Introduction
Love remains one of the more commonly used words in our
language, although its use is less than the 19th century when romanticism
figured more strongly in literature.
The ancient Greeks defined love as either Storge, Phileo, Eros
or Agape. Storge was for your family and relations, Phileo was the affectionate
love you feel for your friends and Eros was driven by desires to exemplify
passionate love, whilst Agape was the pure and ideal unconditional love.
But Italian poet and moral philosopher Dante had a different
view to that of the stoics who thought one should be wary of our desires and
rely more on reason. Dante considered all love to be good so long as it is
properly applied. One gets the impression reading his epic work “The Divine
Comedy” that one should follow our desires to love properly and if love should
fail you then you simply learn by your mistakes. Pick yourself up and
start all over again as the song goes.
What has provided a challenge in our Judeo/Christian culture
is the combination of the Hebrew thinking aspect to love expressed as a
covenant which conflicts with Greek rationality applied to Christianity by St
Paul. Kierkegaard provided his synthesis as a way forward but in the process
discredits Pauline theology for a much simpler basic Christianity- the golden
rule.
The existential movement also had a lot to say about love. Camus saw
love as the driving force for his existence whilst Kierkegaard regarded love as the substance of life which
unites the self to joy. He saw the necessity to better understand others'
actions to calm one’s initial hostility and make way for love as in the
act of forgiveness.
Epic novelist Herman Melville (Moby Dick) who was a member
of the transcendentalist’s movement, offered a critique of the interpretation
of love from his strict Calvinist upbringing …and whatever they may reveal
of the divine love in the Son, the soft, curled, hermaphroditical Italian
pictures, in which his idea has been most successfully embodied; these
pictures, so destitute as they are of all brawniness, hint nothing of any
power, but the mere negative, feminine one of submission and endurance, which
on all hands it is conceded, form the peculiar practical virtues of his
teachings.
For when we attempt to define its essence (as in true love) we
come against the glass ceiling of language.
Then the essence of love is more a question of whether such
feelings that arise to underpin love can transcend nature or are just part of
it?
There is the mystical element- yet another possible topic? –
Mysticism!
Mystic Cynthia Bourgeault whilst discssing the author of 'The
Cloud of Unknowing’ had this to say.
"Typically we think of love as having something to do with
emotions - with our feelings of affection? But if we assume that this is what
our author (of the 'Cloud',) has in mind, we quickly tumble into the sand trap
of that old "head versus heart" dichotomy.
“Whatever the author means by love, it is something of an
entirely different order from our usual sense of devotion and affection. It is
not a property of our faculties (memory, reason, emotion, will) but of
something that emerges from far deeper in the soul."
So that this rather grand vision is just a belief - which can’t be
proved, as per the quote from Professor David Buss of the Psychology Dept. of
the University Of Texas at Austin.
But true love takes its own course, through unchartered
territory. It knows no fences, has no barriers or boundaries. It is difficult
to define. Eludes modern measurement, seems scientifically woolly. But I know
true love exists. I just can’t prove it.
The one we more readily identify is possibly the instinctive
love of a parent for an infant child, but it’s not always the case in
situations for instance in postnatal depression.
So, summing up, love can mean so many different things - a
personal affection in intimacy, devotion, the love of a cause, as a duty in
patriotism, references to selfless love, in the love for one’s country which
can turn to war as referenced as the supreme sacrifice or in the desire or
admiration for beautiful objects or art form expressions.
We even see GOD-like devotion directed towards a sporting team
or when we simply say with sincerity “I love you". What becomes rather
obvious, is that as 'love' is used so freely, one struggles to define it.
So, for the purpose of this discussion paper I will provide a
working definition as follows.
Working Definition- Love as in a loving Union.
Love as in a loving Union reflects love as an emotive deep
affection, a feeling of warmth or fondness and regard within relationships with
partners, family or a group.
Of course, in our subsequent discussions, one might find such a
definition inadequate or the need for amendment. But by providing a working
definition you offer the opportunity for more specific discussions and
questions.
Where does this loving union come from?
To reiterate, probably the one we immediately identify as such a
relationship is the instinctive deep feeling of love of a parent for a child,
but that is not always the case as in postnatal depression. The inclination is
to link love as emanating from the heart (a pleasing or joyful emotive feeling)
whilst others think love is more a matter of daily decisions to consciously act
in a loving manner It immediately raises the question (as
it is often assumed) one’s duty is to love unconditionally our
children. But is that practical or possible?
Maintaining that loving feeling.
The positive emotional feedback arises within us
of pleasure or satisfaction that reinforces a positive
repetitive discourse just as feelings of rejection or
alienation have the reverse effect. What seems apparent to me is love
begins within our feelings or emotions, whatever union is involved. Central to
the maintenance of the union is the security afforded where the union feels it
is based on trust.
Unconditional Love
A question arises in relation to the union with one’s
children that it is a duty to love unconditionally our
children. But is that practical or possible?
