Philosophy Now Forum

Love
God is Love is a very different statement to Obedience to God.
Love is clearly an English word that did not exist in the ancient world, and it supposed equivalent in other languages today is often quite approximate, according to a recent USA study. Indeed, the bare word has become so ambiguous and wide ranging in its modern usage as to be virtually useless ethically. It represents little more than individual self-indulgent passions for all and anything with or without ethical content. It is well known that Christianity has attempted to define a particular kind of love Agape which is supposed to be unconditional. Whatever that signifies it is a chasm away from the common passion that appears to be uppermost in people’s minds today. Passions must be controlled by ethical values. What term Jesus of Nazareth employed cannot possibly be known – albeit it was presumably spoken in Aramaic. Unconditioned love of God and Man, is rather like a Universal Value, it should mean that we do not hate or degrade people or groups or individuals as such. It is what they believe in and do that has to be judged. If we live in or cultivate an altruist democracy, as against both anarchism and servility, then it is a logical consequence that we accept individual responsibility, as also responsibility as a community, for what we individually or corporately do.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:25 am the bare word has become so ambiguous and wide ranging in its modern usage as to be virtually useless ethically.

Agreed... but there is nothing else that replaces it when attempting to convey something beyond the superficial meanings/uses.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:25 ama particular kind of love Agape which is supposed to be unconditional. Whatever that signifies it is a chasm away from the common passion that appears to be uppermost in people’s minds today.

Agreed.

Anyone who has looked at their own young child or anything else and felt their heart swell so full it might bust, might understand the feeling/awareness that is being pointed to by the idea of unconditional love. If such love/connection is possible to feel at all, then (I think) it is possible to feel for anything -- and it's a matter of tuning into it.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:25 amUnconditioned love of God and Man, is rather like a Universal Value, it should mean that we do not hate or degrade people or groups or individuals as such. It is what they believe in and do that has to be judged.

Agreed... although I would say they can believe whatever they want -- it's what they DO that matters. So, railing against political or theist/non-theist affiliations, or upholding any as supreme, is a demonstration of judgment based on superficiality and agenda. Such does not see or honor connection or love without a dependency and intoxication with labels -- and that is simply blind and destructive ignorance, which cannot be hidden behind a label.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:25 amIf we live in or cultivate an altruist democracy, as against both anarchism and servility, then it is a logical consequence that we accept individual responsibility, as also responsibility as a community, for what we individually or corporately do.

I think a lot of people hide behind labels -- and swear allegiance to a group -- rather than take responsibility for themselves. Their "leader" then bears the responsibility for everything they think and do.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:25 am Love
God is Love is a very different statement to Obedience to God.
Love is clearly an English word that did not exist in the ancient world, and it supposed equivalent in other languages today is often quite approximate, according to a recent USA study. Indeed, the bare word has become so ambiguous and wide ranging in its modern usage as to be virtually useless ethically. It represents little more than individual self-indulgent passions for all and anything with or without ethical content. It is well known that Christianity has attempted to define a particular kind of love Agape which is supposed to be unconditional. Whatever that signifies it is a chasm away from the common passion that appears to be uppermost in people’s minds today. Passions must be controlled by ethical values. What term Jesus of Nazareth employed cannot possibly be known – albeit it was presumably spoken in Aramaic.

Pretty much correct, so far. Though it should also be noted that both Jesus and Paul use the word in particular contexts, in relation to particular situations, and not in respect to others. So we actually do know something about the range and meaning of that word, as it is used Biblically -- not just in Paul's writings, but in the words of Jesus Christ as well.

Do go on, though...

Unconditioned love of God and Man,

I'm unfamiliar with the passage where love is ever described as "unconditioned." Maybe you can point me to it.

...altruist democracy,...

Two problems here.

One, that we've suddenly switched topics, since "democracy" is not mentioned or modelled anywhere in the Bible; so are we talking about Greek polities now, or modern ones...? It's certain that either way, we've left the field of the discussion of "love," particularly in the Christian sense, and are now talking something quite different.

Problem two: The term "altruist democracy" is unclear. In what particular sense is it to be distinguished from a regular democracy? What is the moral or ethical incentive for "altruism" within that democracy? How is such a polity recognized? Do we have any such today, to which we could refer?

Maybe you can clear those up.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:53 pm

RWStanding wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:25 am Unconditioned love of God and Man,

I'm unfamiliar with the passage where love is ever described as "unconditioned." Maybe you can point me to it.

Well quizzed IC. Ten commandments ARE conditions.

Intense love, often considered tantamount to unconditional, usually excludes other groups or beliefs and as such the opposite of universal. Love imposes its own conditions to be what it is in any group or society by imposing exclusions external to its orbit. This was also one of the main differences between Jesus and Paul. The former was insular and tribal; the latter by comparison was catholic, i.e., nearly universal less conditional and more inclusive of who or what is worthy of god's love.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:52 pm Intense love, often considered ...

By whom? You didn't say.

The fundamental of 'love' is this;

• Love has been postulated to be a function to keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species.
  
  Evolutionary psychology has attempted to provide various reasons for love as a survival tool. Humans are dependent on parental help for a large portion of their lifespans compared to other mammals. Love has therefore been seen as a mechanism to promote parental support of children for this extended time period.
  
  Biological models of love tend to see it as a mammalian drive, similar to hunger or thirst.[21] Psychology sees love as more of a social and cultural phenomenon. Certainly love is influenced by hormones (such as oxytocin), neurotrophins (such as NGF), and pheromones, and how people think and behave in love is influenced by their conceptions of love.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

The effects of love is human bonding;

• Human bonding is the process of development of a close, interpersonal relationship between two or more people. It most commonly takes place between family members or friends,[1] but can also develop among groups, such as sporting teams and whenever people spend time together. Bonding is a mutual, interactive process, and is different from simple liking. It is the process of nurturing social connection.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_bonding

The above are the primary set of 'love' which is primarily where bonding [love] is directed to one's spouse, children, kins, relative, friends, social group, same tribe, race, and the likes which are related to humans other than oneself. The perversion is where love is directed to the extreme at oneself, i.e. narcissism.

Anything else other than the above are merely subsets.
The next degree of attachment [love] is to ideas, concepts, ideologies, beliefs, i.e. thoughts.

The next lower degree is the attachment [love] to things, objects, etc.

In the case of the love of God, this is quite an exceptional case, in relation to the bonding and attachment [desperate clinging] arising from an inherent existential crisis.
While the clinging and attachment are real, the object being clung to [i.e. God] is merely an illusion. Agape is nothing more than a clinging to an illusion [unreal god] with the hope of salvation [not real].

RWStanding wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:25 am Love... What term Jesus of Nazareth employed cannot possibly be known – albeit it was presumably spoken in Aramaic....

the terms Dan McCafferty of Nazareth used were: "Love hurts" and "Now you're messin' with a son of a bitch"

-Imp