As I said … time, place and circumstance. Even argumentum ad baculum can be effectively applied if used correctly … whether this is correct or not depends on the circumstances … and you could assess the correctness of the action by examining the results.
If you are trying to ask me whether this action would give the desired result, I would say “no” if the person involved is a complete stranger (which seems to be the case, given the lack of supporting info you tag along with the scenario)
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
”
If you did answer it, I obviously didn't understand. It might help explaining what you meant.
Ok
If you can’t talk about the qualities of the beloved, you have no means to present an understanding.
For instance suppose I was madly in love with a rock star (let’s call him Gumpy Gazza)and this struck you as absurd since you never heard of them.
Then perhaps I could go and talk about how his snake tattoos were really cool and he was really cute the way he has no front teeth and just wait till you listen to the way he burps when he plays the guitar and smashes a beer bottle over the head of his road manager.
At this point you could either agree and say “yeah, Gumpy gazza is the topmost of lovable things” or “Just as I thought, gumpy is a loser and you are a nutcase” or anything in between. If I have nothing to say, you have no scope for making a value assessment.
Familiarity with the name, form, qualities and pastimes of a thing is what paves the way for all sorts of relationships .... My question to you (which you will hopefully address earlier in the piece) is in what ways are your declarations of “loving” nature distinct from “liking” nature.
So this is a response to your claim that I can’t approach your loving relationship with nature possibly because of an urban upbringing or something. In other words it is a claim that I am in ignorance about the object of love, and that if I wasn’t, then perhaps I could see it. So that’s where Gumpy Gazza comes in. You know nothing about him, but then I tell you his qualities, his activities, etc etc and then you make a value judgment.
It’s not that I am saying loving nature is wrong (a value judgment). I am saying that you have no means to make a value judgment (in regards to love) on nature since there is no scope for a presentation on its qualities or activities in any meaningful way that isn’t obviously connected to your own well being or sense of comfort. Interestingly enough, if you want to start philosophizing on nature as some sort of conscious entity, you quickly arrive at descriptions of god’s qualities (minus an extra special something personality offers) – eg “I love nature because it takes away and gives to everyone equally regardless of caste, colour, creed, etc” vs Bg 9.29 I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.
Even if you just want to examine it theoretically, wouldn’t a nature that can personally reciprocate be grander than a nature that can’t?
My point is that nature (or even a dog) will never have the potential capacity to win your heart (or alternatively, piss you off) in a way that a person can, simply on this issue of reciprocation, service and knowledge of name, form, qualities, pastimes.
And as it relates to the OP, god is the topmost person, with all good qualities that we find in others finding their origin in him, ... so therein lies the value in loving him.
So qualities are where it’s at ... and either makes it or breaks it as far as love is concerned.
If you want to argue that nature offers more potential for great loving exchanges than people, it would seem to suggest that you have experienced something that hampered your love and understanding of people. Actually there has been a long standing dominant paradigm of seeing the purpose of creation simply as something we can just take from to get whatever we need to make us happy in whatever way we imagine. Just now we are perhaps beginning to see how this results in strife and entanglement, so a new sort of paradigm is starting to emerge. So when you talk of “loving nature” I see that as representative of a new way of assessing the purpose of creation. However even though love entails issues of obligational duty, dependence, etc, it is something more sublime than simply assessing issues of purpose (hence the word “love” distinguishes itself from the word “like” even though they might be frequently interchangeable)
One can
actually talk about the good qualities of people (or the bad of course) and not just in a way that is pertinent to one’s fundamental well being – for instance I could talk of how a particular person is free from envy and not just because I stand to profit from that person’s nonenviousness.
Because there is no scope for discussing this in regards to nature (or even the scope for discussing it in regards to animals in contrast to people is greatly reduced), love, as it pertains to the theistic notion of loving god, has a particular etymological sense that is not addressed by claims of loving nature. I did however offer a framework in which I think the sense of “loving” nature is valid. (ie assigning purpose, consciously being aware of our dependence on it, etc etc)
As for that last sentence of mine, it's truth. Deny it..
Well what are exactly “persons like you” and what exactly “are persons like me” and how do you know these are apt categories?
And furthermore, why is this misaligned ratio a cause for lamentation?
