Kant love?

So far I have been understanding love as the perception of value in another person and everything that flows in our response to that value. I have found a 'valuable' resource to help better articulate what I have been referring to up to now as 'value'. A dictionary article I was reading referenced this work: Velleman, J. D., 1999, “Love as a Moral Emotion”, Ethics which outlines a model of love based on the perception of value. Velleman seems to be influenced by Emmanuel Kant's theory of human respect. I just want to share their ideas as they pertain to this topic, as this may help find a better word than 'value'.

According to this article the word preferred to 'value' is 'dignity'. Dignity is defined in contrast to price:

To have a price, as the economic metaphor suggests, is to have a value that can be compared to the value of other things with prices, such that it is intelligible to exchange without loss items of the same value. By contrast, to have dignity is to have a value such that comparisons of relative value become meaningless. Material goods are normally understood to have prices, but we persons have dignity: no substitution of one person for another can preserve exactly the same value, for something of incomparable worth would be lost (and gained) in such a substitution. (quoted from article)

Kant built his model of respect on this view. Respect is the minimal response to the recognition of dignity in each other, whereas Velleman expands this to posit that if respect is the minimal reponse, love is our maximal response to dignity.

To play with this idea: a tomato does not have dignity, it has a price. So, a tomato has a value, but not the same kind of value as a person. We generally do not love a tomato, that is, we generally do not respond to a tomato by giving of ourselves to it for its own good, as if the good of the tomato was an end in itself. Rather, we tend to consider the tomato as a means to an end. Its price is is thus an exchangeable value assigned to it that can function relative to other commodities that can also function as a means to an end. For this reason we speak of money as a means "do you have the means to buy that tomato?" Yet, while buying the tomato is the end for which money is the means, the acquiring of the tomato is only another means to another end. Typically, commodities are used as means to our own ends (self love). Commodities are objects that may be living or dead, but have no 'dignity', only a price.

There are of course many who would argue that some things we ascribe a price to indeed have dignity, only we fail to recognise their dignity, usually because our own self-love overrides our ability or even our concern to seek out the dignity in others. Thus some would argue that an animal has dignity. We ought to respect animals and perhaps even love them for their own sake. Some would say the life of animal is an end in itself. Even humans have been given a price and sold as slaves to become the means to other people's ends (and sadly this still happens today in monstrous proportions!). It is even claimed by some that "every man has his price". Thus, while dignity may be present, it is not always acknowledged. This results in objectification and ultimately in dehumanisation, the reduction of people to a means. People cease to enjoy people, and start to use them. In doing so they do not appreciate the dignity of the person. In the worst cases they do not even see a person there at all!

Love, in this respect, is the perception not of value as such, but of dignity. As we can see above, while dignity may be present love may not be the result. It depends on whether the dignity is seen, or more importantly, acknowledged. Things can get in the way of this: selfishness, greed, hatred, lust... (interesting where this list can elsewhere be seen).

In light of this, is there a way we can become more loving? Based on the above, we would need to avoid all the tendencies to objectify the other. We would thus need to identify those tendencies and the thought patterns that lead to them, as well as taking a good hard look at ourselves. We might need to meditate on people we might have reduced to means to our ends, and think about their dignity, and try to see them as an end in themselves. Apart from removing the alternatives to seeing dignity in people, we might do well to explore further where this dignity comes from and how we can recognise it in each person. Finally, if Kant and Velleman are right, then respect is the natural response to this dignity, love is the maximal response. We must thus go beyond the natural and give of ourselves for their own good.

what do you think?

Read more...

Neighbours and friends - part 3

Having looked at neighbour love and friend love can we find something common between the two, and can we eliminate what is peculiar to each, or must we count the peculiar aspects of each type of love as constituent to that love? And if so, does this mean that there is no single 'love' which may have various expressions or forms, but rather there are loves which are all different but bound together only categorically?

If neighbour love sees the value of a person, but does not know them, and may never get to know them, then this seems to be a basic loving response evoked by minimal stimulus, love from a glimpse. Yet friendship love seems to develop the glimpse into a relatively detailed awareness of the other, a perceived knowledge of who they are, where they come from, what they are about, and to some extent the belief that you can treat them more or less as your equal.

