Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Daniel: Also unconditional love would include trying to solve the problem of why she hypothetically bites. Realistically. Hypothetically.
Well, if I was repeatedly bitten by my dog, my feelings would surely change about the dog. Maybe I’d feel ambivalent for about a month, esp. if the dog was cute, but simply nutty and maladjusted. I’d try to train the dog not to bite, but, if he kept chomping my flesh, after about two months, I’d start disliking the dog. Six months and many wounds later, I’d pretend the dog was lost and bring him to the pound. If there was no pound, I’d find out where you live and I’d send him to you. Otherwise, I’d be tempted to smash his head in with a rock. Then I’d get a new, sweet dog that didn’t bite who I could pretend to love unconditionally.
Of course. Sounds reasonable. Except for the part about the rock. Also, I don’t know why you would pretend to love your dog unconditionally. That is probably why it is biting you. Just be real with it.
All that’s being said in the last few posts is that these posters wouldn’t feel unconditional love for their dog. This does not prove that unconditional love does not exist. In the spectrum of human emotions, there is certainly room for unconditional (some might say irrational) love. Could mercy be another manifestation of the feeling?
All that’s being said in the last few posts is that these posters wouldn’t feel unconditional love for their dog. This does not prove that unconditional love does not exist. In the spectrum of human emotions, there is certainly room for unconditional (some might say irrational) love. Could mercy be another manifestation of the feeling?
Not saying that unconditional love (as I defined same) does not exist, just saying that behavioral observations do not confirm that. The subject’s (human, dog or otherwise) observable emotional (avoidance or approach behaviors) reactions vary as a function of the object’s behavior. How someone says they feel is only operationally defined by what they say and how they behave. AOW, there’s no objective evidence for the proposition apart from verbal claims. One cannot prove that something doe not exist.
Love for family is an example of unconditional love. So is high oxytocin levels.
My BS meter for this poster is twitching.
saralynn - 08 January 2012 07:54 AM
SX: Overwhelming (Dramatic) Exception Fallacy
Daniel wrote, “Love for family is an example of unconditional love.”
It was a blanket statement. All I had to do was come up with one counter-example to refute it. I thought a famous person would simplify matters. After all, he wouldn’t recognize a photo of my dad.
Dennis Campbell - 08 January 2012 03:09 PM
That science produces a predictive model within statistically significant margins of error does not make it less valid. This is kindergarten stuff for which Dennis’ whole academic training and discipline is based on.
I have no idea what your point is as bolded above. Sara’s comments are those of an articulate lay-person, not someone competing for a science prize. Besides, I tend to agree with the bulk of it anyway.
I realize that I may have slightly mistated the bolded above in the sense of statistical analysis pertaining to, as an example, political polling (eg, margins of error), but I don’t understand your persistent insistence that you “have no idea” of my point(s). What I meant was “statistically significant results.” The results of psychology studies are based on statistical analysis, not absolutes. This you know, therefore, I should have been well-understood as pertains to this topic, yet you fail to counter sara’s point of the single exception and at the same time, you immediately slough-off Daniel’s statement as “bullshit” when it is supportable. Frankly, it is quite obvious to me who in fact is expressing the emotional investment here ... it ain’t me.
To again repeat my position, there is no such thing as “unconditional” any emotion, if that quoted term means that the subject’s emotions associated with any object of those emotions does not change as a result of the object behavior. Period. Hate can turn to love, love to hate or indifference. A mother can come to hate or reject her off-spring, if and as that off-spring behaves in a manner different from and inconsistent with what she (or he, if a father) can accept. That does not degrade the value of love of anyone towards anything, it just holds that organisms, including humans, have and express emotions that change as a function of time and experiences.
