|
Post by brandt on Mar 15, 2008 13:13:45 GMT
Does the brotherhood of humanity have to be held together by love? If you could ever choose one person over another, which you do every time you buy groceries for yourself, you are not loving indiscriminately. I propose that "respect" is a type of love. Respect is a much firmer foundation than the illusion of indiscriminate loving for the brotherhood of humanity.
Brandt
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2008 13:35:52 GMT
What you are advocating is Plato's Forms, that reality is a reflection of archetypes, which exist in another dimension in perfection, and that the world around us is an imperfect copy of these archetypes. What I am advocating is Aristotle's logic, that reality exists as we perceive it. What is, is. A is A. >What you are advocating is Plato's Forms
Plato sounds good to me So, regardless of the merits or otherwise of Plato's concept, you choose it because it supports your negative case that characteristics have nothing to do with identity, rather than Aristotle's more defensible concept which demonstrates the positive point Maximus has made!? Great rhetoric.... Sloppy logic. Even Plato acknowledged that, while the shadows on his cave wall may be misleading, they nevertheless derive from and, viewed for what they are, provide some insight into the underlying reality. Maximus said (Reply #129), " You must be able to define what your concept is as a first step." He has done so. >We do not love everyone indiscriminately, but love those whom we so choose,
I am not sure that is the same concept as the brotherhood of man
>based on their virtue and value to ourself.
And I am pleased my mother loved me regardless of my virtue and value both of which were questionable for quite some time. In our context, we meet as Brothers. The brotherly love which binds us is not the love of a mother for her child but rather that which the ritual describes as "disinterested friendship" (NSW Craft Installation, Address to the Brethren). A brother is entitled to our presumption of merit unless and until s/he proves unworthy. Even then, any negative attitude towards them ought not exceed the bounds of justice and reason.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2008 22:03:50 GMT
Returning to the topic of the thread, " Are our thoughts really our own?" I am reminded of Descartes', " I think, therefore I am," with the emphasis on "I." It is MY thoughts which lead me beyond Descartes' position of radical doubt to the undeniable conclusion that "I" exist. While our thoughts and even our habits of thought have been influenced by parenting, schooling, advertising, peers, etc., a functional individual maintains robust psychological borders and self-discipline, they have a concept of their own identity and can distinguish it from that which is not themself, accepting responsibility and accountability for the thoughts they experience. They tend toward what has been called an internal " locus of control." By contrast, many dysfunctional individuals have poorly developed psychological borders and little self-discipline, having difficulty accepting responsibility and accountability for their own thoughts, often thinking either that others are projecting thoughts into or are stealing thoughts from their heads. Those desperately dysfunctional individuals of this kind, who also experience auditory hallucinations, might not even think to ask, " Are our voices really our own?" but simply take for granted that they originate elsewhere, are out of their control and have a meaning independent of what ever rational critique they may apply to ideas they identify as their own, (e.g., I dreamt "X", thus I was told to accept "X", despite "X" being unreasonable). Where one deliberately tries to turn-off and shut-down their psychological borders and uncritically open-up to other influences (as opposed to the possibility of some advanced, controlled and fully conscious disciplines for going beyond conventional " ring-pass-nots"), whether the afore mentioned, self-negating possibility is realistic or not, the intention is psychologically harmful.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 15, 2008 22:05:54 GMT
>your negative case that characteristics have nothing to do with identity,
I am do not see how "a transcendental identity that generates a range of characteristics most of which are shared " could indicate that characteristics have nothing to do with identity.
