View Single Post
Old 04-10-2009, 10:23 PM   #24
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,971
Don't mind me, I'm just posting an conversation about this which may be interesting:

Quote:
Originally Posted by C
So it seems that most of us have irrational beliefs of one kind or other, or delusions.

The second greatest perhaps being a belief in deity.

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

Well I'm gonna say the belief that you are loved.

Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.

I believe I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my friends.

There is though no empirical evidence to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must believe that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.

Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Your first mistake is considering love to be (only) a feeling. Love is put to the test, feelings are not. For example, you can say: "That wasn't real love, just infatuation." But you can't say: "That wasn't a real pain (or sound, feeling, taste etc)." There is a clear logical difference between a feeling and the concept of love. So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A
One could argue then that love is both: a feeling and something you can put to the test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Sure, I don't discount that. But love, as a concept, is much more than just a feeling. Otherwise it'd just be infatuation, not love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A
If I may ask, how do you define love?
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
I don't, although I like some (limited) descriptions of it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 13:1-8a and 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails....And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I'm not religious but these words are true. It's not meant to delineate the entire concept of love, but just to show: these things are part of love, and other things can be also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A
That Biblical passage is, to date, the best description of love I've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.
That's a little contradictory no? 'It's not a question of evidence' vs 'whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house'

So if a smile is evidence of love, or wind, or a deception, then it is subjective? You can take a smile as evidence of love, but even then you are choosing to believe that is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

Love is a feeling.
Feelings are completely subjective.
Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

I disagreed with the first premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C
Do you not consider infatuation to be a kind of love, perhaps a precursor even?
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
No, I consider it infatuation - though I won't deny that infatuation often comes before love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C
What would you say the differance is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Pretty much similar to wiki's answer on the subject. It's typically characterized by "a lack of trust, loyalty, commitment, and reciprocity." In my response to A you can see some of the ways that love would be different from that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

Love is a feeling.
Feelings are completely subjective.
Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

I disagreed with the first premise.
Sorry I don't think I said that. If you are paraphrasing me, I think you have the wrong end of the stick mate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Yes, I paraphrased for clarity. In what way did I misunderstand you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by C
I did not say that love is a feeling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Nonetheless, I believe my point was valid. In your original post, it quite clearly indicates that love is taken to be subjective. In the same way we "can't know" whether someone feels pain, we "can't know" whether someone loves another. I disagreed with this idea and I gave an example for why it is not possible to coherently treat it as an exclusively subjective experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English.
To be pedantic, the belief that the sunset is beautiful is on much more steady ground than the belief that another loves you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Logically I don't think it does rest on steadier ground, which was my point. I wanted to show that, in this situation ("the sunset is beautiful") we do not question it-- but now we question another situation ("I love you") that has a similar logical form.

Suppose a parent - who makes their child lunches for school, flies kites with them on weekends, reads them bedtime stories, comforts them when they're hurt and protects them when in danger - says to their child, "I love you." Why is that more doubtful than than the statement "the sunset is beautiful"? I say: there is no steadier ground than this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B
Because the statement, "the sunset is beautiful", is a statement relating to the self, and I agree with you that we cannot doubt our phenomenological experiences; at least, we cannot doubt that we are having them, that we experience an aesthetically pleasing scene.

There is more doubt, however, in regards to statements relating to others, such as someone else saying "I love you". I can doubt that you genuinely love me in a way I cannot when considering my own state of mind; no matter the outward behavioral evidence.

Though, we'd live a rather poor life if we constantly did doubt as I say above. It is, as I mentioned, a rather pedantic point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
I was thinking of someone else saying that the sunset was beautiful, just as someone else would say that they love you. I don't think we really disagree here.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,