Your position is and has been understood: perceived stimuli evoke physiological responses. The disagreement I have for which attempts at furthering the conversation have been made, and for which I think the direction of science has taken and progressed, is the big fat “Period.” you place at the end as a qualifier. Again, it’s how the whole question is framed. In my view, by your simple analysis above, not only are there a lot of factors being ignored and left out, the whole idea of “conditions,” “emotions,” and the “subject” they may pertain to seems to be rendered artificially moot in scientifically investigative terms, and in “lay” observational ones too. Again, I suggest that there may be “no manner in which the off-spring behaves” or the response of hate and indifference to certain behaviors may be so incongruent or disassociative in terms of love so that it can be classified as aberrant and pathological, the idea of attributing “conditions” supplied by the off-spring and love as a faculty of the parent are not even applicable as standard measures. In other words, the absence of love may not be “conditional” (or dependent) on the behavior of the off-spring. While the “unconditional” aspect of love for ones off-spring may prove not to be absolute, it may follow the models of Harris’ scale of well-being, open-ended on one end and closed on the other, and of Maslow’s hierarchy where self-actualization becomes more abstract but still defineable. “Unconditional” would refer to, then, to the inexhaustable range of behaviors which may evoke various temporary negative emotions, but which in spite of, love remains. Statistically speaking, the majority of parents don’t hate their children and withdraw their love because their kid accidently broke their favorite vase, though the incident may temporarily stimulate a negative “emotion” such as you describe, and in the most mature of parents, it may not even evoke those. In terms of “unconditional,” it may not be how high the bar is set so that it is perceived to be romantically idyllic thus unachievable to some, it may be the minimal to which it produces negative effects and can be considered pathologic, immoral, and in the worst cases, illegal. This may very well be the case with sara’s OP example. The mother may have screwed-up the daughter’s head by intermittently telling her (and demonstrating), “I love you,” “I hate you,” every five minutes or withdrawn her “love” simply for accidently breaking her vase (different than what the mother can accept), in which case, “conditional” and “love” become meaningless concepts.
Since I am repeating my same points over and over without, IMO, appropriate responses, I really do think it’s time to discontinue this conversation with you and sara. I’ll let you get the last word in in direct response to me.
All that’s being said in the last few posts is that these posters wouldn’t feel unconditional love for their dog. This does not prove that unconditional love does not exist. In the spectrum of human emotions, there is certainly room for unconditional (some might say irrational) love. Could mercy be another manifestation of the feeling?
Not saying that unconditional love (as I defined same) does not exist, just saying that behavioral observations do not confirm that. The subject’s (human, dog or otherwise) observable emotional (avoidance or approach behaviors) reactions vary as a function of the object’s behavior. How someone says they feel is only operationally defined by what they say and how they behave. AOW, there’s no objective evidence for the proposition apart from verbal claims. One cannot prove that something doe not exist.
OK, now my last word because I skipped over this response, your best to date. I agree for the most part and I wish you would have adhered to this tone and level of discussion all along. What I have seen is that this “verbal report” problem is recognized in the research and methods for controls are attempted to be devised such that they can be borne out to be experimentally valid.
Love is a recognition of merit. It is an attribute of a limited number of possible relationships. It issues from a source toward an object with necessary conditions. To make it somehow diffuse or not beholden to the conditions that define it is to destroy it. If you just want to heap praise or reassurance or hyperbole onto your affective phrases I’d suggest you keep shopping.
The best context for the idea of love is one of poetic simplicity. The word love ought to convey its meaning with perfect efficiency. Dressing it up with adjectives serves to weaken the affectation rather than strengthen it. Its a reflection of how diluted a word can become. I sure do love pancakes. So, now I need a series of superlatives so that I can distinguish my fondness of pancakes from my greater fondness of puppies. Not what thoughtful people do in my submission.
I think the word has tremendous potential as a clear and distinct concept. Much like the word Good in its most considered sense. It can do all of its own lifting if we let it.
Love is a recognition of merit. It is an attribute of a limited number of possible relationships. It issues from a source toward an object with necessary conditions. To make it somehow diffuse or not beholden to the conditions that define it is to destroy it. If you just want to heap praise or reassurance or hyperbole onto your affective phrases I’d suggest you keep shopping.
The best context for the idea of love is one of poetic simplicity. The word love ought to convey its meaning with perfect efficiency. Dressing it up with adjectives serves to weaken the affectation rather than strengthen it. Its a reflection of how diluted a word can become. I sure do love pancakes. So, now I need a series of superlatives so that I can distinguish my fondness of pancakes from my greater fondness of puppies. Not what thoughtful people do in my submission.
I think the word has tremendous potential as a clear and distinct concept. Much like the word Good in its most considered sense. It can do all of its own lifting if we let it.
I love you.
I think you are limiting the meaning of the word love. Other languages have different words for different types of love, such as the Greek agape and philia and eros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
So it does make sense to add adjectives in English.