>we meet as Brothers. The brotherly love which binds us is not the love of a mother for her child but rather that which the ritual describes as "disinterested friendship"
I am surprised to learn that brotherly love is disinterested friendship
Maybe I grew up in an odd family
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2008 22:30:22 GMT
>your negative case that characteristics have nothing to do with identity,
I am do not see how "a transcendental identity that generates a range of characteristics most of which are shared " could indicate that characteristics have nothing to do with identity. Shifting from particular identity to "transcendental identity" involves a sleight-of-hand. Thus when we say "its characteristics constitute its identity" we are saying that those characteristics are unique and undefined and therefore no thing is comparable to any other thing Maybe I grew up in an odd family I don't know about that, but I do gather that you were formally initiated into a peculiar system of morality.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 16, 2008 22:35:03 GMT
It does not mean that we do not help others if we so choose, and they are deserving of our help. We do not love everyone indiscriminately, but love those whom we so choose, based on thier virtue and value to ourself. If we only love because of their virtue and their value to ourselves... ?? Sounds like a selfish quality to me. Isn't love a natural response that arises for some unknown reason? " You are all so apt to feel that you must have a return for your love, but the soul has to learn to give love. Love is an inward beauty which flows from the heart, from the life." Isn't love understanding, compassionate, kind, caring... " Bear in mind that love divorced from wisdom is no longer love. You must learn to distinguish between true, impartial and compassionate love and emotionalism, which will sweep you off your feet and destroy love. To love is to give the highest and truest within you to your brother-sister; to love is to give the light from your own soul, the white light of Christ. This is love." Extract: The Quiet Mind. Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 17, 2008 1:07:38 GMT
>Isn't love a natural response that arises for some unknown reason?
I would suggest that as the heart opens there is an underlying love for Creation including humanity. That love is unceasing
As the heart opens further there is an additional capacity to increase the flow of love from the heart by choice to meet particular needs.
And as the heart is largely opened there is a capacity to tune the type of love flow to suit the situation
But if the heart is not open then emotional love is generally the best on offer. Mental love is rarer and not usually functional until after the heart opening is well under way
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 17, 2008 1:54:38 GMT
If we only love because of their virtue and their value to ourselves... ?? Sounds like a selfish quality to me. Isn't love a natural response that arises for some unknown reason? That which you call selfishness is more proprly defined as our rational self-interest. Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values. Love is all of these things, and more... ...when directed toward those who deserve our love.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 17, 2008 2:38:12 GMT
>those who deserve our love.
But how can we assess whether another deserves our love?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 17, 2008 2:46:14 GMT
>those who deserve our love. But how can we assess whether another deserves our love? The practical implementation of friendship, affection and love consists of incorporating the welfare (the rational welfare) of the person involved into one's own hierarchy of values, then acting accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 17, 2008 3:18:09 GMT
>incorporating the welfare (the rational welfare) of the person involved into one's own hierarchy of values, then acting accordingly.
I am not sure how the above statement helps me to decide who is deserving of love.
Perhaps it is not a rational decision.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 17, 2008 3:22:10 GMT
...when directed toward those who deserve our love. I'm sure glad you're not God Max. I would be be in deep fertiliser. I am relying on the fact that God has a sense of humour and that Peter of Pearly Gate fame is ticklish. Maat (Mnnn wonder what would happen if you tickled a tyler ... ... )
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 17, 2008 3:51:39 GMT
>incorporating the welfare (the rational welfare) of the person involved into one's own hierarchy of values, then acting accordingly. I am not sure how the above statement helps me to decide who is deserving of love. Perhaps it is not a rational decision. Then that would mean that it is an irrational decision. Do we not choose to love whom we love? Do we not, even if we are not aware of it, love those who have qualities that we admire? A choice is an act of volitional consciousness, and, as such, should be based on rationality. It would be irrational to go about loving indiscriminately, would it not? Would we love a mass murderer, because an amorphous "feeling" urged us to do so, even if our life was endangered?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 17, 2008 3:54:04 GMT
I'm sure glad you're not God Max. I would be be in deep fertiliser. I am relying on the fact that God has a sense of humour and that Peter of Pearly Gate fame is ticklish. You would be fine, you know I love you. Likely he would drop his sword...
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 17, 2008 5:08:08 GMT
Max
I still don't understand how you propose that I should identify those deserving of love.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 17, 2008 6:31:01 GMT
I still don't understand how you propose that I should identify those deserving of love. Please define what YOU mean by love.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 17, 2008 9:33:33 GMT
>Please define what YOU mean by love.
I do not have a definition - but I do have an expanding experience
Perhaps love is not well suited to human definition
I still wish to find out how Objectivists determine who deserves love. Any hints?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 17, 2008 10:29:32 GMT
Maximus has amply explained his position, in accordance with what he means by "love." However, as you will not define what YOU mean by "love," no explanation will suffice in your case.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 17, 2008 19:50:28 GMT
Maximus?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 17, 2008 20:10:46 GMT
Russell?
|
|