Humans are not capable of unconditional love because of its ability to reason.
I am not a believer of selfless love mainly because I have not seen one or known one and I guess humans cannot truly provide selfless love. The church with their priests who should exercise all the virtues that their faiths are espousing could not even provide such love. They are even the ones imposing commandments for their congregations to follow. Mothers are just the same. They also set their own conditions for their children to follow. Obedience means reward, and reward can be either tangible or non-tangible. Love is a reward.
As for Jason’s mom, her love is selfish. She keeps Jason for herself by not giving him up to the authorities. She likes to own her son, which is socially and culturally unacceptable. She forgot that when a child is born, it automatically belongs to the society or to the culture where the parents are members too. Christening and presenting the child to the community instantly make the child a member who needs to abide by the rules, norms, and laws of the community or society where it belongs. Hence, the child not only belongs to the parents but also to the society in general.
Selfless love may exist only when humans would disregard its nature of being intelligent and rational. Reason would make us think. When we think, we weigh things out. What are the good and bad, benefits and liabilities, pros and cons, and other dichotomies we can think of. Once we do this, we start to make conditions to make the results of our actions beneficial to ourselves. Thus, unconditional love may not possible with humans.
14 dialectics:
Unless you fully appreciate the concept of selfless love, it is the only time you will understand the love of Jason Ivler's mother. :)
As for us automatically belonging to a society, I really doubt this statement.
no wonder it is the most sublime of all emotions..and it is not just an emotion but an act as well.
@Galen. i would really appreciate if you could present ur thoughts about selfless love and explain why u doubt on "us automatically belonging to a society". thanks:)
@paci. yes. i think it is the most sublime that it could not be easily justify by human actions.
It would be very difficult to expound such statement unless you have given it yourself. To love selflessly is a value. Others believe in it, while others don't.
As for we belonging automatically to a society, how can you explain the deviants and those dysfunctional families around the world?
@Galen. "Others believe in it, while others don't." i may agree to this because no matter things can be unreal, it would still be real to people who believe in it. :)
a child is not born deviant. saying so would mean that being deviant is genetic or inherent. deviant is someone who differs from the norm. norms are established by society.
as for dysfunctional families, they are still part of the society because a family is a social institution.
The word love is deeply rooted in Greek etymology. Yet, what the Saxons failed to understand is that the word for love is a triptych in Ancient Greece. See, love for them comes in three forms: Romance, Ardor, and Martyr. All are forms of the same love, and in each instance a person loves, it is a mixture of the three.
Romance is lofty, almost Utopian, it is the love of emotionality. Ardor is realistic, compassionate and understanding. Martyr love is supposedly selfless and irrational.
The proposition does hold some ground, partly due to the fact that love is never without reason, and always a result of a yearning for happiness. However, the argument does sound cynical, as it almost completely discredits those who transcend social bonds - the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa. Of course, their more of exceptions.
Suffice to say, can we agree on disagreeing?
Consider this, if the dichotomous nature of our logic preclude an innate propensity to love selfishly, what then of animals? Assuming the choice of loving is a selfish one, it still is a resultant of choice, and thus an extant of free will. But since we are the only creatures to possess free will, love in the animal kingdom is absolutely negated. For theirs are a set of primal and chemical reactions devoid of reason, despite purposeful and antagonistic.
So how can we measure love being selfish, or the capacity for its selfless form, when no comparative can be presented? Because we are the only ones capable of it in the first place. Because love is a human construct, the same way that marriage is a social construct.
It is varied, and immeasurable. As unique as every individual is, yet ultimately still, and very much so, human.
animals do not have a choice because they act on their instinct but it doesnt mean that they could not act in similar characteristics as humans do, like nurturing and protecting their young. its neither selfless nor selfish to them, but to me it is selfless since it is devoid of reason. they (specie-specific) are created that way, and universal (specie-specific again) to them.
we could not measure selfish love per se but we can qualify it. i called the love of jasons mom as selfish taking into account the society of which they are a member. to call love as selfless, it should not be in particular but in general or universal.
to note, humans are a proud bunch. we think that we are superior over the lower forms. we think that we have these constructs that the lower forms do not have. however, how much do we know really?
I didn't pay attention that this entry is about Jason Ivler's mom. Her love is selfish, I agree, and its unreasonable - to those who cannot fully fathom the madness there is in love.
But who are we to judge her - completely negatively - when our instinct tells us that we're capable of such loving, if the situation calls for it.
@red:
dalai lama and mother theresa are socially bounded by the institution which reared their beliefs. if they do not believe in their institutions, they won't be able to hold ground. these are not really examples of selfless love. it just ensure survival of their faith or belief.
--- --
anyway it is obvious that i don't believe in selfless love.
because it will basically disobey the most obvious physical laws of nature: action reaction, conservation of mass and energy, etc..
as for the irrational love exemplified by marlene, marlene is an artist to begin with, she has the supreme vanity. what could be more appealing to an artist but to be remembered for something grand. and that's an enough motivation. that's enough action to equate to the anticipated reaction.
as for mothers dying for their children, her death or acts ensure survival of species...similarly with mother theresa and the dalai lama.
@Galen. we could not judge her, we could only make or form opinions on her action. "opinions" though sound euphemistic. hehehe
@dabo. that could be a point, or they (dalai lama and mother theresa) have transcended their love into something spiritual, saintly, or something like "divine", so as it can already be truly selfless. :)
@Trip Acting in similar characteristics to humans, although seemingly congruent, cannot be fully classified as love for the simple fact that it is still instinctive. In this accord, I have to agree with Dabo that the precept of love being a choice and a matter of free will in a way negates the conception of selfless love. For after all is said and done, choosing to be vulnerable for the sake of another must always have its own reason. Thus, the gratification and nobility of this choice gravely overshadows its resultant disadvantages. Although society in part dictates the definition of what love is, selfless or otherwise, it would also reflect the nuances of the society in question. Hence this act may not be deemed selfless in another social strata or culture. So the 'universality' argument also seems subjective, and hence open to interpretation.
@Dabo I agree in account of the examplars I gave in that the efficacy of their acts were in lieu of their social context. Thus, making their selflessness all the more valid and inspiring. For without the conditions of their circumstances, their acts of kindness would seem almost mundane and ordinary.
However, I do sense some cynicism on your part. Words normally fail to fully encapsulate our intended meaning. But I have to concede that this is a matter of opinion. And maybe at some level, my Utopian romanticism may even be idiosyncratic to some.
"Acting in similar characteristics to humans, although seemingly congruent, cannot be fully classified as love for the simple fact that it is still instinctive."
does this mean that love is not instinctive or an instinct?
"the precept of love being a choice and a matter of free will in a way negates the conception of selfless love"
what's the concept of selfless love u r referring to?
"Although society in part dictates the definition of what love is, selfless or otherwise, it would also reflect the nuances of the society in question."
what r the nuances of the society?
@Red. please remember the main contention of this entry. "Humans are not capable of unconditional love because of its ability to reason.", which is qualified and operationalized by the case of Mrs. Aguilar.
Oh, I totally forgot about the context of this discourse. And got carried away with my attempt to disprove selfless love in the case of Mrs. Aguilar. How very myopic of me. We were actually on the same page all along, except I was too antagonistic and overzealous with my arguments to realize it. I do apologize.
I disagree. It is not impossible just because Science can't explain it.
Post a Comment