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.
But we have a range of feelings, emotions and behaviors that change circumstantially.
Of course. The OP implied that there was some feelings that are not function of circumstances. A delightful notion if love, not so if hate, but in either case not evidenced by observation.
To me “unconditional love” proposes that the subject’s feeling towards the object of those feelings do not change as a result of the object’s behavior. That does not happen. Regret if I was not clear.
But we have a range of feelings, emotions and behaviors that change circumstantially. To me, to “love” is at the core of being, again, the capacity within us to love. That is the one “unchanging” condition.
Bingo! And I would connect that to recognition, that is, the capacity comes into fruition when there is recognition of equality (at the fundamental level, equality of consciousness). What gets in the way are the various identifications and such that obscure a clear recognition (I’m recalling a monologue from George Carlin, a guy encounters another guy who is about to jump from the Brooklyn Bridge).
To me “unconditional love” proposes that the subject’s feeling towards the object of those feelings do not change as a result of the object’s behavior. That does not happen.
I can’t imagine how that could possibly be what anyone means when they use the term though. It makes far too little sense, and quite clearly doesn’t reflect any relationship or even any actual emotion in reality (sans lobotomy or a lot of Thorazine, or some such, I suppose).
No wonder you were irate with me! If I thought someone was disagreeing with me on that basis I think I’d probably react much the same way you did, man. It would be hard not to think such a person was just being a complete arse.
Dennis Campbell - 30 December 2011 07:13 AM
Regret if I was not clear.
No worries. That’s probably at least half of what all this shite in here is about ... trying to really understand what the other crazy monkeys are actually saying.
But we have a range of feelings, emotions and behaviors that change circumstantially.
Of course. The OP implied that there was some feelings that are not function of circumstances. A delightful notion if love, not so if hate, but in either case not evidenced by observation.
With no intent to be offensive, but objectively speaking, I think you’re simplifying to a point of meaninglessness. The first condition (function of circumstance) is that we be a normal (fully-functioning without pathology) living sentient being, else no “feeling” would be evidenced or experienced by observation. The OP implies to me the question not that, are there unchanging variables/objects “out there” (outside of ourselves) that determine the expression of unconditional love, but that, is it realized internally as a healthy functioning of our biological, thus social make-up. One can place so many “conditions” as the criteria to love that indeed, it can be determined that this person can’t love at all (ie, doesn’t have the capacity), be it “conditionally” or “unconditionally.”
I think I have relayed the story of the Phil Donahue program before. I was watching an episode on the new celibacy fad (delay sex until marriage) of young people where a long row of seats were occupied by these young late teens/early twenties persons and Phil went down the row one by one asking them what formulated their reasoning for their decisions. When he got to the last seat, it was occupied by a 50+ year old virgin woman who, when asked why she hadn’t married (or had sex) to date, replied that the “right man hasn’t come along.” Well, I suppose one can accept that her “conditions” just hadn’t been met, and while some seem to think this is rationally “normal,” my own observation is that the problem lies within her, her capacity to love, not as a function of outside circumstance, nor range of emotions she may experience and express at any given time. Love is manifested in the long-term, not on whimsy or immediate reactionism.
I have to assume that saralynn has no children of her own or else I doubt she would be asking the question to begin with. Of course, the capacity for this expression need not be limited between the biological parent/child bond, but I think it is probably the most demonstrative example. If one can conclude that it is not evidenced by observation or experience, it may only suggest that it hasn’t been observed or experienced by the individual, not that it isn’t observable or experienceable. I don’t think by pointing to your example of the lady and her son examines the full scope of this human (and animal) phenomenon either.
Answerer: I have to assume that saralynn has no children of her own or else I doubt she would be asking the question to begin with.
You are right. However, I am the beloved child of a mom who would kill or die for me. I don’t know if she would have remained loyal if I wasn’t fairly lovable. I mean, I embarrassed her occasionally, but nothing a few lies and excuses wouldn’t cover.
Mom: “Your room is filled with smoke, Saralynn. Is it marijuana?
Saralynn: “Oh no, mom, I was lighting up some incense and I accidentally burned my hair.”
Now if I had come to dinner with crystal-meth flakes on my nose or I got drunk and straddled a roast chicken, I think she wouldn’t have remained fond of me. She probably would have been faithful to her memory of me and she’d also have felt socially obligated to love me “no matter what”, but, to be quite honest, as Dennis says, her affection for me would be contingent on her continued approval of me as a person. BTW, I’ve known plenty of parents who don’t particularly like their grown children. They would never admit to ceasing to love them, but it seems evident to me they have. It is surprising how many disappointed moms tell me that they regret having children.
Answerer: I have to assume that saralynn has no children of her own or else I doubt she would be asking the question to begin with.
You are right. However, I am the beloved child of a mom who would kill or die for me. I don’t know if she would have remained loyal if I wasn’t fairly lovable. I mean, I embarrassed her occasionally, but nothing a few lies and excuses wouldn’t cover.
Mom: “Your room is filled with smoke, Saralynn. Is it marijuana?
Saralynn: “Oh no, mom, I was lighting up some incense and I accidentally burned my hair.”
Now if I had come to dinner with crystal-meth flakes on my nose or I got drunk and straddled a roast chicken, I think she wouldn’t have remained fond of me. She probably would have been faithful to her memory of me and she’d also have felt socially obligated to love me “no matter what”, but, to be quite honest, as Dennis says, her affection for me would be contingent on her continued approval of me as a person. BTW, I’ve known plenty of parents who don’t particularly like their grown children. They would never admit to ceasing to love them, but it seems evident to me they have. It is surprising how many disappointed moms tell me that they regret having children.
That doesn’t mean “unconditional love” is unobservable, inexperienceable, doesn’t exist or even isn’t normal. Those moms probably shouldn’t have had kids for the kids’ sakes, not for their own.
That doesn’t mean “unconditional love” is unobservable, inexperienceable, doesn’t exist or even isn’t normal. Those moms probably shouldn’t have had kids for the kids’ sakes, not for their own.
I have encountered both mothers who have discarded their children like litter and those who have shown complete devotion toward the worst, depraved and hateful offspring you could ever imagine.
So what we have been describing as “unconditional love” isn’t always understandable, but love and stand by them they do.
Answerer: That doesn’t mean “unconditional love” is unobservable, inexperienceable, doesn’t exist or even isn’t normal. Those moms probably shouldn’t have had kids for the kids’ sakes, not for their own.
Usually, they adore the kids when they are little and cute, but are disappointed by the adults they become. When women think of “having a baby”, they usually think of infants, toddlers or small children. They become less enchanted with the kids when they mature and develop identities of their own, esp if they are unpleasant or if they blame their parents for their faults.
I am amused to see how in love with love you guys are. Maybe it’s a substitute for God? It’s hard to believe I am the cold,hard realist in the group. I mean, I would expect Dennis to be a bit jaded, but your idealism is…well, sweet. And, yes, there are very loyal parents whose affection for their children remains undiminished, even though the rest of the world thinks their progeny are shits. I bet Mario’s mom thinks he is a delight. Or not.
Anyway, I really think our conflict is more one of semantics than anything else. The word “love” is emotionally charged and has a wide variety of meanings, ranging from sloppy sentimentality to generalized good will to noble gestures of great self-sacrifice.
It has always puzzled me why women who are physically abused by their husbands claim that they still love them. “Yes, he punched me in the mouth and swung me over his head by my breasts, but I still love him”. How can you love someone who frightens you or degrades you?. This just goes to show how perplexing the term can be. Plus, our culture puts love on a pedestal, even worse than the knights of yore who wrote impassioned sonnets to fair maidens. It’s a magical word with many powers. It certain beats out democracy and justice in terms of garnering applause.
It has always puzzled me why women who are physically abused by their husbands claim that they still love them. “Yes, he punched me in the mouth and swung me over his head by my breasts, but I still love him”. How can you love someone who frightens you or degrades you?.
As usual, Sara, your posts often make me laugh, and that is not a sarcastic laugh. Women who do that I’ve encountered with too much frequency in my past professional life. Some would, if separated by legal actions or otherwise, promptly hook up again with another abusive man. In those cases “love” is more akin to “he defines me,” or any attention is better than none. These women had no self concept apart from a relationship with a man, and in that relationship the dominating and/or abuse man did not have a partner, he had a sponge who provided no more support than a wool blanket. The men involved were people who themselves needed to have someone who did not challenge their masculinity either. A relationship assured to result in bad things. “Choice,” for either, becomes a useless plea.
Answerer: That doesn’t mean “unconditional love” is unobservable, inexperienceable, doesn’t exist or even isn’t normal. Those moms probably shouldn’t have had kids for the kids’ sakes, not for their own.
Usually, they adore the kids when they are little and cute, but are disappointed by the adults they become. When women think of “having a baby”, they usually think of infants, toddlers or small children. They become less enchanted with the kids when they mature and develop identities of their own, esp if they are unpleasant or if they blame their parents for their faults.
Examine your statment closely, and you can get a better comprehension of what love is, or is not, then you may be able to better grasp the distinction between conditional and unconditional.
Yea, and don’t get the idea that what An is offering is anything but BS! Trust me, he’s just a sneaky fake while I’m the real thing. What I have for you lasts forever, he’ll just be gone when the sun comes up.
Yea, and don’t get the idea that what An is offering is anything but BS! Trust me, he’s just a sneaky fake while I’m the real thing. What I have for you lasts forever, he’ll just be gone when the sun comes up.
That’s because one night is all I need to make a lasting impression.
Yea, and don’t get the idea that what An is offering is anything but BS! Trust me, he’s just a sneaky fake while I’m the real thing. What I have for you lasts forever, he’ll just be gone when the sun comes up.
That’s because one night is all I need to make a lasting impression.
Yea, and don’t get the idea that what An is offering is anything but BS! Trust me, he’s just a sneaky fake while I’m the real thing. What I have for you lasts forever, he’ll just be gone when the sun comes up.
That’s because one night is all I need to make a lasting impression.
Right, and 9 months later…..
... my capacity for unconditional love will surely be tested for a lifetime.
Yea, and don’t get the idea that what An is offering is anything but BS! Trust me, he’s just a sneaky fake while I’m the real thing. What I have for you lasts forever, he’ll just be gone when the sun comes up.
You and I know what’s up, Dennis, but be we have to be gentle with the starry-eyed true believers. They are soooo vulnerable.
But, I bet Answerer gives much better valentine cards than you do. I think he might be the type who gets weepy when he sees baby ducks waddling behind their mothers.
Yea, and don’t get the idea that what An is offering is anything but BS! Trust me, he’s just a sneaky fake while I’m the real thing. What I have for you lasts forever, he’ll just be gone when the sun comes up.
You and I know what’s up, Dennis, but be we have to be gentle with the starry-eyed true believers. They are soooo vulnerable.
But, I bet Answerer gives much better valentine cards than you do. I think he might be the type who gets weepy when he sees baby ducks waddling behind their mothers.
Yes, I love ducks too. But baby ducks waddling in line behind their mothers make me smile. Sentimental movies often make me weepy though.
Yes, I love ducks too. But baby ducks waddling in line behind their mothers make me smile. Sentimental movies often make me weepy though.
Same with my husband. I almost didn’t marry him because he started sniffling during Flashdance. If he hears certain pieces by Pavarotti, he clutches his chest and tears stream down his face, then dribble off his chin. He is a sentimental mess, but he gives me wonderful valentine cards. Like you, he is such a chump that he believes in unconditional love.
Yes, I love ducks too. But baby ducks waddling in line behind their mothers make me smile. Sentimental movies often make me weepy though.
Same with my husband. I almost didn’t marry him because he started sniffling during Flashdance. If he hears certain pieces by Pavarotti, he clutches his chest and tears stream down his face, then dribble off his chin. He is a sentimental mess, but he gives me wonderful valentine cards. Like you, he is such a chump that he believes in unconditional love.
I don’t feel like a chump. I have it for my daughter ... and she knows it. That’s as good as it gets.
The problem with questions surrounding the notion of unconditional love is that the word love is slippery in the sense that different people see love’s definition differently. We could, if we wanted to for some reason, concoct a hundred definitions of love, each suitable for publication in any dictionary. Answerer’s thoughts on the matter align with mine. We seem to have the same notion of what unconditional love is.
Here are a couple of sub-questions to consider, as well: How does unconditional love differ from plain old love? Does unconditional love never take breaks, if even for a split second? How do constant-and-unending love differ from unconditional love, if at all?
Dennis’ approach seems to be more behavioral than anything, or am I mistaken, Dennis? If I’m correct, then would you say that unconditional love can include some cognitive dissonance at times, yet still be considered unconditional love?
Dennis’ approach seems to be more behavioral than anything, or am I mistaken, Dennis? If I’m correct, then would you say that unconditional love can include some cognitive dissonance at times, yet still be considered unconditional love?
A behavioral approach looks at what is observable, that does not prelude inferred cognitive processes, but the definitional problem is considerable when the basis of the construct is not observable. Lots of room then for concepts to be created that’re easily tainted by preconceptions. “Unconditional love” is to me a useless and rhetoric based notion that escapes logic or observation. I defined what I mean by that term earlier.
RSS Feed
