Hypercube

What is the opposite of love?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But that's my point, any emotional response is emotional. A different word makes no difference. 

... but not any emotional response is love. (I suppose it depends how you define it). There are a range of emotions - not all of them love.  'Love' covers a wide range of things by our definition, more accurately broken down by the Greeks (even the 3 Greek loves overlap - you would usually have a different mix of Erotic, Philia and Agape love for spouse for example as oppose to more purely Agape/Philia for a child; more Phillia with some Agape for a sibling; just Agape and Eros for a stranger etc)..  they are different emotional responses, thus they were given different names.  If you hate someone, this isn't love but is an emotional response  -  of course it is different. 

 

29 minutes ago, tar said:

  The concern is the love.

But not all concern is love and there are different levels of it - see above regarding any emotional response.

 

Regarding the OP - imo the question can't be answered without proper defining of what they mean by love.  Is it even relevant to talk about opposites of emotions? I am sure someone said something similar earlier in the thread and I kind of agree, but I do not know - which is why I haven't gotten involved in the thread up until now. I would still argue that the Greek loves are different to each other though....   they are a better or more precise definition for the one word we have for it which we use in different situations to mean different things. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DrP said:

even the 3 Greek loves overlap

You forgot storgē . I forgot storgē till I checked wikipedia for the spelling of agape and there it was. Storgē - familial love, natural or instinctual affection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tar said:

Except you are claiming hate, arrogance, anger etc. are attributes of selfishness and therefore claiming selfishness is a negative emotion.   I do not think that is correct.

 

Obviously, i am not claiming that those attributes are the only attributes of selfishness - that would be silly - but to know Love we must be absolutely selfless and that includes ego and superego just as much as id. Selfishness includes everything, and both the " good " side and the " bad " side are two sides of the same coin and are a unified barrier to selflessness and Love.

28 minutes ago, tar said:

 

Selfishness is not automatically a bad thing.  In fact, in my worldview it is the central motivating factor for all life. Only religion, and idealistic notions like being a humanist, claim that selfishness is evil.

 

Yes, of course we have to take care of ourselves and not impose too much on others, but profane self-love, or any preoccupation with ourselves, however principled, is not the self-destroying Love which, i think, is what we are talking about here. Do you think that selfishness is not responsible for all the inhuman acts we witness in the world today and throughout history? You say selfishness is not automatically a bad thing so, conversely, it is not automatically solely a good thing either - it is both: yin and yang, good thief and bad thief , Ariel and Caliban and so on. Beware more of the good thief.

Fortunately for us, we live where we can indulge in niceties, not in stricken places where living is a daily struggle just to survive  and where we see  both sides of selfishness in action: one gives rise to the other, but for Love to act, both sides must be still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You forgot storgē . I forgot storgē till I checked wikipedia for the spelling of agape and there it was. Storgē - familial love, natural or instinctual affection.

Just for information, I've checked the frequency of agápe, éros, philía and storgē, and found that they are attested approximately 1900, 2500, 1500 and 200 times respectively. This is without counting inflected forms. The storgē is clearly far less common, and generally the writers are much later than Classical Greek (apart from Aristotle of course). This does not negate its importance, but there could be grounds for considering just the other three in classical times. I have learned to be very cautious about meanings of Ancient Greek words because we are dealing with 1000 years of language, and the meanings do shift over time and there are regional variations also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Universe of Star Wars they say that anger, fear and aggression is the dark side.

But then again Star Wars is just a movie and does not apply to the world that we live in.

I was also thinking about sexual jealousy or about jealousy in general. Jealousy is a negative emotion caused when someone else is in possession of something that you don't have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DrP said:

... but not any emotional response is love. (I suppose it depends how you define it). There are a range of emotions - not all of them love.  'Love' covers a wide range of things by our definition, more accurately broken down by the Greeks (even the 3 Greek loves overlap - you would usually have a different mix of Erotic, Philia and Agape love for spouse for example as oppose to more purely Agape/Philia for a child; more Phillia with some Agape for a sibling; just Agape and Eros for a stranger etc)..  they are different emotional responses, thus they were given different names.  If you hate someone, this isn't love but is an emotional response  -  of course it is different. 

 

But not all concern is love and there are different levels of it - see above regarding any emotional response.