Thus friendship love appears to be the natural development of neighbour love, given proximity and communication over time. Yet the development from an acquaintance or a work partner to a friend requires not only proximity and time, but seeing the other as an equal. Should we find that those proximate to us over time, we view as lesser beings, whether in moral standard, or experience and wisdom, or in stature, or in strength, or even sometimes in health, we are less likely (whether right or wrong) to view them as equals who can contribute to us as much as we can to them. We might take the role of a mentor, or be helpful, but may never open ourselves up to them in the same way they might do to us.

I am not so concerned at this stage whether our appraisal of their relative equality is accurate (this seems to be an issue in its own right), but just to say that such an appraisal tends to influence how much we consider a person we have got to know as a friend, or an acquaintance, or just work mate, or even neighbour in the sense of a neighbour who we are not friends with.

In this sense, we can love any person as our neighbour without knowing much about them. We do not expect any reciprocation in this regard, we merely give of ourselves to them for their sake alone. Yet in a friendship we seem to evaluate whether that person can reciprocate our love; whether we can open ourselves up to them. Love becomes two way, and thus is open to some level of risk, since in opening ourselves up to be loved in response, we are making ourselves vulnerable.

At this stage, is friendship love more than just 'seeing value' in the other? Is there a second force or dynamic that comes into the picture? Have we stopped looking at love and started looking at relational dynamics? Or is this just the natural and necessary progression of love? If love is at its base level to see the value in the other and give of ourselves to them for their sake, then what happens if two people do that to each other? And how can we receive love if we do not open ourselves to it?

And yet, if friendship is the natural development of love as it becomes reciprocated, then why is it so much more selective? Are value appraisals valid or are they just a self preservation mechanism driven by other factors such as fear of rejection or fear of betrayal or hurt? Or are the fears more socially complex (and superficial) such as the fear of being seen with a particular person (fear of embarrassment) etc? Without fear, and without the things that cause us to have the fear, would we see everyone as a friend? Would we be able to love each person, but also open ourselves up to be loved by each person?

Finally, what is the net result of this progression (if it is actually a progression and not two separate entities)? If love is at its most basic a response to the value in another, then the progression of neighbour love to mutual friendship seems to suggest that love has another aspect: a goal. As love works and is reciprocated, it forms a relationship between the two parties that unites them loosely. It seems that this unity is loosely based around shared values, interests and experiences, and the strength of a friendship can often be correlated to such things as these as well as physical proximity and the duration and intensity of such proximity. Friends enjoy each other for their own sake.

When a friend stops reciprocating the love, we can feel rejected. When they cease to enjoy us for or own sake we can feel they are using us as a means to an end, rather than enjoying us as an end in itself. We expect friends to reciprocate the love we have for them. In this way we consider them equal and thus place a responsibility or expectation upon them to live in such a way. When they do not we do not consider them to be our friend, though we may still love them and care for them for their own sake. In this case they cease to be friends as such, and love reverts to neighbour love.

Perhaps as we explore romantic love, marital love and familial love we will find that love continues to progress towards a goal of union (or communion), though it is still based on the recognition of value in the other.

Not sure if I have hit the nail on the head with this post, but I think I have uncovered that love has more than one core aspect, namely that it has a source and a goal.

Read more...

Snippet

Was reading a book review in amazon.com and found this interesting snippet, which I plan to explore down the track:

My own view on love is that when we focus on the person we love, there is a oneness or unity. love is the ultimate dissolver of subject object boundaries. love is very oneness itself and without love, oneness is just not possible. the purpose of union is love. (Tom Corbett "Flaky")

I have been thinking about love and 'tracks' or paths, but am not yet ready to write on that topic. It seems though to be an important aspect of relationships.

Read more...

Neighbours and friends - part 2

Having looked at neighbour love, what is different between this and friendship love (which some might define as philia)?

