Agape and its significance

[Betterave]

Aha. This is what you wrote:

“Love, caring, community, friendship, including special care for those who need it the most (the young, the old, the sick, the stupid, etc.) are features that clearly belong to human nature, which is inherently social/communitarian.”

So the apes “clearly” exhibit “human nature”. Of course I do agree with that. Moreover, the apes do not exhibit volitional behavior. Their behavior is based upon instincts - but you say that they have features that “clearly belong to human nature”… sure looks like an interesting conondrum to me. Maybe that “volitional” aspect is not a big deal after all.

Aha. You’re not very good at logic. If I say being social is a feature that belongs to bees, I do not thereby deny this trait of all other species. The apes clearly exhibit traits that they share (to a limited degree and in a different context) with humans. These generic traits *belong *to human nature; they do not, as such, constitute human nature.

 

[R_Daneel]

Aha. You’re not very good at logic. If I say being social is a feature that belongs to bees, I do not thereby deny this trait of all other species. The apes clearly exhibit traits that they share (to a limited degree and in a different context) with humans. These generic traits *belong *to human nature; they do not, as such, constitute human nature.

The “social feature” of bees is significantly different from the social feature of humans, just like the “loyalty” of a dog is different from human loyalty. These propositions are not meant to be taken “literally”, they are taken allegorically. So your response is not accurate.

With the apes, the case is different. Their love, caring, mourning of their dead is strikingly human. As the old saying goes, the difference between the apes and humans is that humans are able to experiment on the apes, but not the other way around. Obviously there is a huge difference between the two species, but that difference does not include “Love, caring, community, friendship, including special care for those who need it the most (the young, the old, the sick, the stupid, etc.)” - which you associated with human nature. And all these traits are instinctive and not volitional. Amazing, isn’t it?

 

[Betterave]

The “social feature” of bees is significantly different from the social feature of humans, just like the “loyalty” of a dog is different from human loyalty. These propositions are not meant to be taken “literally”, they are taken -]allegorically/-] analogically. So your response is not accurate.

You’re close to being right here, but you’re missing the point that your point was my point.

“With the apes, the case is different. Their love, caring, mourning of their dead is strikingly human. As the old saying goes, the difference between the apes and humans is that humans are able to experiment on the apes, but not the other way around. Obviously there is a huge difference between the two species,…”
[correct!]

“…but that difference does not include “Love, caring, community, friendship, including special care for those who need it the most (the young, the old, the sick, the stupid, etc.)” - which you associated with human nature.”
[NOT correct - these terms can be predicated of both species, but certainly not univocally (only analogically)].

“And all these traits are instinctive and not volitional. Amazing, isn’t it?”

Yes, amazing; but it shouldn’t confuse you into thinking their generic similarity justifies a univocal predication of the traits in question to each of the species in question. Don’t let your amazement at the similarity dazzle your perception of the huge differences.

 

[R_Daneel]

“…but that difference does not include “Love, caring, community, friendship, including special care for those who need it the most (the young, the old, the sick, the stupid, etc.)” - which you associated with human nature.”
[NOT correct - these terms can be predicated of both species, but certainly not univocally (only analogically)]

Why? Most of these traits are based upon emotion in both humans and apes. The only difference - in this respect - is the agape as long as it is based upon “cold, hard volition” - and not on emotions. So far there was not one argument in this thread which could substantiate that volition is in any way better or superior or more desirable than emotion, as the driving force.

Yes, there is the theological argument of “love thy enemies”, but that is just nonsensical. As a matter of fact, game theory (a serious part of mathematics, dealing with optimal strategies) proves that the “love thy enemy” as a strategy is not just sub-optimal, but actually a very bad one. So much for the “omniscience” of the “divine” Jesus, who had no idea about this mathematical proof.

 

[Betterave]

Why? Most of these traits are based upon emotion in both humans and apes.

“based upon” - I think this is where you’re probably confused and failing to notice the obvious salient facts. You believe, rightly or wrongly, that ‘love’ behavior is “based on” emotion in both humans and apes. Even if that is where ‘love’ behaviors ‘originate,’ in some sense, in both species, that is irrelevant to the obvious fact that chimps do not arrive at a concept of love and that this consciously conceptualized and ‘volitionalized’ kind of love is completely lacking in chimps. We have no reason to think that a chimp’s natural ‘love’ behaviors are ‘love behaviors’ to the chimp - they’re just natural behaviors, like the dolphin helping the drowning human.

