What is love? Mark Rowlands definition :)

[Carl5000]

I see people asking the question love or lust. What is love? i read a philosophy book by Mark rowlands last year and i felt he summed it up quite well. Just thought i'd share it with you, as im a fast typer. Its pure pessimism but so true.

 

A relationship with someone else can only be judged or evaluated in one way; in terms of how much this someone else brings to your llife versus hwo much your have to put in to get them to bring it. Thats what others are; resources - financial, emotional, sexual or whatever. Relationships reduce to means-ends calculations, and other people have value only to the extent they can contribute to your overall goal of self-fulfilment, whatever that should take.

 

You see others in your life only in terms of what they can do for you. You find it impossible to think of them in any other way. Try it! if you've with someone at present - a boyfriend, girlfrend, husband, wife or signifcant other-why are u with them? you might start to list reasons; because they've rich, because they give good head, or whatver. As soon as your start making a list of this sort you've locked into the instumental conception of your partner. Your thinking of them in terms of what they do for you. Ask the question, why are u with them' invites an instrumental response. the problem is; it is diffficult, genuinly difficult, coming up with any alternative way of looking at the people in your life. Now now, not any more.

 

It brings up a certain sort of anxiety about the possibiltily of genuine love. Is it possible to genuinly love someone? or does love always reduce to mutual exploitation. Or is 'love' simply a word you use to refer to an especially satisfying relationship - that is, a relationship that provides you with a lot of the important things you need?

 

If love is simply nothing more than mutual exploitation, this is, well somewhat depresssing. It could be described as alienation. Exploitative love or exploitative friendship. Alienation means isolation, separation, distancing, division. It means, above all else, loneliness. In a clear sense you are alone in the world. Each one of us is a point, a focus, of instrumental calculation and exploitation, and everyone else is a resource to be used if circumstances warrant. You are truly alone in the world - alienated from everyone else, as are they from you.

 

Any views, can anyone put up a counter-argument? where love is concerned alot of ppl seem to live in a fantasy, idealistic world with gods, angles, fairies and one where 'true love' exists. For me though, this is the reality of 'love' if a somewhat morbid tale. When i read the passage, it was like moving from darkness to light, from ignorance to bliss. A rather beatuful passage in my eyes, as he spelt it out for me. We are nothing but users

[Crazyaboutdogs]

That is a horrible and misguided way of looking at love. Yes, there are those who use people. But there are many people who do really love their partner. Love is when not only you are happy and satisfied with your partner, but you also want to make him/her happy as well. You feel that their needs are as important as your own. Love is about valuing the other person's attributes and strengths and also recognizing and accepting the fact that they have faults as well. We all use people to a certain degree...we want people who makes us feel good. But to sum up love as simply people using people is a somewhat jaded attitude.

[Scotcha]

I agree with Crazyaboutdogs.

 

I do not love my boyfriend because of what he can do for me. Appriciate it, yes, but it is not the reason for my love. It is hard to explain exactly why. I just do. Someone could give me a million dollars and satisfy every want I could possibly imagine. But that does not mean I would love them.

 

Love has everything to do with the person you love. Love is selfless... I love making him laugh. I love seeing him happy. I love seeing him succeed.

 

We trust each other. We work together. We accept and enjoy each other, faults and all.

 

I have been in a relationship where I was used or exploited. That "relationship" failed miserably in every way.

 

A relationship isn't about mutual exploitation, it's about teamwork.

 

To say loving is synonymous with using goes against the very definition of the word.

[itsallgrand]

Sure enough, there is a certain beauty and truth to the passage.

 

The problem arises for me in the assumption that we are actually separate.

 

Life is interconnectness, we are alive, thereforeeee I can not believe that 'I' am a completely self sustaining unit. 'I' am part dirt, piss, air , blood, energy: all shared resources.

 

To use the word 'exploitation' implies that something gains, while an other loses. Healthy life systems don't work that way. Ok, with virus' it could be argued, but that is another ball of yarn.

It would be like hacking at your own hand.

 

Love would be harmony, a natural flow of resources so that all parts are nourished in a sustainable way.

So anything done in my self interest will consider the interest of the whole as well.

THAT is love to me. LOVE IS LIFE and LIFE AFFIRMING.

 

The passage calls into question: What is Life? What am I?

 

Or maybe I just enjoy thinking about such things a little too much...

[melrich]

Personally I think the theory is rubbish. It doesn't speak to me at all. Of course in a relationship each party has to bring something to the union (usually a multitude of things) but it is not a supply and demand equation.

 

You see others in your life only in terms of what they can do for you. You find it impossible to think of them in any other way.

 

Not in the least. I love what I can do for my partner and what I bring to her life. That makes me as happy as what she brings to my life.

 

And if love is so commercially defined, how do you explain the love for your family or children which in many cases, despite the object of that love bringing nothing but negatives to the union, prevails.

 

This is another attempt to corporatise and quantify the unquatifaible. The thing that frustrates people like Rowlands about love is taht he can't put it in a jar and measure it.

[Dako]

Bunk.

For most of my life, I've defined love as something to give.

I'll never change that view. I don't trade it for anything.

No gods, angles (?) or fairies in my definition, and it's served me well.

[skyjuice]

Hi

 

I read an article yesterday. It talks about love towards your partner and love towards your children.

 

The horrifying gift parents give their children is they sacrifice everythings for their children even their happiness.

 

They build their happiness solely on their children. If their children are happy, they would be happy too. They perceive their children are they assets.

 

So this writer said even though the parents give life to their children or bring them to this world, it does not means that they could control what their children thought. Their children still have the life of their own, the children have to walk their own path.

 

This also imply on the love towards their partner. This writer mentioned that she used to want a partner who would love her whole heartedly, if not she would lost her own value.

 

She urge womans to not to put their entire self worth relying on husband or boy friend. Woman should build their self worth by themself as an independent individual. They should not depends on their husbands/ boy friend to validate their self-worth.

 

I have to agree that children or spouse are not our asset, they have mind and they make their own decision. We should impose control over them.

[Carl5000]

Yea, a girl i used to date and where i'd use the word 'love' i used enjoy making her smile and seeing her happy. Although, i like the definition, it feels like something is missing.

 

If my ex-girlfriend became a different person overnight, with different qualites, would i still have loved her the same? probably not. I was nice to her because of a respect/admiration for those qualities described- you love them for the way they make you feel; it was the 'wow' factor admiration, respect for her as a person and she had qualities i wanted in myself.

 

I've read some Nietzsche(main points of his work) and he is famous for the saying 'transevaluation of values' where u turn a negative into positive for positive psychological well-being, its a clever tool all humans use for happiness. Perhaps, we do this where love is concerned and our defintions.

 

I believe with that one occasional, which i felt to be love, i was so nice to her because of the wonderful sensations she gave me- emotionally and physically. I wanted her so badly and i didn't want to lose her, i'd do anything for her and for those qualities i longed so much.

 

The love died, because those qualities started to warn and i started to see her in a different light and i no longer felt the same way. I sub-consciously started to give her less love. I still feel that definition is correct and stands up well. Its just we naturally want to do some fancy dancing to avoid believing it, due to its prozaic nature. I'm the same.

 

So love could be respect and admiration for those characteristics, qualites mentioned in my original post. I'm positive i couldn't love a tramp or a women who i found completely unattactive- my pleasing of the other person, which ppl describe as love, is my longing to hold onto that person and wanting them to love me back.