Carol Simon has identified that one of the main characteristics of friendship love is that it is a love shared between 'equals.' That is, A friend is someone who you do not see as lesser than yourself, in which case your relationship would be like that of a parent to a child. Neither do you see them as greater than yourself, or you would be the 'child' and would not feel like you could offer them anything. They are not merely an acquaintance, or you would not be in a position to see them as lesser, greater or equal. A friend is therefore someone who you know, and who you consider to be on par with yourself. Some have depicted friends as two people walking down the same path side by side (though Carol Simon has a more nuanced understanding).

It seems to be generally held (at least by philosophers and psychologists) that friendship love is temporary, typically having correlations with physical proximity, and duration of shared experiences. We become friends with our class mates at school, but when we leave school we do not necessarily maintain our friendships. When we move to a new state or location, we often find new friends and start to 'drift apart' from our old friends, losing contact and thus needing to 'catch up' every now and then.

So a friend is an equal who shares experiences with us.

Another aspect of friendship is that it is a two-way relationship. We tend to feel like we are being 'used' by some people who would say they are friends but do not truly return the friendship. Such people may believe they are better than us, or that we are lesser than their other friends, or they may just be too absorbed in their own agenda to care about who we are and what our goals are (to use Simon's more loaded term, 'what our destiny is'). This suggests that a friend is someone who not only cares about their own agenda, but also cares about ours. And they are someone who we also care about, and who we will help out so that they can reach their goals. That is, as long as we believe their goals are good goals.

We have probably all known a friend who has frustrated us at some stage by a decision they have made which makes no sense. Their actions become 'out of character' and we cannot support them (or 'endorse' them to use Simon's words). It is as if at that stage we know what is best for them, and as they are unable to see it, we become 'higher' than them. It has been noted that if this situation continues for a period of time the friendship is at risk of failing, as we can no longer see the person as our equal. We might resolve to stick by them in their bad decision, but then when they cannot understand why they are now suffering and we know exactly why, we feel that we have lost the ability to 'be on the same page'. The friendship ceases to be what it was, and we might find ourselves wanting our 'old friend' back.

Some friendships do remain strong even over great distances and through the years. These kind seem to be more like the bonds of family, "no matter what I will stick by my friend." There have been many movies where friends will stick by each other through the bad decisions, because the choose friendship over rationality or righteousness or pain and even death. Interestingly, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was considered the ultimate act of friendship love (which is interesting to note that this comes out in John's Gospel where so many people like to make a great distinction between phileo and agape (e.g. John 21)). In John 15 Jesus speaks of his own friendship love when he says "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (verse13). He goes on to say "I have called you friends for everything I learned from my father I have made known to you." and "you are my friends if you do what I command." This is an interesting passage in light of our understanding of friendship as 'equals who share life together.' Can we really be friends with Jesus? can we really be regarded as equal to the Son of God? Does he see us friends, equals that he can share his life with and 'everything he has learned from the father'? John notes the language of friend's shared experiences, and that Jesus shared our humanity and thus lowered himself to become equal with us. He left his father and became one of us, so he can truly be called a friend. I think this is quite significant. He is able to walk our road and share our experiences, to empathise with us and to walk in our shoes. One might wonder, when he calls us to follow him, does he actually call us to walk beside him? And yet, friendship with Jesus is qualified by conditions: "if you do what I command", and verse 10 says "if you obey my commands you will remain in my love, just as i have obeyed my father's commands and remain in his love". We never exclusively have a friendship with Jesus. He is our friend, but he is also our Lord and King.

But in the same way, Paul asks us to be willing to 'associate with people of low position' (Romans 12:16). Is he asking us to love them as our neighbours or as a parent-child relationship, or is he asking us to leave behind our so called lofty position and become true friends with them?

So then, is friendship love a love that not only sees that which evokes the loving response, but that which loves back, in which there is mutuality and in the bond of returned love, equality. Friendship is the safe haven of love's gaze into each other that enables us to share each other's experiences, hopes, wishes, dreams, goals, losses, failings... lives. And yet we have seen that this can be limited to what dreams, goals and interests that we have in common, that we see as equal and shareable. As friends start to follow different pursuits, they can often grow apart, the bond of love does not need to hold them together, but in so far as they walk together, their love looks our for each other and supports each other. When one falls the other can help them up.

