A quick thank you to Ted Bagley for pointing out to me that I have put the cart before the horse. All this talk about how to love, and yet, what is love? I'll be the first to admit that this question is pretty frightening. I've been thinking about it all day, and trying to "define" or "pin down" love has been for me like trying to nail jello to a wall. I'm always missing something, it's not quite intuitive enough, it's not got enough explanatory power. Here's what I've heard so far from my family, who has been my sounding-board today:
1. Love is putting something before yourself.
2. Love is an verb AND a noun.
I really don't like part 1. I think maybe this helps explain my built-in tuitions about why it's so hard to love. I've been raised with a notion of love that has some sense of martyrdom hidden in it. So in order to love, you've got to give something up and sacrifice somehow. Maybe that is incidentally true sometimes, but I don't think self-sacrifice is a necessary condition for love.
I think part 2 has revealed to me that there are lots of different types of love, like C.S. Lewis points out. There's love as in sex, friendship love, filial love, and then there is the love I'm trying to define but can't. It's bigger than friendship, passionate romanticism, and even filial relationships (though I think family is probably the best metaphor we have to help understand this bigger agape-like concept I'm trying to define).
So here's what I think right now: Love is a virtue, or state, that motivates one to see the other as an extention of the self and act in regards to the other's well-being. When you are loving something, no longer are you seeing the difference between yourself and the object of your love, so "giving of yourself" for the other isn't really vocabulary that makes sense. Because the other person and you become one, in a sense, you aren't "giving of yourself" when you are acting on their behalf; rather, you're still acting in a way which will maximize your own happiness, but you realize that your happiness is dependent upon some other person's happiness.
I know that this sounds very self-interested and typically self-interest is seen as wrong, but I don't think self-interest is necessarily wrong. I think we start with self-interest evolutionarily. It's the only way we learn to survive. When we're children, we're self-interested because we need to eat, to sleep, to be well. I think the goal is to learn to extend that self-interest to everyone else. In that way, I think we lose our sense of "self" and realize that there is no "me," but that everything about me and my contentment is intertwined with everyone else. I'm not self-contained.
So that's what I've got so far. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think a lot of psychology would argue that seeing something as an extension of yourself, can lead to neurotic tendencies or problematic behavior.
A child/infant sees it's mother as an extension of itself. There is no seperation even though we can clearly see the seperation- be it physical/mental/ etc.
When the child cries its particular cry-the mother feeds it. When it cries another time- it's diaper is changed. When it laughs or crawls away- mother is there.
The child is ego centric- and as far is it is concerned- mother and baby are one in the same.
But when mom has a life, a job, or a romantic evening out- she cant be there.
This causes a new kind of distress in the child who has had no other reason than to believe, that they are ONE.
So the child cries, and when the babysitter casually hands it the soft blanket- that reminds baby (in some way) of the comforts of mother- a new "attachment" is formed.
If the child cant grow some sort of dependency or balance- new attachments replace the blanket. Sometimes,for example, as the child grows into a girl she finds that baby like neediness satiated in some men.
Even if the man is unhealthy for her, if he supplies her with that deep rooted "need" of child like comfort- she will stay with him.
But thats all been very simplified here to make some points.
When we see others as extensions of ourselves we fail to see them as they ARE. People totally independent of us with different issues. With a mature mind we can accept this reasonably. With a mind still captured in psychological hurdles we may make unreasonable demands/assumptions of others.
Because of this my happiness is not dependent on my mother's happiness, or the happiness of someone else. It begins to grow from the inside as I manage independence from that infant clinging or ego centrism.
-A
Whew- Ok- so Im still figuring out how to post on here.
In addition to all of this- I wanted to say with as much resources that are out there. People make their own definitions of "love" based on what they think is right for them.
Regardless of what any text book or God says.
So if Im raised in an abusive home-my idea of love has different defintions than say someone who hasn't been abused.
Everything from our culture to what religion we adopt influences flexible or rigid notions of love.
The point for me is to question myself. I have defined love as being something "healthy". But my definition of health must be clear.
I use "health" - be it physical/mental/emoional or spiritual- because when something is OFF you FEEL it. It manifests as pain, obsession, or desirie (as I have come to understand desire through Buddhism).
To me, love is good health. That doesnt mean that things dont occasionally hurt in relation to love... but love is not sickly, deviant, or clinging.
How you define love for yourself will ultimately dictate how you manage yourself, others, and your life.
I don't think that loving necessarily entails sacrifice or martyrdom, but rather a certain selflessness and willingness to sacrifice should the need arise. I also agree with Lady A that it's not that the object of our love is an extension of ourselves--it's that we have some sort of "kindred spirit" (or insert a more appropriate phrase) connection with him/her. Said person still possesses their individual identity, but because we care about and love them, we are concerned about their well-being and happiness. So in that way, yes, I suppose their happiness becomes our happiness. But is that selfish? I don't think so.
I think these are fair critiques.
Lady A -
I think you might be right, much to my chagrin. Perhaps love is in some sense indexed to the person who experiences it. Perhaps we all understand it differently and that makes it nearly impossible for us to agree on what love means and all of its entailments. Also, I like the psychological critique showing how dissolving the "other" creates a self-indulgent and often harmful sense of desire for fulfilment. Perhaps maintaining the other's identity creates a sense of checks and balances for our emotions, ensuring that it works out for the greater good of everyone involved, not just ourselves.
Shanna (Mozart) seems to have hit the nail on the head for me. My intuitions that love erases barriers of self and other may have been me mistaking the self/other connection with the understanding that when we're loving others, we're connected with them in such a way that we cannot help but be impacted by this person's well-being. We're connected with them so strongly that we selflessly desire (in a non-clinging type of way) for that person (or group - we could experience love for all of humanity as well) to be happy and free. That rings true for me, I think. Good, constructive stuff!
I was thinking about this some more... and I think the word "attachment" is often used loosely or differently than what we always mean.
For instance I could say attachment IS unhealthy because it is often associated with obsession, addiction, or problematic behaviors.
Which is true.
But I could also say "loosely" that the attachment a mother has for her child is crucial because without it- the infant wouldn't survive. Without some form of attachment- or should I say "responsibility" the things we love would wither and die.
If Im not "attached"- in the reckless way previously described. I could easily come to the conclusion that I "highly value" one thing or another. Yes, there is discernment. But part of that discernment is for survival, seeing that the virtues we seek in the world are still worth fighting for.
Part of our self preservation comes from that weighty discernment. I need to "value" non violent people in life more so than thugs otherwise I might get shot, raped, or pulled into that street life.
I find myself loyal to my good friends not because of what they make me- ultimately feel. But because, in each of them, they embody all the distinctions, virtues, and love in life that I want to see thrive.
If they are suffering- then the light for which they give to this world is stunted or limited.
I wouldnt call myself selfish for wanting to see my friends happy or peaceful- but more so part of my small campaign to support the virtues in the world that I believe (and I always must check myself)- make the world a kinder place.
I sometimes think that love is an illusion. Two reasonably compatible people, under favorable circumstances, can "fall in love" and claim each other as their one and only.
Yet both people, had they never met, would likely have "fallen in love" with other people.
I'd like to believe that true love, the kind that makes partners inseparable, exists, but I sometimes doubt it.
What if, though?
Post a Comment