 

Regarding the OP - imo the question can't be answered without proper defining of what they mean by love.  Is it even relevant to talk about opposites of emotions? I am sure someone said something similar earlier in the thread and I kind of agree, but I do not know - which is why I haven't gotten involved in the thread up until now. I would still argue that the Greek loves are different to each other though....   they are a better or more precise definition for the one word we have for it which we use in different situations to mean different things. 

 

DrP,

I agree with your thinking.  That is why I forwarded a definition of love early on so we could negate it, or oppose it, and come up with an answer to the thread question.  What is the opposite?  

If my definition is workable then one can understand each type of love in terms of how strongly one loves something, what that something is, whether the motivation is rational or emotional, whether the love is reciprocated or misplaced, or good or bad for the particular individuals or groups involved.   I often in various threads, talk about the idea of teams, and people through and throughh, identify with various groups to inform their decisions and their feelings.  It matters greatly to people whether the entities they identify with are right, successful, and happy (or safe from harm).   And familial love is somewhat automatic or instinctual or controlled by physical bonding due to presence and utility.  These people in your family are the closest other entities, to being you, that exist.  That is, when it comes to who or what you consider part of your feeling of self, your parents and children and spouse, along with your home and your favorite chair, are entities that  EVERYBODY includes in their feeling of self.  

Regards, TAR

 

Tub,

No, I don't think selfishness is the root of all evil.  I think the opposite, it is the basis of consciousness to be aware of your self, to protect it, and see that it survives, even past your death, in the form of children or your works, or the memory of you in others.  Evil I think comes when good men do nothing.  And there is also a problem of people trying to get the world to match their internal model of it, rather than trying to get their model of the world to match the world.

People tend to frame the exact same thing as good when it is voiced in the first person, neutral when framed in the second person and bad when framed in the third person.   Once you identify some entity as evil you put it in the third person, as far from the self as possible.  Then everything that person does is bad.  

So, I would say the opposite of what you are implying. I would say the world would be a better place, if everybody considered everybody else as part of their feeling of self, and everybody used first person pronouns to talk about others.  

We would do better if we did not demonize each other.

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2017 at 10:55 AM, tar said:

 

.  Each of the Greek words have different definitions because they refer to different levels of emotion, and different recipients, but they all are about love.  So what, is consistently present, across all definitions?

Regards, TAR

So what is consistently present across all definitions?

The answer to that question is the key to love. The Greeks apparently didn't know, or I suspect they would have stated it. They defined different kinds, or forms of love but they didn't define love. There are different kinds of pride but only God knew the exact definition, (pride is the desire to command respect), the thing that is present across all the different kinds. Because he was the one who created the word. The same is true with love.

The Hebrews seem to have come a bit closer. The Hebrew word for love is “ahava” and the root of this means “to give.” So is giving, the thing that is present across all forms of love? It certainly sounds good. But the Bible points out that giving can be done without love, even to the point of giving one's body to be burned. So love is not defined merely by the concept of giving, but by a certain aspect of giving. Identify the aspect, and you will define love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mikeco said:

Because he was the one who created the word.

No, no, no. It was Merriam Webster. Everyone knows that.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

No, no, no. It was Merriam Webster. Everyone knows that.

Alright you got me. I guess not everybody knew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikeco said:

So what is consistently present across all definitions?

The answer to that question is the key to love. The Greeks apparently didn't know, or I suspect they would have stated it. They defined different kinds, or forms of love but they didn't define love. There are different kinds of pride but only God knew the exact definition, (pride is the desire to command respect), the thing that is present across all the different kinds. Because he was the one who created the word. The same is true with love.

The Hebrews seem to have come a bit closer. The Hebrew word for love is “ahava” and the root of this means “to give.” So is giving, the thing that is present across all forms of love? It certainly sounds good. But the Bible points out that giving can be done without love, even to the point of giving one's body to be burned. So love is not defined merely by the concept of giving, but by a certain aspect of giving. Identify the aspect, and you will define love.

Mikeco,

I was thinking that love or affection was the thing that was across all four usages of the word.  God's love, sexual love, brotherly love, and love of your children or country or football team.

The Greek usages of the different strengths and recipients of "love" never really defined the word, but the word "love" was in all four usages.  Like if the Alaskan natives have a word for snow that is drifting, or a word for snow that is falling, they are still talking about crystalized water that originates in the sky.