There are obviously many more aspects to friendship love that tie into the same (elusive) centre. Why is it that when we split up with our best friend we are left with questions and doubts about our own identity? As if what we have shared of ourselves has been rejected, and thus we are forced to decide whether that was because we are in some way inadequate, or if it was due to some inadequacy on the friend's part. This is why there is either great hurt at such times, or even great hatred.

There are many more aspects too, which I wont explore right now. But I do wonder, what friendship love and neighbour love have in common. now that I have explored what both are, I will compare and contrast them next.

Read more...

Neighbours and friends - part 1

Is it possible to find that which is common in different kinds and expressions of love?, and can we grasp love's essence from they have in common? Let's look at two kinds and see.

Carol Simon has given a good treatment to the topic of neighbour love, as I have read. Drawing from Simone Weil's meditation on the parable of the Good Samaritan, she understands love of neighbour to be the perception of something worth loving in the neighbour. The lover may know nothing about them, not their name, or their history, but they 'see' them and know that this person has a destiny given by God, and, through imagination can envisage ways to promote and nurture that destiny in the neighbour, even at their own cost (i.e. renouncing their own plans, and giving of their time and money etc). This love may be a momentary reaching out, but can have life-long consequences. It can be as simple as a smile or hello to a stranger that lets them know they are not alone, to the offer of a lift, or a job, or a meal. It is helping someone in need, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and providing shelter for the homeless. It is caring for the sick, and defending the helpless. This is something that is very important in the Torah and Israel is severely rebuked in the prophets for not having this kind of love. Jesus also warns his disciples that those who do not show this kind of love have no place in his kingdom.

Is this kind of love based on some kind of 'seeing' the other, a perception of their 'preciousness' or perhaps their need? While this idea resonates a lot with me, I see its dangers, as has been pointed out by Augustine and Anders Nygren. What happens if we cannot see? what happens if we cannot find? What happens in a world where suffering is swept under the carpet, in distant countries where we are not personally confronted with the agony and starvation that our neighbours are enduring and perishing in? There is a modern parable of a man who had stalled his brand new Ferarri on the middle of a rail crossing. While reaching for the ignition to restart his car, and while hearing the crossing bells start to ring he notices a little boy has a foot caught in the tracks not far off. Seeing the train approaching at fast speed he is faced with the decision: 'Do I leave my car here and rescue the boy? Can I get it started in time, move it and still save him? Can I assume he will free himself in time? what will I do?' The more he thought about it the more his time to pursue the latter two options ran out. His eyes fixated on the boy and though he did not know the boy at all, he knew that he was worth more than his expensive car. He left his car and ran to the boy's aid. He managed to remove his foot from the stuck shoe just in time before the train arrived, but he was not able to run back to his car and move it too!

This man was willing to give up a car worth quarter of a million $$$ to rescue a boy he didn't know simply because he saw him in real need. We can ask ourselves what our response would be in the same situation. We can ask if our response would have been different if other people had been near by, such as the case where a woman in a crowded apartment complex was raped and stabbed repeatedly over several hours, screaming out for help the whole time, but not a single person came to her aid before she died. When the police surveyed the other tenants, they all assumed someone else was already gone to help her. Without seeing the truth they were not compelled by love to at least seek out the truth. And yet again, though we might have answered the first question with a very confident 'yes', a car is worth nothing in comparison to a boy's life, and yet around 40,000 children die every single day from starvation related diseases. We do not sell our cars to save those children. We are reminded from time to time that they exist and that the situation is real, but we are not always compelled to act. It is often when we see an image of a malnourisheed child that we are most moved to give. I still remember the image of an incredibly thin child on the movie Beyond Borders which I commented on a while back. There really is something in the seeing, but then is love constrained by what can be seen? (cf. "^If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. " 1 John 4:20).

From the story of the Good Samaritan, is a neighbour defined as anyone we see in need? Or is a neighbour simply anyone who is in need? Is it love of our neighbour that causes us to pay our taxes? The knowledge that our money is paying the medical bills of someone in need, and the rent of someone without a job? Or because it is an impersonal transaction, can it be a way of "giving all I have to the poor, but not have love..." (1 Corinthians 13). And yet, if we specifically give money to a person, it is much easier to recognise and affirm that this is an act of love.

