The Crimes of Love
I've coined the phrase, "love on trial" in reference to my recent critical analysis of love. Few phenomena are more complex and mysterious--infused with preconceived notions, governed by norms, romanticized, distilled, nebulus, vague, ?, ?. Few concepts offer such a titilating challenge to those who wish to solve the mystery of how one can rise above life's internal and external constraints to live an extraordinary, happy life (its a mystery because I think so many people don't know how). I subscribe, more or less, to the general world wide liberal view of love; that "love is the answer," or, "love is the only thing that is true." While these cliches border on retarded because they hold so little meaning themselves, I can imagine that they might be followed by an intelligent line of thought which would reveal that true wisdom underlies the sentiment. I could imagine this, but I could only do so after love first answered for its many crimes. These crimes are faults and logical fallacies surrounding the real world manifestations of love, and the dynamic psychological quirks of the same. In this blog I want to list these crimes so that each one can later be analyzed, discussed, and resolved to my satisfaction. A complex and mysterious phenomenon like love must be dissected very carefully and methodically so that we don't eventually getting stuck in the muck, so to speak. Playing the part of prosecutor, I will not be merciful when making my charges. All possible crimes/faults must be exposed completely so that perhaps someday I'll take up the defense of love and clear it of these charges.
Charges against love:
1) Love is shallow because the process of falling in love is so often completed, retarded, or halted based upon physical attraction alone--based upon the presence of physical beauty.
(Implying that physical beauty reveals absolutely nothing of the true quality of an individual)
2) Love is less than noble because it may be closely related to, or connected with, emotional neediness or dependence. Also, this emotional neediness may be a suppressed feeling from infancy, a neediness for a mother, and an emotional connection/reaction to the comforting security and affection of a mother. (Implying that emotional neediness is not a positive personality trait since the ideal is to be content, happy, by oneself; as well as self reliant)
3) Love is harmful when it binds a person in a abusive relationship. (implying that abusive relationships are bad and stuff)
4) Love is hurtful when those in love ignore or "forsake" others that care about or love them, like friends and family members. Furthermore, a selfish love involving a love of one person only and not others, may not foster caring for the rest of mankind.
5) Love is unreliable since it often does not act as a factor in ones treatment of others (those in love often treat the person they love poorly as well as lovingly).
6) Love is unreliable since someone "in love" does not always feel fondness and attraction for the one they love. Feelings of love fluctuate in strength, ranging from almost non-existent to flowing over with admiration, fondness, attraction, and affection.
7) Love is less than noble because it may be nothing more than a tool of survival, drawing creatures together so that they can procreate, and binding mates (and parents to children) emotionally so that they and their offspring have a greater chance of surviving and begetting new generations of their species.
8) Love is enslaving since those in love may neglect their own personal progress/growth to be with or serve the one they love. Some act like slaves while others loose touch with what makes them happy due to their absolute focus on the happiness of their lover. Still others forever neglect or give up their "dreams" to play the role of companion/friend/lover.
All of these thoughts have developed over the course of years, and have nothing to do with my personal life. I wouldn't discuss anything that had to do with my immediate situation, relationship, or intimate feelings. You can be sure that I'm approaching this subject in a sort of detached and analytical way (as you can probably tell by the mr. roboto writing style). I made a point a while back not to analyze or treat so fatalistically my real life (the one in real space, not cyber space).
posted by Josh @ 8:27 PM
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First off I think we need to define what kind of love we are talking about. Merriam Webster has 9 definitions of Love as a noun.
I assume we are talking about a sort of romantic love. I love you for instance, but I harbour no romantic feelings towards you.
I love inanimate objects such as books or sports. So assuming we are discussing a romantic love I'll answer your questions as best as I can.
1)I couldn't agree with you more on this point. I believe alot of the problem here is derived from the old axiom that "SEX SELLS". Commercials have convinced alot of our society that sex and love are the same thing. Or lust and love are the same. Another problem is the NOW mentality. Alot of people want everything now. No one wants to take their time and really get to know what love is. I'm not trying to say that physical attraction isn't a part in the process of falling in love, but that Love is an intricate, elaborate, complex thing. Love is not simple. Love takes lots of work. In todays society people don't seem to want true love, but a shallow, meaningless, commercialized version of love which usually includes sex and maybe a few dates. Instant gratification. No one seems to have the time to truly fall in love anymore.
2)I believe that everyone has a natural emotional neediness that I don't think is bad at all. The need for companionship is essential for healthy living. I'm pretty sure there have been tests with orphans that I heard about somewhere, but this point reminds me of a short film called "Cipher in the Snow". It is about a child that is a little odd, and so has no friends, and basically just dies of loneliness. It is based on a true story. So I guess my point is that it is natural to have a certain amount of emotional neediness. I also believe that you can take this too far in the other extreme. My ex-wife was very needy. She gave up all her friends(not at my request), and pretty much depended on me for emotional support. I admit I was less than willing most of the time because my personality is more reasoning and less emotional. I wanted to discuss what was causing the emotions she was feeling and she wanted to live in the emotions. So too much emotional dependency can cause problems as well.