The only difference - in this respect *[sorry - in what respect?]

• is the agape as long as it is based upon “cold, hard volition” - and not on emotions. So far there was not one argument in this thread which could substantiate that volition is in any way better or superior or more desirable than emotion, as the driving force.

“The only difference is the agape”? That sounds rather mysterious - I prefer my explanation (above). It makes the superiority of human love rather obvious (I hope! - unless you are convinced that this oh-so-intelligent conversation we’re having is intrinsically worthless).

Yes, there is the theological argument of “love thy enemies”, but that is just nonsensical. As a matter of fact, game theory (a serious part of mathematics, dealing with optimal strategies) proves that the “love thy enemy” as a strategy is not just sub-optimal, but actually a very bad one. So much for the “omniscience” of the “divine” Jesus, who had no idea about this mathematical proof.

Okay then… Do you really want me to respond to this? It’s incredibly shallow… Okay, fine; I will: Are you suggesting that anyone familiar with the mathematical proof will have no choice but to accept that game theory is an appropriate theoretical framework for establishing one’s fundamental life orientation? That seems like a completely absurd claim. Do you have any reasons justifying it?

 

[R_Daneel]

“based upon” - I think this is where you’re probably confused and failing to notice the obvious salient facts. You believe, rightly or wrongly, that ‘love’ behavior is “based on” emotion in both humans and apes. Even if that is where ‘love’ behaviors ‘originate,’ in some sense, in both species, that is irrelevant to the obvious fact that chimps do not arrive at a concept of love and that this consciously conceptualized and ‘volitionalized’ kind of love is completely lacking in chimps. We have no reason to think that a chimp’s natural ‘love’ behaviors are ‘love behaviors’ to the chimp - they’re just natural behaviors, like the dolphin helping the drowning human.

You state the obvious, but it has no significance. Yes, chimps do not “conceptualize” love, but the actions stemming from that love are basically the same, expressing that love, caring, etc… It is their natural behavior, without the “conceptualizing” baggage. As usual, words are less significant than actions.

“The only difference is the agape”? That sounds rather mysterious - I prefer my explanation (above). It makes the superiority of human love rather obvious (I hope! - unless you are convinced that this oh-so-intelligent conversation we’re having is intrinsically worthless).

You did not “explain” anything, and yes, this conversation is rather worthless.

Okay then… Do you really want me to respond to this? It’s incredibly shallow… Okay, fine; I will: Are you suggesting that anyone familiar with the mathematical proof will have no choice but to accept that game theory is an appropriate theoretical framework for establishing one’s fundamental life orientation? That seems like a completely absurd claim. Do you have any reasons justifying it?

Do you actually understand what I mean? Life is a game, mathematically speaking. We employ strategies to achieve some goals. Some strategies are better than others. The “love thy enemies” and the “turn the other cheek” type of strategies are far worse than others. This is not an opinion, it is a mathematical fact. But, of course one must study this field in order to comprehend it.

 

[JohnDamian]

Do you actually understand what I mean? Life is a game, mathematically speaking. We employ strategies to achieve some goals. Some strategies are better than others. The “love thy enemies” and the “turn the other cheek” type of strategies are far worse than others. This is not an opinion, it is a mathematical fact. But, of course one must study this field in order to comprehend it.

The research reliability may be fine; but I would question the arbitrary nature of the validity of the research. Nessecarily, whilst compiling such data it must be correlated against certain predicates; I would like to know what predicates these are.

Obviously, such behaviour does not satisfy economic principals; but I would contend that loving thy neighbor makes one happier and lead a more meaningful life.

 

[R_Daneel]

The research reliability may be fine; but I would question the arbitrary nature of the validity of the research. Nessecarily, whilst compiling such data it must be correlated against certain predicates; I would like to know what predicates these are.

This is not research, it is mathematics. Game theory is not something one can just “pick up”, so to speak.