Is love blind, or must it first see?

I took part in a psychology experiment as part of my 1st year psych studies at Melbourne Uni. The experiment 'exposed' a group of us to images and stories of people suffering torture and inhumane violence, coercion and oppresion in Dili (around the time of the Dili massacres). They then offered several ways for us to respond and asked what we would choose (if anything). to pose their thesis as a question, they were wondering whether when people are shown need or injustice, and if they believe they are in a position to make a difference to that situation, are they compelled by a sense of responsibility to act? (cf. "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" 1 John 3:17). Again, the response is indeed a response, to 'seeing' something, or being confronted by something. The something typically has to be personal (another person suffering or in need). I remember seeing groups of activists passing out flyers at Melbourne Uni all the time, for various causes, and none of these ever really arrested me, but that psych experiment left a lasting impression!

The love of neighbour sees need, or sees injustice against a person, and is compelled to act.

but what does the love of a friend see?
Stay tuned...

Read more...

Love derived from its types

I have explored three ways of looking at love: (1) seeing something precious in the beloved that causes us to respond in love, namely to protect, nurture, enjoy, give to and promote that beautiful precious thing for its own sake, (2) choosing to love another person regardless of whether we perceive any beauty or value in them, and (3) seeing the person's need for God's presence, and God himself welling up in us to be poured out to the beloved. These are three quite different views, but all have their overlapping aspects. Can we continue to push ahead and get to the heart of love itself?

Would another approach be to explore the types of love, as Caroline Simon has in her book? She explores neighbour love, friendship love, romantic love and marital love (that is as far as I have got so far so I am not sure what other types she has detected). Is there a possibility of seeing what these different types of love have in common, as well as what the three understandings above have in common, and perhaps derive an understanding of love's essence from that? I shall try to do so after considering what I have read. Stay tuned...

Read more...

Echoes in the dark

Oh, for a conversation partner.

Read more...

Love as a substance

Just to go on another tangent, I was watching an episode of the X-Files the other night called Milagro, in which love was described as a substance not of this earth, which humans are unable to create, and the only power we have over it is to destroy it.

Playing with this imagery, one might imagine that love is 'something' that comes from God (1 John 4:7-21, especially verse 10). One might envisage that love is an unseen or spiritual 'substance' that only manifests as we, through faith, pour it out to another (Faith, hope, love). God is love (1 John 4:16) and all love comes from God, and God indeed commands that we love one another just as he loves us. So, using this imagery, can we ascertain what is actually happening when we love?

Perhaps God's own self-giving essence (ousia) is 'poured out' (to death) into the beloved in a kind of perichoretic fashion. Perhaps what we see in the beloved which drives us to love is not actually anything of value (as I have said earlier that it is the perception of this preciousness which evokes our loving response), but rather we see the need, the absence of wholeness that yearns to be whole, that yearns to be filled with what only God can provide: himself. Perhaps loving is the completion of the other with God's all-sufficient indwelling. The completion of the God-shaped hole. Or to put it into metaphors that I like to play with, to put God into the image of God.

Read more...

The classical definition of love

Not long after my last post I continued reading further in The disciplined heart and was confronted with what is considered the classical Christian understanding of love, or to be more accurate, loves. Christians have traditionally drawn a distinction between three types of love: eros, philia and agape. Some of the more prominent champions of this view are Anders Nygren, Martin Luther and Søren Kierkegaard. They posit that eros and phileo are natural human loves, and therefore lesser loves than agape, which they believe is the word used for God's love of humanity. I found it interesting to read Simon's rendition of this classical view, especially just after reading a view that resonated with my own. So I thought I would interact with those views also.