So what definition of love should we use to answer the OP?  Does "love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self" work for you, or are you stuck on the pride thing? 

Can we keep a literal God that talked to you out of this for now?  If you want me to take your thought as an insight or a suggestion or an idea, I will, but I do not think Moses was talked to by a literal God, I do not think Jesus is the literal son of God, and I don't think Mohammed was talked to by the Angel Gabriel in a cave, so the chances of me,  thinking you,  have received a direct pronouncement from God are pretty slim.

Can you back up the pride thing with obvious things that everybody does, and everybody knows about, and everybody has access to?

Regards, TAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 7:22 PM, tar said:

Mikeco,

I was thinking that love or affection was the thing that was across all four usages of the word.  God's love, sexual love, brotherly love, and love of your children or country or football team.

The Greek usages of the different strengths and recipients of "love" never really defined the word, but the word "love" was in all four usages.  Like if the Alaskan natives have a word for snow that is drifting, or a word for snow that is falling, they are still talking about crystalized water that originates in the sky.

So what definition of love should we use to answer the OP?  Does "love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self" work for you, or are you stuck on the pride thing? 

Can we keep a literal God that talked to you out of this for now?  If you want me to take your thought as an insight or a suggestion or an idea, I will, but I do not think Moses was talked to by a literal God, I do not think Jesus is the literal son of God, and I don't think Mohammed was talked to by the Angel Gabriel in a cave, so the chances of me,  thinking you,  have received a direct pronouncement from God are pretty slim.

Can you back up the pride thing with obvious things that everybody does, and everybody knows about, and everybody has access to?

Regards, TAR

 

TAR,

Let me first address the aspect of God. I understand that you and probably every person here doesn't believe that God speaks and most, probably don't think he exists. The reason I mention him, is because when I give a quote, I always try to credit the author, and in this case it just happens to be God. So if I mention him, it's for that purpose, because I wouldn't feel right not crediting him with whatever he has said or revealed to me, even though you think it's simply my own thoughts on the subject and may not think that there's even anything worth crediting.

Moving on to the idea of affection as being present in the different forms of love. That may indeed be the case. It would seem so, but as you are already aware, affection is an emotion and that still leaves us without an exact definition. However, if we merely have compassion for a person in need, and attempt to meet their need whatever it may be, is that also not love, even though there is no emotional affection involved? The Bible, which I reference for many things, would indicate that it is.

But assuming affection is present in all forms of love, the reason I mention pride, is because I suspect it may lead us to an exact definition of love. There appears to be different kinds of pride just as there are different kinds of love. And if pride is the opposite of love, then some of what is true about pride may also be true about love. Black and white are opposite colors but they are both colors...I think. East and west are opposite directions but they are both directions...I think...anyway, hopefully you get the idea.

So looking at God's definition of pride...”pride is the desire to command respect”...we can see that according to this definition, pride appears to be a desire. And assuming that is true, then we can assume that love is also a desire, even though its meaning would be entirely different than that of pride.

But many people think of love as an emotion or an attitude, certainly not a desire. I doubt there's a website that would refer to love as a desire, but there may be. However, although pride is a desire, attitudes and emotions develop out of that desire. For as I mentioned in a previous comment, the emotional anger in a road rage situation, develops because of someone's desire to command the respect they felt they didn't receive. The anger isn't there because they got cut off, but because they have allowed themselves to be filled with the desire of pride. Someone else in the same situation may just continue driving peacefully...without pride. Marital arguments most often occur for the same reason...someone feels disrespected, and then wants to command the respect they feel they didn't get and the argument takes off. No disrespect was meant, but someone feels disrespected and reacts with pride. Pride seems to be more of a reaction whereas humility seems to be more of a response to the temptation of pride.

So if attitudes and emotions develop out of the desire of pride, would it not be possible that attitudes and emotions also develop out of the desire of love? Even though those attitudes and emotions are just an expression of love and not actually what love is. We haven't defined love yet, but perhaps we are narrowing it down as to what it is...a desire, out of which attitudes and emotions develop...attitudes such as, kindness, helpfulness, selflessness, and patience, and emotions such as compassion, and affection.

Thus, if pride as the opposite of love, is the desire to command respect, then looking at this definition in an opposite manner may reveal some insight. If we substitute love for the word pride, and if we take the root of the Hebrew word for love (ahava), which as mentioned earlier, means “to give”, and we substitute “to give” for “to command”, we end up with...love is the desire TO GIVE respect...the opposite of the definition of pride.

