude that we really do love. Defending another person whom we love may entail doing that which is otherwise abhorrent to us. One example might be to die for that person - to accept their fate as our own, in other words. Another might be to kill for that person - to act in their defense by killing a person who threatens to kill them.

In the context of war, can a government really claim to exist for the purpose of defending its citizens if it allows those same citizens to be killed by outside forces? Perhaps it would be wrong to suppose that the government "loves" its citizens, but the basic principle is the same: any failure to act to defend those deemed valuable indicates that they aren't really valuable after all.

______________________________________

These are among the most powerful arguments used to justify the general existence of war. It does seem intuitively true that a refusal to defend others whom you allegedly love or who are supposed to be in your care suggests a dereliction of duty. Nevertheless, the arguments aren't entirely perfect and there are possible objections.

The first argument assumes that only a violent response to an immediate threat upon significant values may be warranted. This is questionable - although we may feel strongly motivated to react violently in such situations, that doesn't mean that other alternatives aren't possible. Perhaps we don't even entirely understand what those alternatives yet, but that doesn't justify dismissing the possibility out of hand.

The second argument ignores the possibility that the person to be defended wouldn't want you to kill on their behalf. Perhaps they would rather die than be the cause, even indirectly, of another's death - an unusual but certainly not impossible position. If you really do love and value this person, shouldn't you accept their wishes and let them die?

In the context of governments protecting their citizens, we can raise the possibility that states shouldn't necessarily exist at all. It is true that a government should be obligated to protect citizens, but that assumes that governments should exist in the first place, something not at all obvious. Thus, although we can see here the strongest arguments defending the possibility of war (however undesirable war may ultimately be), it isn't true that these arguments make war a foregone conclusion.

 

Now that I think about it more thoroughly, you could be right.....in fact, I think it may have something to do with my current situation and why I keep putting up with her BS.....but that could be just "physical responses."

 

http://www.fluidgroove.net/Galleries/Serena/pages/PA300016.html

 

' Physical responses' are not love. Love is an emotion and a feeling, not an urge. :lol: