GOD is Love?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
As per Diotima's argument in the Platonic dialogue "Symposium", I do proclaim that love cannot be divine in that it is a yearning and valuing of something. God, by definition, cannot value or yearn for he is complete and fullfilled, lest he is not perfect or omnipresent.
If love is anything, it is a daemon, as Diotima suggested. Neither man nor God.
If love is anything, it is a daemon, as Diotima suggested. Neither man nor God.
Love is added to the mix to make it sound attractive. And threats of torment and death are used if you don't conform.
It's a simple, archaic, naive, and standard version of reward and punishment that apeals to the more simple minded people among us.
It's a simple, archaic, naive, and standard version of reward and punishment that apeals to the more simple minded people among us.
Leopold99:
You do realize that romantic love is not the only form of love, yes? That the concept of love is more complex than the English word implies?
You do realize that romantic love is not the only form of love, yes? That the concept of love is more complex than the English word implies?
Cris:
Love as an emotion is a very poor definition. in the absence of that emotion's presence, does one then not love that person? Lovers rarely have the feeling of "love" present at all times, yet do they not remain in love with one another?
Love as an emotion is a very poor definition. in the absence of that emotion's presence, does one then not love that person? Lovers rarely have the feeling of "love" present at all times, yet do they not remain in love with one another?
If you love a person then the emotions are invoked when your attention is on that person. If the emotion is absent then your attention will be elsewhare.
I said love is a set of emotions, not an emotion. Trust, comfort, pleasure, security all come into play. But all are emotions. There is nothing magical here.
I said love is a set of emotions, not an emotion. Trust, comfort, pleasure, security all come into play. But all are emotions. There is nothing magical here.
Cris:
So then, in the absence of one's attentions on that person, one is not in love? Or is it legitimate to still claim to "love" someone, despite it being a "set of emotions", if those emotions are not present at all times? With other emotions, do not we say we are "no longer x" if that emotion ceases?
Also, how is "trust" an emotion? Trust implies that one affirms that this person can be deemed to be capable of not betraying oneself, similarly with security. Can you furthermore claim that all these things are to be found in friendship? Familiar love of all types?
So then, in the absence of one's attentions on that person, one is not in love? Or is it legitimate to still claim to "love" someone, despite it being a "set of emotions", if those emotions are not present at all times? With other emotions, do not we say we are "no longer x" if that emotion ceases?
Also, how is "trust" an emotion? Trust implies that one affirms that this person can be deemed to be capable of not betraying oneself, similarly with security. Can you furthermore claim that all these things are to be found in friendship? Familiar love of all types?
Emotions comprise both mental and hormonal properties. The effects of which can last for periods of time. Emotional effects are not usually switched on and off as you seem to imply.
You are also continuing to think of love as a single status, whereas it is a mixture of emotions and attitudes.
Trust and security are both intellectual conditions as well as emotional states.
Varying degrees of these emotions and attitudes will determine the depth and nature of the relationships.
You are also continuing to think of love as a single status, whereas it is a mixture of emotions and attitudes.
Trust and security are both intellectual conditions as well as emotional states.
Varying degrees of these emotions and attitudes will determine the depth and nature of the relationships.
Cris:
"Emotions comprise both mental and hormonal properties. The effects of which can last for periods of time. Emotional effects are not usually switched on and off as you seem to imply. "
What is an emotion unfelt?
"You are also continuing to think of love as a single status, whereas it is a mixture of emotions and attitudes. "
You indeed postulate a mixture of feelings, but I am dealing with them in the unity of them that love implies. Forgive me if I have implied a singular status.
"Trust and security are both intellectual conditions as well as emotional states. "
Describe the emotional state of "trust" and "security"?
"Varying degrees of these emotions and attitudes will determine the depth and nature of the relationships. "
Describe?
"Emotions comprise both mental and hormonal properties. The effects of which can last for periods of time. Emotional effects are not usually switched on and off as you seem to imply. "
What is an emotion unfelt?
"You are also continuing to think of love as a single status, whereas it is a mixture of emotions and attitudes. "
You indeed postulate a mixture of feelings, but I am dealing with them in the unity of them that love implies. Forgive me if I have implied a singular status.
"Trust and security are both intellectual conditions as well as emotional states. "
Describe the emotional state of "trust" and "security"?
"Varying degrees of these emotions and attitudes will determine the depth and nature of the relationships. "
Describe?
Cris:
"I have no idea what you mean."
You claim that emotions have complicated mental and hormonal affects that linger on and do not stop as abruptly as I said. Thus I asked: What is an emotion unfelt? My point being, that it is absurd to still speak of it as an emotion if not felt, which leads one to suspect that either we construe of love as something different than an emotion, or only allow for love to be present when the emotion is felt, and thus loving must be cut up into segments of love interspersed with segments of apathy.
"If you can’t feel them then I can’t help you. "
I cannot, no. I can feel pleasure, but "trust" and "security" all seem to be mental rather than emotional. Trust and security both being founded upon the assumption that another won't betray one and one shall be safe from harm and other such things, not so much a feeling.
"No, my explanation is adequate. If you have any intelligence you should have no problem figuring this for yourself. "
Clearly your explanation is not adequate. For what are you saying? That to love someone romantically is indicative of a love deeper than friendship? Or what?
"I have no idea what you mean."
You claim that emotions have complicated mental and hormonal affects that linger on and do not stop as abruptly as I said. Thus I asked: What is an emotion unfelt? My point being, that it is absurd to still speak of it as an emotion if not felt, which leads one to suspect that either we construe of love as something different than an emotion, or only allow for love to be present when the emotion is felt, and thus loving must be cut up into segments of love interspersed with segments of apathy.
"If you can’t feel them then I can’t help you. "
I cannot, no. I can feel pleasure, but "trust" and "security" all seem to be mental rather than emotional. Trust and security both being founded upon the assumption that another won't betray one and one shall be safe from harm and other such things, not so much a feeling.
"No, my explanation is adequate. If you have any intelligence you should have no problem figuring this for yourself. "
Clearly your explanation is not adequate. For what are you saying? That to love someone romantically is indicative of a love deeper than friendship? Or what?
To have love there must be at least two things - the lover and the beloved - and it functions on a third thing - reciprocation.
So its questionable if a person loves god if they have no clear idea who or what god is (you may fear, respect, be in awe of, etc the sky or some other vague phenomena but you don't love it or if you say you love my next door neighbour but don't know whether he is arthur or Martha its also questionable) and also if they attribute his "reciprocation" to material phenomena (riches, family, health etc) since there are heaps of atheists also getting such reciprocation from god
So its questionable if a person loves god if they have no clear idea who or what god is (you may fear, respect, be in awe of, etc the sky or some other vague phenomena but you don't love it or if you say you love my next door neighbour but don't know whether he is arthur or Martha its also questionable) and also if they attribute his "reciprocation" to material phenomena (riches, family, health etc) since there are heaps of atheists also getting such reciprocation from god
Lightgigantic:
The question wasn't so much as to whether one loves God, but more whether God's essence is love. That is to say, if God can be categorized as equal to love.
The question wasn't so much as to whether one loves God, but more whether God's essence is love. That is to say, if God can be categorized as equal to love.
Well obviously a person can love something other than god so I think its a false assumption - its like asking whether god is an emmotional process
leopold99 said:
People love, and fall in love, because they have been separated from God, from themselves.
Love is the power which makes everything unite (because everything is actually "one"). Since people identify themselves with their body, they seek their complementary half in the material world, in another human, which manifests the opposite pole -- a female in your case.
It's impossible to unite that way because two bodies can't unite. It's just a trick used by nature to create more separation, and unity, towards God.
The only true love, the only way to marry, to unite, is with oneself, with God. In everything we love, we only love ourself, because there is nothing but us. If you see God, yourself, in everything, you'll never be attached to anything, you'll never feel incomplete.
Prince_James said:
There are three kinds of love:
1. Bodily/sexual love
2. Personal love (friendship)
3. Universal/impersonal love
Bodily love + personal love = "love between a man and a woman"
Last edited:
Saint:
Thank you.
c7ityi_:
"There are three kinds of love:
1. Bodily/sexual love
2. Personal love (friendship)
3. Universal/impersonal love
Bodily love + personal love = "love between a man and a woman" "
Your definition of love is basically correct. However, I prefer the specificness of the Greek conception, which allows also for a specific difference betwixt friendship and familiar (non-sexual) love.
Thank you.
c7ityi_:
"There are three kinds of love:
1. Bodily/sexual love
2. Personal love (friendship)
3. Universal/impersonal love
Bodily love + personal love = "love between a man and a woman" "
Your definition of love is basically correct. However, I prefer the specificness of the Greek conception, which allows also for a specific difference betwixt friendship and familiar (non-sexual) love.