The Christian version of the Golden Rule talks about loving your neighbor, which needs further elaboration (in English) to make sense. Buddhists get around this confusion by talking about compassion, rather than love. The concept of namaste is closer to unconditional love. As I mentioned above, mercy might be one manifestation of unconditional love. That is, holding back on delivering a just punishment because the humanity of the winner recognizes the humanity of the loser.
Love is a recognition of merit. It is an attribute of a limited number of possible relationships. It issues from a source toward an object with necessary conditions. To make it somehow diffuse or not beholden to the conditions that define it is to destroy it. If you just want to heap praise or reassurance or hyperbole onto your affective phrases I’d suggest you keep shopping.
The best context for the idea of love is one of poetic simplicity. The word love ought to convey its meaning with perfect efficiency. Dressing it up with adjectives serves to weaken the affectation rather than strengthen it. Its a reflection of how diluted a word can become. I sure do love pancakes. So, now I need a series of superlatives so that I can distinguish my fondness of pancakes from my greater fondness of puppies. Not what thoughtful people do in my submission.
I think the word has tremendous potential as a clear and distinct concept. Much like the word Good in its most considered sense. It can do all of its own lifting if we let it.
I love you.
My feelings of disgust are getting in the way, how could you prefer a puppy for breakfast over a pancake?
I feel that I’ve just witnessed a slow playing out of a modern version of the mid-20th-century dispute between the cognitive and the behavioral. Please correct me, Dennis, if my reading glasses need replacing. A few decades ago, measuring a subject’s thoughts and feelings was not workable and is still only barely workable today even with all the shiny new brain measuring tools at scientists’ disposal. But nowadays, at least it’s generally considered okay to talk about one’s interior, even if measuring its contents remains a somewhat muddled process.
Two people who love each other sufficiently—whether romantically, sibling-ly, parent-ly, or other-ly—actually adopt each other’s interiors to an extent. Yes, disease and circumstance can tend to wear away much of former value, but when you take on another person’s mind (in part, of course), it doesn’t stop doing what it does suddenly, but only slows down gradually like a train rather than a bicycle. Our mental habits can be tediously slow in taking new instruction, and if loving feelings are operating with strength, they’ll continue with almost full force even if the mental or physical health of the other takes a turn for the worse.
I find that people for the most part seem to love themselves pretty well, no matter what. If I love myself and someone else as well, that someone else can tend to inhabit a significant portion of my cognitive realm, or mind. If I start hating part of my mind, I no longer love myself and as a result I become very uncomfortable. When my internal comfort is at stake, I’m generally able to retain loving attitudes toward certain others even in the face of adversity.
Look closely at any abstract concept you might wish to consider, and it will disintegrate upon examination, including unconditional love. In light of this fact, does unconditional love exist in every literal sense imaginable? Of course not. The next logical step might be to define what it actually is, realizing that though it does not exist in the most literal sense, it certain exists on certain human-use and psychological levels.
I feel that I’ve just witnessed a slow playing out of a modern version of the mid-20th-century dispute between the cognitive and the behavioral. Please correct me, Dennis, if my reading glasses need replacing. A few decades ago, measuring a subject’s thoughts and feelings was not workable and is still only barely workable today even with all the shiny new brain measuring tools at scientists’ disposal. But nowadays, at least it’s generally considered okay to talk about one’s interior, even if measuring its contents remains a somewhat muddled process.
A continuing problem with measuring a subject’s thoughts and feelings is the interpretation of what those indirect measures mean. We can measure that there’s thinking or emotions going on, but to my dated knowledge, we’ve no clear idea as to what they are in terms of content. Maybe some day. A problem with behavioral is that while fairly clear and nicely defined in objective terms, it also lacks much of anything by way of subjective meaning or content. I’m partial towards behavioral because it has a relatively clear set of operational measures that at least can define some of the objective parameters of a cognitive proposition and it is more free of woo. It is however sterile and cold, which sometimes upsets those whose ideas of emotions aren’t comfortable with that coldness. “Unconditional love” (or hate, etc.) absent a clear set of operational definitions, is more of a romantic ideal than it is consistent with objective behavior.
Love is a recognition of merit. It is an attribute of a limited number of possible relationships. It issues from a source toward an object with necessary conditions. To make it somehow diffuse or not beholden to the conditions that define it is to destroy it. If you just want to heap praise or reassurance or hyperbole onto your affective phrases I’d suggest you keep shopping.