The classical view understands what I have been defining as love as having characteristics of eros and philia. Eros is defined as passionate love (usually romantic love). It's central characteristic is desire, desire for the beloved. It sees in the beloved something it desires, and seeks to acquire that something for itself. In some ways it could be referred to as the souls attempt to transcend itself, to find completion in another. Eros is never used in the Bible, and thus never used to express God's love toward us, but some theologians believe it is apt to represent our reaching for God, as Augustine says "we are restless until we find our rest in him." As Eros can be understood as our reaching beyond ourselves for something to 'complete' us, it is typically seen as an egocentric love, a love that consumes, and is therefore unworthy of the love Christ commands us to have. It also makes sense, that if this is the definition of eros then it is not appropriate for God, who is complete in himself and thus does not desire anything from us.

Philia is typically understood as friendship love, the bond of two friends, and is characterised by affection. It is a love that sees the beloved as an equal and sticks by them so long as they continue to be perceived as equal. In contrast, the classical view implores that agape is higher than both eros and philia because agape loves in spite of what it sees. Agape alone can be called Christian because it alone can love the unlovely, the unlovable, regardless of whether any value can be perceived, and regardless of whether there is in fact any value at all in the beloved. Agape is characterised as a disinterested love, without motive, without regard for one's self, without necessarily having any affection or emotion, not as a response to the other, but as an initiating act, performing loving deeds for the good of the other, but not because of the other. It is a love that is done by choice, by will and because God commands it.

While this understanding of love(s) does have resonances with the Bible, I do not think it is without some problems too. If Agape is a love by choice and has no origin in the beloved, then to love a person is not to communicate anything to them about themselves, rather it communicates to them something about ourselves. Agape does not say "I accept you, you are precious," it can only say "I will do good to you." I think there are many Christians who will read that and say this is how it should be, because we are all sinful and thus should indeed not be accepted, but rather, by grace good should be done to us, not because we deserve it, but because of the nature of the one who does love us. And indeed this is why the classical view is the classical view. And yet, it does not resonate with me, neither am I convinced it is a necessary explanation, as if there are no other possibilities or models for understanding love.

Having said that, I am not very mature in my view, and find it hard to articulate, still hoping that a progressive scan image will become clearer and more defined with each passing.

If agape does not see value in the beloved, and indeed does not care, does it see the beloved at all? Is the love (however we must redefine its essence under this definition) really directed to the beloved, or is it like a wine which, as it is poured our of the bottle, forms its own glass (can't remember where I read that image). If agape creates value in the beloved, then is the object of agape actually the beloved, or is it that thing which it itself created, which is distinct from the so called beloved. Does it in fact say, "you have no value, so I will create something valuable and pour myself into that." ?

If agape does not see the other person, but acts on the choice of the lover, what governs the choice? Is it arbitrary? Will we love whom we will love, and hate whom we will hate? I see another resonance to one model of Christianity here, a model which, again, does not resonate with me!

If agape does not see the other person but loves in response to God's command, then what is the 'love'? The love itself must ultimately be defined by what it does, since it is merely the result of a decision. The decision is to act, and the deed becomes the love. But then why does Paul speak of being able to do love's work without actually having the love itself:

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,^ but have not love, I gain nothing. (1 CORINTHIANS 13:3)

To me this indicates that the act is not the love, but that love can be the motive for the act. If love is the motive, then perhaps the classical definition is not quite right. Indeed we are commanded to love one another as Christ has loved us (perfect tense, not past tense). And indeed this would mean to love the unlovely, the sinful, the evil people. And what if we cannot see any 'value' in the beloved, are we unable to love them by my definition. Are they dead, needing a creative love to resurrect them? Or is it that we love them in faith that 'what you do to the least of these you are doing to me'? Or by faith that they are made in the image of God and therefore there IS absolutely value in there, we just need to be patient to see it.

And yet, if we can love by faith, without seeing that thing which evokes our love, then how can love be defined as the perception of that thing, from which all else flows?

This exploration is finding many challenges. Carol Simon sees the role of imagination as indispensable to love overcoming a fallen humanity in which perceiving the beloved's destiny can be an all but impossible task. Paul sees love as bound to faith and hope in a way that neither can be separated from the other. How can we love someone for whom we see no hope? How can we see hope if we have no faith? Why would we even care if we had no love?

But again, it all comes back to what actually is the love?

Read more...