3)This I agree with also, but I don't understand at all. I don't know how an individual could remain in love with someone who abuses them physically or mentally on a regular basis. I just don't understand it, but it speaks of the power of love to make people do things they would probably not normally do.
4)Yes, love can be hurtful. Selfishness is another one of those personality traits that are becoming more and more prevalent in todays society. I don't believe it is the Love that causes the neglect, but other causes.
5)I think this kind of goes with your last question. Love is not absolute, and people are imperfect. I loved my wife, and to a certain extent still love her. I wasn't always kind. I did some pretty bad things. But in the end I let her go without a fight because of that love. I knew she would be happier and deserved better than I was giving her. This does not mean I did not love her. In my case I was still young and had the desires of a 20 year old. I wanted to go out with my buddies and party. I tried to include her in most of my activities, but sometimes I needed the time without her. She really knew how to nag me. She expected constant companionship and was very needy. This doesn't mean we didn't love each other or that we were intentionally trying to hurt each other. We were just not compatible romantically at the time. I believe if we were more mature we would have been able to have a long and fruitfull relationship. No one is perfect, and we will sometimes cause pain where we don't intend to, but the love remains(if it is indeed true love).
6)This is due to the instability of human emotions. I love the kids I babysit, but there are times when I feel like strangling them. This does not diminish the love I have for them. It means my patience has been stretched too thin. It is true that physical and emotional attracion may ebb and flow, but I think the basic love remains intact.
7)This may be true, but I tend to believe that sex doesn't equal love. I do believe the need to produce offspring is a primal instinct. Even the protection of offspring could be due to primal urges. But the love that bonds animals or humans into a sort of family/friendly unit may have some origins in those primal instinct, but I believe we have evolved into higher beings. I mean you don't have to have love to procreate.
8)I can agree with this to a degree, although it is alot less common in our society because of the selfishness I spoke of earlier. In some respects I believe this could be a good thing. I believe when someone is truly in love the will do alot to help inspire and promote their mate. I yearn for the old days when a wife/husband would not nag and complain so much, but would offer encouragement and support to their spouse. To some neglecting your own desires is the ultimate gift you could give the one you love. This is a 2 way street. Give + Give = Good. Give + Take = Bad. Take + Take = Very Bad.
Here again I think you confuse love for other human factors. Love can seem to be all those adjectives but it seems to me that in question......
1) You confuse love with having a relationship.
2) You think emotional neediness has too big a part in true love. Emotional neediness is a separate factor of life.
3) You are just right here.
4,5,6) 4,5,and 6 all seem interconnected to me. You confuse the actions of someone in love with the love itself.
7)You confuse the act of copulation with love.
8)This does seem to be a true statement in some regards although I don't believe it is all the fault of love but of a personal desire to help those you love.
I could be wrong in my assesment of your meaning behind some of your opinions, so please correct me if I made any mistakes.
Turning to my dictionary, I find that definition #1 ("a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person, esp. when based on sexual attraction.") and #2 ("a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection.") best describe the sort of love I mean to discuss. "Passionate affection", "deep affection", or fondness are all pretty good representations of what I'm thinking of. Yeah, romantic love, but one which may or may not be capable of existing without sexual attraction (this is one point of confusion about love).
Anyway, I hate how the word love is used in so many different ways. You may love me (in God's way, hehe) or you may love a book (I hear that Harry Potter books are pretty good), but the feelings associated with those types of love are SOOO much weaker and insignificant, I'd argue, than the feelings associated with romantic love-if you want to call it that.
Now to my responses to your responses:
1) I agree that people confuse love and lust, and that what counts for entertainment these days just serves to perpetuate the myth. I'm all for instant gratification myself, but not at the expense of happiness in the long term. Still, my focus is more on beauty (not lust) alone directly affecting feelings or non-feelings of love. I think what you said is wise though its off mark just a little.
2) You hit the target with this one. As with just about every moral issue, the answer does not lie in the extremes-like emotional neediness is totally bad; or, emotional neediness is totally good. Its somewhere in the middle. I agree that its healthy and possibly necessary to desire the comfort, security, and affection of another; while it is actually inhuman to feel no need for anyone else (I would need someone that I loved to need me sometimes, or else I wouldn't feel that they truly loved me). I may end up finding something wrong with that view (the one in parenthesis) since I can't immediately deduce that there is anything positive about the feeling of desperation/yerning. If a feeling isn't positive, then why embrace it?
3) I agree, its nearly impossible to understand why people in love remain in abusive relationships. I think that it has to do with the fear of being alone--a deep insecurity that may have been fostered by the dominating behavior of the male early on in a relationship--behavior that says, "you need me to survive," or "you are nothing without me." It may be behavior which is constantly and subtly belittling--getting its message across to the woman subconsciously. At the same time, there's an aspect of the love connection that is not negative attachment like fear, but positive attachment, like, well "passionate fondness". Love and loyalty are very intertwined. Love and ownership are also related. "I'm his girl and he's my guy"--it feels good to say that. It makes both feel special and safe in some weird way. Anyway...