The best context for the idea of love is one of poetic simplicity. The word love ought to convey its meaning with perfect efficiency. Dressing it up with adjectives serves to weaken the affectation rather than strengthen it. Its a reflection of how diluted a word can become. I sure do love pancakes. So, now I need a series of superlatives so that I can distinguish my fondness of pancakes from my greater fondness of puppies. Not what thoughtful people do in my submission.
I think the word has tremendous potential as a clear and distinct concept. Much like the word Good in its most considered sense. It can do all of its own lifting if we let it.
I love you.
I think you are limiting the meaning of the word love. Other languages have different words for different types of love, such as the Greek agape and philia and eros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
So it does make sense to add adjectives in English.
The Christian version of the Golden Rule talks about loving your neighbor, which needs further elaboration (in English) to make sense. Buddhists get around this confusion by talking about compassion, rather than love. The concept of namaste is closer to unconditional love. As I mentioned above, mercy might be one manifestation of unconditional love. That is, holding back on delivering a just punishment because the humanity of the winner recognizes the humanity of the loser.
The greek words are not adjectives. Nor do they conceptually consist of a modified version of love. What differs is the object. Brother, lover and god respectively. Namaste seems to be a formal hello.
I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree. These are largely personal preferences we are discussing. I think I’m maximizing and liberating the concept of love. I think that heaping verbiage actually weakens basic concepts. If someone expresses their love for me simply and concisely I am more apt to accept it in the spirit it was offered. If they continue with flattery and inflationary rhetoric about great volumes of love or all encompassing love I begin to suspect that perhaps they are trying to convince them self. Further, I am less impressed by their conversational intelligence. If we can frame the concept of unconditional-ness to mean something coherent in reference to the concept of love than love already contains the former idea. Re stating it is redundant and confusing. Like commercials for deodorant that offer 110% protection. We understand what they are trying to convey but its a hyperbolic effect that comes at the cost of clarity. Weakening our essential definitions. When it comes to who and what I love I’d like be as clear as I possibly can.
The greek words are not adjectives. Nor do they conceptually consist of a modified version of love.
I think those are both false statements, actually.
- Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē[1]) means “love” (unconditional 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 also be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Agape was appropriated by Christians for use to express the unconditional love of God. Before agape love there was no other word to express such great love.
- 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.” In the Symposium, the most famous ancient work on the subject, Plato has the middle-aged Athenian philosopher, Socrates argue to aristocratic intellectuals and a young male acolyte in sexual pursuit of him, that eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth, the ideal “Form” of youthful beauty that leads us humans to feel erotic desire—thus suggesting that even that sensually-based love aspires to the non-corporeal, spiritual plane of existence; that is, finding its truth, just like finding any truth, leads to transcendence. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth through the means of eros.”
- Philia (φιλία philía[3]) means friendship or affectionate love 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.
Going back to the discussion in general, it seems very strange to me when someone is using a term in a discussion in a way that simply doesn’t make sense. The idea that “unconditional love” means “love that doesn’t change (in character or quality or intensity)” just makes no sense. No one would use the term this way after the age of about 9 or 10, so to discuss this concept of unconditional love is, at best, seeking to engage with an absent 9-10 year old’s notions. That’s an immediate dead end. In fact it’s hard to call it a dead end because it was never going anywhere to begin with, so it’s hard to call it an end to anything. The idea that love exists or doesn’t based upon purely behavioral aspects might work, but the only examples I’ve seen on the anti- side are pretty simplistic—they ignore, for example, the concept of “tough love”.
A more reasonable measure of love in such cases (where we seem to be having conflict here) is the difficulty and/or anxiety and stress and such the “tough lover” experiences in administering the tough elements (i.e. This hurts me as much as it does you. and such). That’s the whole meaning and power behind much of the love in literature and art—someone who has to risk or actually sacrifice a son/daughter/husband/wife/dear friend for whatever reason. If you interpret that to say the love had to be abandoned in order to take the risk or make the sacrifice it neuters the whole schtick. If you interpret that to mean the love changed, then there’s still “love” going on, and there’s a connection between different forms of it—a common foundation. But it seems that’s being denied when it’s called “unconditional love” for some reason ... suddenly it seems some are hasty to get back to the 9-10 year old concept.
Dunno ... seems very strange to me, which is why I expect I haven’t really been compelled to participate much at all on this one.