Is the desire to give respect, present in all forms of love...in all of love's attitudes and emotions? I would certainly think so. If it isn't, then perhaps what is being expressed is more of a lust than love. Is love the desire to give respect? Yes and no.

Love is indeed the desire to give respect and respect seems to be perhaps the only thing that everyone wants. But this definition is the opposite of pride, and love is far more than what its opposite could ever be. Pride is small and insignificant but love is boundless and without measure. The Bible states that God is love. So while Satan, full of pride, is the opposite of God, is God the opposite of Satan? No, for he is far beyond what his opposite could ever possibly be. So God is not the opposite of anything and neither is love. It might could be said that love is not the opposite of its opposite.

So where does that leave us? Hopefully, closer than we were before. Is the desire to give respect present in all forms of love? I would say yes. Is that the definition of love? No. Are we on the right track? Yes...of course not everyone or anyone for that matter, may agree. How do I know? Because God sometimes tells me things. Why me? I don't know, but these are not my ideas.

So if love is not just the desire to give respect, something that everyone wants, but is something greater...then what is greater than that?

Not quite sure what you mean by “backing up the pride thing.” Will the examples I've given suffice or were you looking for something else?

Regards, Mikeco

 

Edited by mikeco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikeco said:

But assuming affection is present in all forms of love, the reason I mention pride, is because I suspect it may lead us to an exact definition of love. There appears to be different kinds of pride just as there are different kinds of love. And if pride is the opposite of love, then some of what is true about pride may also be true about love. Black and white are opposite colors but they are both colors...I think. East and west are opposite directions but they are both directions...I think...anyway, hopefully you get the idea.

mikeco,

but you can't start saying pride is the opposite of love, to arrive at the definition of love being the opposite of pride

When my daughter's second author paper was published in a world wide chemistry periodical, with a picture of her research on the front cover, I was so proud, I cried.

None of your logic works for me, to frame pride as the opposite of love.

Regards, TAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tar said:

mikeco,

but you can't start saying pride is the opposite of love, to arrive at the definition of love being the opposite of pride

When my daughter's second author paper was published in a world wide chemistry periodical, with a picture of her research on the front cover, I was so proud, I cried.

None of your logic works for me, to frame pride as the opposite of love.

Regards, TAR

 

TAR,

What aspect of pride would cause you to think that you were filled with pride? Because you had a deep and profound emotional respect and admiration for your daughter? From my view, that would be love, rather than pride. Historically pride was always evil and from what I understand, it still is. But I have not always thought that way. Like you, there were times when I thought I was filled with pride. My view has changed, as I've come to realize that pride was not what I was filled with, unless I happened to be filled with the desire to command respect, which has been the case more often than I care to recall. In some cases I was filled with deep respect and sometimes love. But I viewed it as pride.

In short, I believe we have gradually mis-defined the word over the last few hundred years. In this case, the old is better than the new. After watching a video of what people thought pride was, I realized that the evil connotation of pride is being replaced by what I see as a false positive connotation. And that is why the world seems to be rapidly filling with pride...it's very difficult to identify. I could never see it in myself because although I'm sure I have my moments, most people would not refer to me as prideful. But when God gave me his definition, my pride which was of a very subtle nature, became crystal clear.

Your view of pride as possibly being a good thing, precludes you from seeing it as the opposite of love. That's understandable. But many people believe indifference or hate is the opposite of love. Since you probably don't see them as good things, can you accept one of them as being love's opposite? And if you can, then the thing that I might would mention, is that indifference and hate are attitudes that develop out of pride, out of the desire to command respect. And therefore pride would ultimately be the opposite of love.But of course, if one views pride as a feeling of deep respect, satisfaction, or admiration, then it might very well be impossible to view it as the opposite of love. And in that case, it's back to the drawing board.

Regards, Mikeco

 

Edited by mikeco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tar said:

mikeco,

but you can't start saying pride is the opposite of love, to arrive at the definition of love being the opposite of pride

When my daughter's second author paper was published in a world wide chemistry periodical, with a picture of her research on the front cover, I was so proud, I cried.

None of your logic works for me, to frame pride as the opposite of love.