Obviously, such behaviour does not satisfy economic principals; but I would contend that loving thy neighbor makes one happier and lead a more meaningful life.

This is a subjective assertion and in many cases it might be true. But as a general rule - love your enemies (enemy is someone who wants to hurt you) - it is not a good one. And to sacrifice oneself for an enemy is downright nonsensical.

 

[JohnDamian]

But as a general rule - love your enemies (enemy is someone who wants to hurt you) - it is not a good one.

I fail to see that you have anything to back that up with at all - it appears just a pessimistic and negative skew on the world

 

[R_Daneel]

I fail to see that you have anything to back that up with at all - it appears just a pessimistic and negative skew on the world

I could give you the mathematical proof. Could you understand it?

But just use your common sense. If someone is cruel and bad, if someone is hostile toward others, and those others keep forgiving him and treat him a person worthy to “love” and never-ever punish him for his behavior, what will be the outcome? Would he be encouraged to keep on having his bad attitude? Or would he realize the error of his ways? You can bet that the second outcome is rare as a white raven. The properly executed punishment is much more reliable. So much for the “turn other cheek” strategy. It is a loser. And this is not pessimistic and negative. It is realistic.

Now this is not a mathematical proof, of course. That would take a lot of time and energy and unless you are trained in this discipline, it would go right over your head.

 

[davidv]

I could give you the mathematical proof. Could you understand it?

But just use your common sense. If someone is cruel and bad, if someone is hostile toward others, and those others keep forgiving him and treat him a person worthy to “love” and never-ever punish him for his behavior, what will be the outcome? Would he be encouraged to keep on having his bad attitude? Or would he realize the error of his ways? You can bet that the second outcome is rare as a white raven. The properly executed punishment is much more reliable. So much for the “turn other cheek” strategy. It is a loser. And this is not pessimistic and negative. It is realistic.

Now this is not a mathematical proof, of course. That would take a lot of time and energy and unless you are trained in this discipline, it would go right over your head.

How does one apply a mathematical proof to a spiritual problem? Also, if I cannot understand it, what good is it?

I would submit that any abuse you administer to an abuser will get multiplied in their reaction to it, unless of course you “take them out”.

 

[Betterave]

You state the obvious, but it has no significance. Yes, chimps do not “conceptualize” love, but the actions stemming from that love are basically the same, expressing that love, caring, etc… It is their natural behavior, without the “conceptualizing” baggage. As usual, words are less significant than actions.

I only state the obvious because you consistently fail to notice it. For example, your latest gaffe: words are actions; words are not insignificant. If you think words are really all that insignificant, I suggest you stop using them for a while (you won’t be able to stop your internal monologue, obviously, but try to imagine that ceasing too). Try one week for starters. Get back to us a week from now and tell us if you’ve learned anything about the value of words.

You did not “explain” anything, and yes, this conversation is rather worthless.

Correction: You did not “understand” anything I “explained” - and perhaps this conversation is rather useless as far as you are concerned, but perhaps others are benefitting by it. (Who knows?)

Do you actually understand what I mean? Life is a game, mathematically speaking. We employ strategies to achieve some goals. Some strategies are better than others. The “love thy enemies” and the “turn the other cheek” type of strategies are far worse than others. This is not an opinion, it is a mathematical fact. But, of course one must study this field in order to comprehend it.

RD:
“Life is a game, mathematically speaking” = “From a mathematical theoretical framework, life can be treated as a game”

We certainly have goals, and strategies for achieving those goals which can be optimized - but what those goals are or should be OBVIOUSLY cannot be determined on the basis of a mathematical theoretical framework as such. (I can’t believe I actually have to tell you this. )

 

[Betterave]

I could give you the mathematical proof. Could you understand it?

But just use your common sense. If someone is cruel and bad, if someone is hostile toward others, and those others keep forgiving him and treat him a person worthy to “love” and never-ever punish him for his behavior, what will be the outcome? Would he be encouraged to keep on having his bad attitude? Or would he realize the error of his ways? You can bet that the second outcome is rare as a white raven. The properly executed punishment is much more reliable. So much for the “turn other cheek” strategy. It is a loser. And this is not pessimistic and negative. It is realistic.