4) I'm not so ready to let love off the hook on this one. But I'm open to the idea that its not loves fault for the lack of love felt for others. I feel compelled to go back to the mysterious connection between neediness and love. When one is needing love, it might be that the person would feel love more strongly for more people, while when that love is satisfied, when someone grants the person the affection they are needing, then that person feels less love for others. I know that when I went through a period of depression, I felt a greater need AND love for family than other times.
5) Thanks for sharing that personal information. I'm sorry that you and your exwife went through that, but I'm glad to hear that you also learned a lot-and thanks for passing that wisdom on. I fear the whole "getting on each other's nerves" thing, mainly because I know that its not 100% avoidable. Feelings are natural and can't be controlled entirely. Also, feelings of annoyance are the opposite of love, and thats a terrible thing to feel whether you are on the giving or receiving end. Undoubtedly, avoiding those sorts of feelings, and avoiding the expression of those feelings, should be primary goals for any couple, and I believe that its well worth whatever tremendous effort might be required to succeed in these goals. Which goes back to my point in 5. Feelings of annoyance will happen between people in love, which speaks to the great inconsistency and unreliability of love.
6) You speak of love in your example about the kids as if it is a persistent, unwavering thing. As if your love for them is guaranteed to remain at a certain level, no matter what sort of trouble or rough housing they get into. I am inclined to agree with your view of love in this way...in the least, it is the ideal of love that we seek after. But the fact of the matter is that sometimes you feel less love and sometimes you feel more. It may be a matter of faith when you claim to still love them during those times in which you feel nothing but anger/frustration. Is love truly lasting or does it vary from moment to moment with very little regard for previous moments? What is the true nature of love in this regard?
7) Still, you admit that love may have developed to ensure the survival of a species. Its a good point you make that now love isn't as needed for procreation, and that human beings can feel love in a more pure, higher way--less instinctual, more divine..?
8) Yes, this is a very interesting point. What sort of good comes from two people serving each other--or one person serving the other person? Can giving to each other be considered slavery? What is better, personal independence and progress or a collective effort at happiness involving service to the one you love? We know that some people are happy doing things for others. What is this "freedom" that we westerners so love? Could selfish individualism actually be less conducive to happiness for many people than living for others happiness? This is an interesting psychological/philosophical question.
Oh, I didn't respond to your last summary dealy.
1) I disagree. I may be confused about what love is, like everyone else, but in #1 I'm talking about a dynamic feeling alone, as opposed to anything to do with a more formal relationship.
2) I disagree again, but with less force. I admit that love can be felt without a feeling of desperate neediness too...I know that they are not one in the same emotion, not at all. But if you are in love, you WANT the other person, sometimes in a desperate sort of way. while they are not the same emotion-need and love-,I doubt they can be seperated. Can love exist without desire? (Why did I have to start discussing this! Its too difficult!)
3) Yes, love is harmful when it binds people in abusive relationships, but is this bonding force all bad? Can two people love each other AND feel 100% independent/free emotionally--can each person achieve an extremely high level of emotional independence from the other person?...I'm slow to say that this might be an ideal to live for... Maybe greater happiness can be gained from this approach-this approach which stands in complete contrast to the potentially misguided ideal of "becoming one". Perhaps "becoming one" (relatively) emotionally and intellectually is not all that its cracked up to be. Being so close to someone that when they are down you are down, and when they are up you are up, might be detrimental to one's own happiness because there will ALWAYS be some air of mystery regarding how the other person is feeling, thus one who is highly emotionally connected to their lover will exist in a harmful state of insecurity because they are constantly unsure of what to feel, and they are constantly looking for clues from the other person in order to determine their own mood. This is not a grounded, independent, happy state of being. Its hard to imagine that it could be overcome, though.
4)5) I agree that decision and action is the main focus here instead of feeling. Those who do not treat the ones they love with love probably do not really love that person anyway. The question remains though, does loving one person a great deal diminish the love one has for others? In addition, I stand by the point that loving one person tends to cause a person to spend less time with others (duh). I don't think that this is bad, unless the people being neglected are themselves emotionally needy for the person that is neglecting them--neediness is to blame again, it appears.
6) If we accepted that love is not constant, then we can understand why actions by those who love each other most of the time do not always demonstrate love. That said, someone who feels love is not required, in my book, to constantly make that explicitly known.
To your point, I don't think that my original point in #6 applies..we are not talking about action here, just feeling.
7) I disagree. I don't confuse the act of love with copulation. I state that the feeling of love serves to ensure copulation as well as survival.
8) Again, this is interesting because I'm beginning to see the philosophical crux of the problem. Can greater happiness/fulfillment be had through a more traditional give and give, "become one" relationship; or through a more rare type of relationship in which individuality and emotional independence is the rule, where emotional bonding is only positive --absent of neediness, but garnered with intermittent desire and joy? Is that thinking reasonably? Is it just idealistic and inhuman to think that something like the latter could exist? Still, I don't know which would be better. hmmm..
Why isn't JimX getting in on this?
I don't know. I think we better ask him. What's up J to the X? Where you at brotha!?!
Post a Comment
<< Home