Regards, TAR

It just occurred to me that regardless of ones view of pride, good or bad, "the desire to command respect" is still a large part of our world, and that desire doesn't necessarily have to be referred to as pride. It still exists whether it has a name or not, and it seems to be the basis for arguments, road rage, power struggles, and a host of other things whenever someone feels disrespected. It's evident throughout the news every day. So would you agree that the desire to give respect is the beginning of love, since it seems impossible to express any form of love without that desire, and that the desire to command respect is the opposite of love?

Regards, Mikeco

Edited by mikeco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 9:09 PM, mikeco said:

The answer to that question is the key to love. The Greeks apparently didn't know, or I suspect they would have stated it. They defined different kinds, or forms of love but they didn't define love. There are different kinds of pride but only God knew the exact definition, ... Because he was the one who created the word. The same is true with love.

 

This seems to be to be an extraordinarily uninformed statement about the Greek attitude to love, based purely on a totally christian concept of identifying one love with their one god. Greeks were far more subtle and flexible about this. Greek gods are the embodiment of all kinds of forces, and I take Eros as one example of how they were well capable of describing it: (Longus II,6)

θεός ἐστιν, ὦ παῖδες, ὁ ῎Ερως, νέος καὶ καλὸς καὶ πετόμενος· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ νεότητι χαίρει καὶ κάλλος διώκει καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀναπτεροῖ.  Δύναται δὲ τοσοῦτον ὅσον οὐδὲ ὁ Ζεύς. Κρατεῖ μὲν στοιχείων, κρατεῖ δὲ ἄστρων,  κρατεῖ δὲ τῶν ὁμοίων θεῶν.....

"Love, my children, is a god, a young youth and very fair and winged to fly. And he delights in youth , follows beauty and gives our fantasy her wings. His power is so vast that that of Zeus is not so great. He governs in the elements, rules in the stars and domineers even over the gods that are his peers......"

You also have to consider that we only have a fraction of what Ancient Greeks recorded in writing, so you  cannot say they did not state it - all you can do is assert that we have no record of a definition, which is entirely different and arguably completely wrong anyway.

I have to say that what really irritates me about christians is that they are usually arrogant and narrow-minded enough to consider any other religious system as inherently inferior, and only they have the true concept of anything like, for example, love. 

 

On 9/28/2017 at 9:09 PM, mikeco said:

Because he was the one who created the word. The same is true with love.

That is merely the christian view, and other cultures have other equally valid belief systems. Incidentally, when John says᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος  , for some reason, christians choose to translate λόγος as "word" where any sensible person would translate it as its usual meaning : "rational thought". In the beginning was rational thought - pure Stoic doctrine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikeco said:

 

TAR,

What aspect of pride would cause you to think that you were filled with pride? Because you had a deep and profound emotional respect and admiration for your daughter? From my view, that would be love, rather than pride. Historically pride was always evil and from what I understand, it still is. But I have not always thought that way. Like you, there were times when I thought I was filled with pride. My view has changed, as I've come to realize that pride was not what I was filled with, unless I happened to be filled with the desire to command respect, which has been the case more often than I care to recall. In some cases I was filled with deep respect and sometimes love. But I viewed it as pride.

In short, I believe we have gradually mis-defined the word over the last few hundred years. In this case, the old is better than the new. After watching a video of what people thought pride was, I realized that the evil connotation of pride is being replaced by what I see as a false positive connotation. And that is why the world seems to be rapidly filling with pride...it's very difficult to identify. I could never see it in myself because although I'm sure I have my moments, most people would not refer to me as prideful. But when God gave me his definition, my pride which was of a very subtle nature, became crystal clear.

Your view of pride as possibly being a good thing, precludes you from seeing it as the opposite of love. That's understandable. But many people believe indifference or hate is the opposite of love. Since you probably don't see them as good things, can you accept one of them as being love's opposite? And if you can, then the thing that I might would mention, is that indifference and hate are attitudes that develop out of pride, out of the desire to command respect. And therefore pride would ultimately be the opposite of love.But of course, if one views pride as a feeling of deep respect, satisfaction, or admiration, then it might very well be impossible to view it as the opposite of love. And in that case, it's back to the drawing board.

Regards, Mikeco

 

Mikeco,

You and everybody else here knows why I was filled  with pride.

I operate, in my thinking and musing under the assumption that everybody, that is human, has a similar setup to me, in terms of our body/brain/heart/group.   Some are bigger or smaller, stronger or weaker, faster or slower,  more allergic or more immune,  smarter or dumber, better remembers or worse, more "loving" or less, but the basic template of a human is very similar across the species in terms of how our brain is arranged, how the arm bone is connected to the wrist bone.  how we each have an eye on either side of our nose, and so forth. 

Male and female, stoned or sober, angry or content, there are different hormones and pheromones, needs and desires, emotions and so forth that go on, but it is all dishes cooked under different recipes but in the same kitchen with the same set of ingredients.  And there are definitely personality differences that cause some to be introverted and others extroverted, leaders or followers,  sloppy or neat,  brave or cowardly,  sharing or miserly...but personality tests are not scored on a zero to 100 basis,  and there is no pass or fail, good or bad, when it comes to love.

So for a definition of love, to make sense to me, it has to take all of the above, into account.  Some of what we do, like eating for instance is done both because we need the energy, and because we are hungry, or perhaps because we just lost our significant other, and need some pleasure to make us feel right.

My definition "love is when you include another in your feeling of self" takes all  iof the above into account, and makes no judgements.

The need to command respect, that you align with pride, and find dangerous or unsavory or bad, is, in my worldview the need to be validated by others.  This is not a bad thing, but the glue that holds society together.   When we please others, we feel good, the dopamine flows.  I think it is more that we like to be right, that causes road rage, then any evil characterization.   To me it is simple to parse a human need, emotion or action in terms of looking at our motivation/pleasure/reward system and imagining the norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine flowing the same in me as it does in you.

So the need to command respect, is, to me, the need to be thought of in a good light, by an unseen other or group of unseen others, who you would like to please.

And I have, for the last 10 years, been looking for a way to make a contribution to humanity, figuring I was well over 50 and if I was going to make a contribution, I better start working on it.

Perhaps my daughter was my contribution.  It makes me proud to see her doing real stuff that gives others nanomaterials for biomedical applications.

Regards, TAR

 

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

 

This seems to be to be an extraordinarily uninformed statement about the Greek attitude to love, based purely on a totally christian concept of identifying one love with their one god. Greeks were far more subtle and flexible about this. Greek gods are the embodiment of all kinds of forces, and I take Eros as one example of how they were well capable of describing it: (Longus II,6)

θεός ἐστιν, ὦ παῖδες, ὁ ῎Ερως, νέος καὶ καλὸς καὶ πετόμενος· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ νεότητι χαίρει καὶ κάλλος διώκει καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀναπτεροῖ.  Δύναται δὲ τοσοῦτον ὅσον οὐδὲ ὁ Ζεύς. Κρατεῖ μὲν στοιχείων, κρατεῖ δὲ ἄστρων,  κρατεῖ δὲ τῶν ὁμοίων θεῶν.....

"Love, my children, is a god, a young youth and very fair and winged to fly. And he delights in youth , follows beauty and gives our fantasy her wings. His power is so vast that that of Zeus is not so great. He governs in the elements, rules in the stars and domineers even over the gods that are his peers......"

You also have to consider that we only have a fraction of what Ancient Greeks recorded in writing, so you  cannot say they did not state it - all you can do is assert that we have no record of a definition, which is entirely different and arguably completely wrong anyway.

I have to say that what really irritates me about christians is that they are usually arrogant and narrow-minded enough to consider any other religious system as inherently inferior, and only they have the true concept of anything like, for example, love. 

 

That is merely the christian view, and other cultures have other equally valid belief systems. Incidentally, when John says᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος  , for some reason, christians choose to translate λόγος as "word" where any sensible person would translate it as its usual meaning : "rational thought". In the beginning was rational thought - pure Stoic doctrine. 

Dr Krettin,

I don't think the Greeks knew, and I implied they didn't, because if they had, I think it would somehow have made it down through the ages to us today. But I used the word “apparently”, hoping that it would qualify my overall statement. Because as you point out, maybe they did.

I won't deny that I have the capacity to be arrogant and narrow-minded, but I've always had that capacity, even before I became a Christian. I was born with that capacity and so were you. It's called pride, the desire to command respect. But maybe I have more of it than you or anyone else on Earth. And maybe that's why God told me his definition of pride...perhaps I needed to know it more than anyone else.

As for love...I didn't have the true concept. So I asked God for it. Love isn't defined in the Bible. It seems like it would be and most Christians actually think that it is. I did, until God showed me otherwise. The Bible tells us how love can be expressed but it doesn't tell us what love means. I assumed, based on my own beliefs, that since God created the word, that he should know what it means. If he doesn't, then he can't be much of a God. So I asked him, for his meaning of pride, understanding, wisdom and eventually, love. I have not stated it here, but I'm just trying to point out that, if the Gods of other cultures tell me the exact definitions of these words, as the God of the Bible has done, then I will be more than willing to listen to anything else they may have to say. But for right now, the God of the Bible is the only one speaking.

Regards, Mikeco

3 hours ago, tar said:

Mikeco,

You and everybody else here knows why I was filled  with pride.

I operate, in my thinking and musing under the assumption that everybody, that is human, has a similar setup to me, in terms of our body/brain/heart/group.   Some are bigger or smaller, stronger or weaker, faster or slower,  more allergic or more immune,  smarter or dumber, better remembers or worse, more "loving" or less, but the basic template of a human is very similar across the species in terms of how our brain is arranged, how the arm bone is connected to the wrist bone.  how we each have an eye on either side of our nose, and so forth. 

Male and female, stoned or sober, angry or content, there are different hormones and pheromones, needs and desires, emotions and so forth that go on, but it is all dishes cooked under different recipes but in the same kitchen with the same set of ingredients.  And there are definitely personality differences that cause some to be introverted and others extroverted, leaders or followers,  sloppy or neat,  brave or cowardly,  sharing or miserly...but personality tests are not scored on a zero to 100 basis,  and there is no pass or fail, good or bad, when it comes to love.

So for a definition of love, to make sense to me, it has to take all of the above, into account.  Some of what we do, like eating for instance is done both because we need the energy, and because we are hungry, or perhaps because we just lost our significant other, and need some pleasure to make us feel right.

My definition "love is when you include another in your feeling of self" takes all  iof the above into account, and makes no judgements.

The need to command respect, that you align with pride, and find dangerous or unsavory or bad, is, in my worldview the need to be validated by others.  This is not a bad thing, but the glue that holds society together.   When we please others, we feel good, the dopamine flows.  I think it is more that we like to be right, that causes road rage, then any evil characterization.   To me it is simple to parse a human need, emotion or action in terms of looking at our motivation/pleasure/reward system and imagining the norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine flowing the same in me as it does in you.

So the need to command respect, is, to me, the need to be thought of in a good light, by an unseen other or group of unseen others, who you would like to please.

And I have, for the last 10 years, been looking for a way to make a contribution to humanity, figuring I was well over 50 and if I was going to make a contribution, I better start working on it.

Perhaps my daughter was my contribution.  It makes me proud to see her doing real stuff that gives others nanomaterials for biomedical applications.

Regards, TAR

 

TAR,

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I know why you were filled with “pride.” That's obvious, because of your love for your daughter, a love which would be there regardless of what she accomplished. But what I meant was, why would you think you were filled with pride rather than being filled with love? A thousand years ago, under the same circumstances, a parent would have said they were filled with love or respect or admiration for their daughter...but not pride, because back then, pride was evil.

So, I was curious as to why you referred to it as pride rather than love because it rather seems as if the distinction between the two has become blurred, and that doesn't seem to have always been the case. From my perspective, if we blur the meaning of pride, as we have done over the years, and use it in place of love, respect, or admiration, then we lose the ability to see just how evil pride is. And if pride isn't so evil anymore, then things like humility are no longer so important. And I think our society is reflecting that.

We also lose the opportunity to tell our children that we are filled with love for them and respect and admiration. For me to tell my children that they have made me proud and they have filled me with pride, puts the focus on me and the burden on them to do that which will make me proud of them. But for me to tell my children that I am filled with love because of them, and admiration and respect, puts the focus on them and who they are as individuals, and they are set free from any burden that they may feel to “make me proud.”

I would agree that we all have a need or desire to be thought of in a good light and be respected. However, to me that is far different than the desire to COMMAND respect. Sometimes, respect must be commanded, but it shouldn't be because someone desires to. But I understand your different perspective of it.