Now this is not a mathematical proof, of course. That would take a lot of time and energy and unless you are trained in this discipline, it would go right over your head.

If you actually know what you are talking about (please forgive me for having doubts), I bet I could understand it. Maybe in another thread though?

Now for your so-called “common sense”: Do you seriously think that the “love your enemy” of the Christian tradition means literally letting people walk all over you, or that it means people who behave anti-socially should never be punished? That seems to be what you’re implying so let me assure you: you are MUCH mistaken. Properly executed punishment is part of love (do you have any kids? - I’m guessing not?), just as much as it is part of the intelligent application of game theory to life.

 

[R_Daneel]

How does one apply a mathematical proof to a spiritual problem? Also, if I cannot understand it, what good is it?

The word “spiritual” is meaningless. If you want to understand the proof, all you need to do is invest your time and learn it.

I would submit that any abuse you administer to an abuser will get multiplied in their reaction to it, unless of course you “take them out”.

An optimal strategy is not “abuse”, it is much more complcated than that.

 

[R_Daneel]

I only state the obvious because you consistently fail to notice it. For example, your latest gaffe: words are actions; words are not insignificant. If you think words are really all that insignificant, I suggest you stop using them for a while (you won’t be able to stop your internal monologue, obviously, but try to imagine that ceasing too). Try one week for starters. Get back to us a week from now and tell us if you’ve learned anything about the value of words.

Semantic games. Actual actions “speak” louder than mere words. And I am pretty sure you understaood what I meant.

“Life is a game, mathematically speaking” = “From a mathematical theoretical framework, life can be treated as a game”

We certainly have goals, and strategies for achieving those goals which can be optimized - but what those goals are or should be OBVIOUSLY cannot be determined on the basis of a mathematical theoretical framework as such. (I can’t believe I actually have to tell you this. )

Again, you state the obvious. The goals themselves do not belong to the mathematics. And I never said otherwise. The strategy to achieve those goals is where the mathematical modeling comes into the picture.

Now for your so-called “common sense”: Do you seriously think that the “love your enemy” of the Christian tradition means literally letting people walk all over you, or that it means people who behave anti-socially should never be punished? That seems to be what you’re implying so let me assure you: you are MUCH mistaken.

What else would “turn the other cheek” mean? Or “do not resist evil”?

Properly executed punishment is part of love (do you have any kids? - I’m guessing not?), just as much as it is part of the intelligent application of game theory to life.

You guessed wrong.

 

[JohnDamian]

I could give you the mathematical proof. Could you understand it?

Yes; but I would still reject it, and the reasons are following - I apologise if you do not understand these as it is a bit technical:

1. In every genus there is something one and primary that is the metric and measure of all that are in that genus.
2. This unity of what first measures is a real unity - this is so because the primary notion of measuring belongs to the singular, this can then be explaned how in every genus, that to which the notion of measuring belongs is one. Now this unity belongs to something insofar as it is first in the genus; therefore, it is real – because what are measured are real and are really measured. But a real thing cannot be really measured by a being of reason; therein this unity is real.
3. Yet this real unity is not numerical, because in a genus there is no singular that is the measure of all that are in that genus; because among individuals of the same species this one is not prior and that one not predicated posteriorily.
4. The notion of a species is seperated; and a genus not - for, among species there is an essential order on the basis of which a posterior species can be reduced to a prior one. But among individuals, there is no such order; whether the one constitutes the other or not; therefore etc.
5. Therefore, among individuals of the same species there is no essential order. Therefore, no individual is by itself the measure of what are in its species, therefore neither is numerical or individual unity such a measure.
6. Moreover, in an indivisible species comparrison occurs, because it is one nature; but in a genus it does not; for a genus has no such unity.
7. This difference is not a difference in unity according to reason alone, because the concept of a genus is just as numerically one for the intellect as the concept of a species is. Otherwise no one concept would be said in quid of many species, and so no one concept would be a genus. In that case, in each of the predications the same item would be predicated of itself, likewise the unity of a concept or of a non-concept is irrelevant to wether there is a comparrison or not. Therefore, the specific nature is one by unity of a specific nature, but not so in a numerical unity for in such no such comparrison can occur.
   8)The same, the similar and equal are all based on the notion of one, so that even though a similarity has for its foundation a thing in a genus of quality, nevertheless such, a relation is not real unless it has a real foundation and a real proximate basis for the founding. Therefore, the unity required in the foundation of the relation of similarity is a real one. But it is not numerical unity since nothing one and the same is similar or equal to itself.
8. For one real opposition there are two primary real extremes. But contrarity is a real opposition. This is clear, because one contrary really destroys the other, even disregarding any operation of the intelect, and this happens only because of that they are contraries, therefore, each primary extreme of this opposition is real and one by some real unity. But, this is not a numerical unity, because in that case precicely this white thing or precicely that white thing would be the primary contrary of this black thing – which is nonsense. For then there would be as many primary contrarieties as there are individuals etc.