The biblical authors distinguished between passionate love as in
intimacy -versus Agape, to mean "unconditional love", but who’s
rather grand application, given our limitations as human beings, also seems to
me to be somewhat of a contentious issue. There may be many instances of
unconditional love we feel are valid but usually there is some overarching
reward in mind even if it's only the good feeling that subsequently
arises.
Trust and Reciprocity
The question of reciprocity is also influenced by trust. In the
absence of trust one sees irrational “get even” behavioural responses to sever
a loving union.
One party feels betrayed and hence the union bonds are broken.
It can only be repaired once the healing process takes place, which is usually
seen as a form of love.
Hence it is the power of love that gives one
the capacity for loving unions to continue to blossom over time, dependent usually
upon a continuing encouragement or willingness to compromise, sufficient to
withstand the mounting pressures of life’s experiences. The idea to me then
that love leads to a more willing desire to make compromises or
sacrifices seems more realistic than “unconditional love”, that can
remain an aspiration rather than a reality.
There is also the risk of strong emotions which give rise to our
feelings which tell us the truth about how we feel, but not
necessarily the truth, so that there remains the possibility we
become so attached to the security of a loving union that our judgment
becomes clouded.
Love in terms of reciprocity is tied
to the idea of community to facilitate a merger of common
interests. If the situation arose where one side becomes subservient to a
lopsided emphasis on another’s interests, it is hard to imagine that represents
a loving union. Even so, that doesn’t mean it can be ruled out, particularly in
a caring arrangement.
For instance one can refer to instances where there exists an
agreed understanding in the relationship. The proviso then is dependent on a
remaining genuine concern between the parties, to accommodate more support of
one's interests over another’s. However, there is obviously
a clear distinction between feeling autonomous in knowing your points of view
will be respected in a loving bond as opposed to the excuse of an ego driven
controlling notion that inhibits any respect or awareness.
Autonomy
The feeling of autonomy is one of the values of love where the
union enhances a feeling of being comfortable with what can be said. A
confidence and or secure feeling of a loving relationship acknowledged in the
patience and awareness shown of the needs of the other party.
A loving union of course does not necessarily have to involve
any surrender of autonomy as in some instances the reverse may be true where
one belongs to say a group where one finds such support as gives way to
exchanges of concerns previously inhibited by controlling influences.
But the question arises is that sense of concern (as to the
welfare of one to another) sufficient? Is it fair? Such questions go to the
heart of how parties see the expression of a loving union playing out and
suggest a sustainable loving union must involve some form of sacrifice one way
or another.
This then raises the question of independence and what sacrifice
is willingly entered into and maintained as unforeseen events place existential
pressure on the loving union.
In any union there will be new networks that invariably involve
different ideas that may render the parties having different perspectives. So,
the question is how much autonomy does one have to give up to sustain a loving
union? If we regard autonomy as good and a loving union as compromising
that autonomy, how then can a loving union be a healthy union in that context
?
To reiterate, do we need to assume it is a necessary part
of love to be willing to give up some of our autonomy but if so to what degree?
One might conclude that almost all or at least a fair degree of our identity or
autonomy can be maintained provided we embrace self-examination that
allows one to adapt to life. That in turn relates to how firmly we hold our
views and the preparedness or otherwise to see different perspectives whilst
maintaining that mutual concern for one another.
This then may entail a sharing of group vulnerabilities that
strengthens the ties in keeping with the loving union thematic.
What do the respective parties gain from the union? – Does the
heightened sense of security (if applicable) feature in meeting one's
respective needs in a loving union?
Dignity
There is a presumed dignity we hold towards the other,
reinforced in day to day interaction. Love might be seen as a way to disarm the
emotive responses that might otherwise preclude many essential discussions that
would not occur in the absence of a loving bond.
Furthermore, love affords that dignity to allow for the
love of an irrational relative who constantly meddles in affairs and so gets on
one’s nerves.
The proviso is of course we don’t always respond in the same
dignified way to everyone, who may for instance not be acting in an ethical
manner or may communicate in an inconsiderate manner. In other words there is
the matter of judgment which goes to the heart of selectivity. How do we choose
to love someone and expose ourselves to vulnerability? Because of hastiness and
lack of discernment in our decision-making this becomes a common thread
leading to many emotionally scarred unions.
In simple terms what makes (in our eyes) one who is considered
lovable or not and might this be considered a matter of discernment?
Finally, it is also the feeling of autonomy because one is free
to express oneself within reason in the knowledge of patience and awareness
practised by the respective parties bonded together by love.
Does Empathy act as a precursor for building a loving
fruitful union?
Philosopher Peter Singer posits
practising empathy is fundamental to fruitful loving unions. He
encourages people to view empathy as crucially important in making ethical
decisions in any union or group.
Conclusion
Sentiments usually represent emotions or feelings that seem to ultimately become an expression of love. That is providing the discerned traits are met with our approval and the union continues to afford dignity, reciprocity and usually a form of autonomy or mutual satisfaction or agreement embodied in such a union. Trust is not the same thing but in its absence it is hard to see how a loving union could survive. I believe in true love but I can’t prove it. What's more without loving unions society would collaspse.