Regards, Mikeco

 

Edited by mikeco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikeco said:

 

TAR,

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I know why you were filled with “pride.” That's obvious, because of your love for your daughter, a love which would be there regardless of what she accomplished. But what I meant was, why would you think you were filled with pride rather than being filled with love? A thousand years ago, under the same circumstances, a parent would have said they were filled with love or respect or admiration for their daughter...but not pride, because back then, pride was evil.

So, I was curious as to why you referred to it as pride rather than love because it rather seems as if the distinction between the two has become blurred, and that doesn't seem to have always been the case. From my perspective, if we blur the meaning of pride, as we have done over the years, and use it in place of love, respect, or admiration, then we lose the ability to see just how evil pride is. And if pride isn't so evil anymore, then things like humility are no longer so important. And I think our society is reflecting that.

We also lose the opportunity to tell our children that we are filled with love for them and respect and admiration. For me to tell my children that they have made me proud and they have filled me with pride, puts the focus on me and the burden on them to do that which will make me proud of them. But for me to tell my children that I am filled with love because of them, and admiration and respect, puts the focus on them and who they are as individuals, and they are set free from any burden that they may feel to “make me proud.”

I would agree that we all have a need or desire to be thought of in a good light and be respected. However, to me that is far different than the desire to COMMAND respect. Sometimes, respect must be commanded, but it shouldn't be because someone desires to. But I understand your different perspective of it.

Regards, Mikeco

 

Mikeco,

 

I don't know where or when pride went from being a deadly sin, to being "alright" to have.  But "proud parent" is now, in my mind a good thing to be, not an over indulgent type of behavior or one that signifies improper non humble behavior.  

It is one of the deadly sins.  Wrath, greed, Sloth, pride, lust envy, and gluttony were certainly things my upbringing warned against, in favor of the four cardinal virtues Prudence, Justice Temperance, and Courage, combined with the three Theological virtues of faith, hope and charity (love).  The ideas are deep in our literature, and constitution, and I was brought up with the Protestant work ethic and taught to be humble and caring and such.  So religion I think is still deep in our character, whether we are believers or not.   But the rules have been somewhat rewritten over time, and some of religion I think was meant to help us get along with each other, and selfishness was and probably still is, an antisocial type of character flaw.  

Pride I suppose can go the way you say and be an attempt to command respect, but this is not a flaw for a marine or a football player.   Testosterone plays a big role in how I, as a male behave, and interact with the world.  Other males might "feel" me, more than females who don't in general have testosterone to live with.  Certain "rules" of behavior, might be useful to bring teammates down a notch, and allow the leader to command.  As a worker bee, it is good to be humble, and carry the food back for the hive and not consume it.  I am thinking the seven deadly sins were suggested so people would reel themselves in a bit, to put the hive before the self.

But as we are saying, some of these rules of behavior are a little outdated, like temperance was a bit more on the tip of the tongue around the time of prohibition, and being a wall flower was once virtuous, where asserting yourself, especially if you are a female, is currently considered a virtue.

But behind it all, is our need to please others, to do it right, to win, to be victorious...as a team, so who is on your team, and what rules you are going by, and who you want to please, is crucial in understanding individual behavior.   To this, I long ago came up with that definition of love, to define who or what you are aligned with.  I thought it central to affection and positive feelings toward something, that you internalize, that entity, and consider it as important and central to your doings, as your self is.    When you love someone, or something, the concern and care and attention is automatic, like scratching an itch or rubbing a sore muscle.  You have that thing or person within your bubble of protection.  The other entity is an extension of you.  There is not a dividing line where you stop and the other entity starts.

So that is the love, I am attempting to define, and find the opposite, of, and that would be something like considering there be a line between you and the other entity.  A separation, a distinction,  something that makes the other entity wrong, and a loser, and  an outcast from your love. Shunned and discarded.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opposite of love is neither hate nor indifference. The opposite of love is fear. If love is an unconditional acceptance and draw to something or someone, then the opposite would have to be the intolerance and avoidance of something or someone, which is fear.

This is often reflected in literature and storytelling where there is a good vs evil plot. Good is almost always motivated by some form of love and they assuage the negative emotion fear with courage (the ability to resist fear). Evil is almost always motivated by fear, typically the fear of not being powerful enough, fear of loss (especially wealth or influence), and fear of Death.

Most every internal conflict a protagonist has also involves either overcoming fear, or finding love, Homer Simpson did both in The Simpson’s Movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now