Love

[Seditious]

I can love something for the feelings they engender in me simply through existing, no dependence on action / consequences is required as with what seems to be all other forms of 'valuing' something. This is not a counter to your claims, just an attempt at illuminating what (seems to me) to seperate notions of love from other forms of valuing. (Brought on largely by your attempt to bring them closer together, yes )

yea naa in light of that I think I understood you well when I first answered.

I like to run with the first thing that comes to mind, and here it was the aesthetic pleasure I derive from perceiving Jessica Alba as beautiful, but I do consider her beauty being there for me to see to be as an "externally perceivable consequence towards myself", as valuing talking to her because I love her voice, or her wit, or touching her because of the way she feels and responds... the sense of 'consequence' here is like that of food, I don't expect the food itself to act in any way, to have any behavior, merely 'that I will have a reaction in its being present to my stomach'. Without the consequence of feeling horny or happy or what have you when I see her, I wouldn't have any 'overarching state of positive feelings toward' her (supposing for example sake that I have no other reason for liking her)

 

[Blowtus]

The examples you provide are value derived from specific elements / attributes, not the entity as a whole...

It seems more complicated than the food analogy to me, I do not hope for a happy life for the bunch of bananas in my fruit bowl, there is no happiness created by the caring (whether actualised or not) for them.

 

[death metal black metal]

I don't expect the food itself to act in any way, to have any behavior, merely 'that I will have a reaction in its being present to my stomach'. Without the consequence of feeling horny or happy or what have you when I see her, I wouldn't have any 'overarching state of positive feelings toward' her (supposing for example sake that I have no other reason for liking her)

You expect the food however to have properties, like any good materiel, and extend that to her as a passive contributor to sexual excitement. But what about love?

 

[Seditious]

You expect the food however to have properties, like any good materiel, and extend that to her as a passive contributor to sexual excitement. But what about love?

what're you on about?

 

[death metal black metal]

what're you on about?

A Kantian comparison between thing-in-itself intentionality and a scientific observation of the tendencies of matter.

 

[Seditious]

A Kantian comparison between thing-in-itself intentionality and a scientific observation of the tendencies of matter.

I was referring to 'extending food toward her as contribution to sexual excitement':zombie:

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

My opinion on it is simplistic. I could get very fancy but I think some clarity is needed on such an important issue. My thoughts are these:

Usually, when somebody loves someone, that someone does not love them back (or not to the same extent, or not at the same times).

Even when lovers do connect, it often causes problems.

I think love sucks. It can be quite uplifting and powerful, and all of that. But I think it is generally a grand illusion. It makes us legitimately feel and care, but there's no way to truly connect. We just need to believe that there is.

 

[death metal black metal]

Love exists for the exclusive, not the inclusive. Anything else is pity (altruism is pity).