CONTINUED

 

[JohnDamian]

CONTINUED

1. For one action of a sense power there is one object; this is according to some real unity; but not numerical unity – therefore there is some other real unity other than numerical unity.
2. The power that cognizes the object in this way, that is insofar as the object is one by this unity – cognizes it insofar as it is distinct from whatever is not one by that unity. But sense does not cognize the object insofar as it is distinct from whatever is not one by that numerical unity – this is apparent because no sense distinguishes this ray of the sun as differing numerically from that one - even though they are nevertheless diverse (numerically) because of the motion of the sun. If all the common sensibles; for example diversity of place and orientation are disregarded, and if two quanta were posited as existing simultaneously by x power, and they were entirely similar and equal in whiteness, then vision would not distinguish that there were two shite things there, but if it cognized one in sofar as it is one by numerical unity, it would cognise it infosar as it is a distinct one by numerical unity.
3. One could also argue that the point for the primary object of a sense power; namely that it is one in itself, by some real unity, because just as the object of this power insofar as it is an object - precedes the intellect, so too in accordance with its real unity it precedes every action of the intellect. But this reasoning is not so conclusive as the former, for it could be maintained that a primary object, insofar as it fits the scope of the power, is something common abstracted from all particular objects, and so does not have any real unity except the unity of being common to several particular objects. But for one object, of one act of sensing, this counterargument does not seem to deny that th eobject necessarily has a real and lesser unity than numerical unity.
4. If every real unity is a numerical unity, therefore every real diversity is numerical diversity/ The conseuqent is false - for every numerical diversity insofar as it is numerical, is equal. And so all things would beequally distinct. Which is not so; as this leads to nominalism etc.
5. The first is proved in two ways, because one and many same and diverse - are opposites. Therein, to every kind of unity there is a diversity correspondingly.
6. Second, it is proved because each extreme of any diversity is one in itself. and in the same way that is is one in itself it seems to be diverse from the othr extreme; so that the unity of one extreme seems to be by itself the reason for the diversity of any other extreme.
7. This is furhter confirmed; for there is only a real numerical unity in this thing, then whatever unity is in the thing is of itself numerically one; therefore this thing and that one are primarilly diverse acccording to every form of entity; there is in them-- for they are diverse and agree in nothing in any way one.
8. It is also confirmed by the fact that numerical diversity is for this singular not to be that singular, assuming the being of each extreme, but such unity necessarily belongs to the other extreme.
9. Even if no intellect existed, there would be some real unity of form between generator and generated; according to which unity univocal generation would occur; for the intellect that considers a case of generation does not make the generation be univocal, but recognises it.

Paraphrased (arduously) from the Opus Oxoniense II, Question I; (Is a maretial substance individual or singular from itself - that is, from its nature?)

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes; but I would still reject it, and the reasons are following - I apologise if you do not understand these as it is a bit technical:

It is not “technical”, it is sheer gobbledegook. Sorry.

 

[JohnDamian]

It is not “technical”, it is sheer gobbledegook. Sorry.

Well to put it simply;

Maths cannot represent all of reality.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well to put it simply;

Maths cannot represent all of reality.

Yes, that is true - and I never said otherwise. But it does model quite a bit of reality with amazing accuracy. It is even able to model interpersonal relationships, and can find the optimal startegy for conflict resolutions.