Agape and its significance

[R_Daneel]

I’m sorry, I am a little confused because you started the thread wanting to discuss the notion of “divine love” and it’s relationship to the will, but you do not want to consider the theological part.

The word “agape” is “unconditional love”, which is sometimes referred to as “divine love”. Since I don’t believe in any deities, when I used the phrase “divine” it was just a not-too-precise euphemism. Sorry if that caused confusion. Also God is supposed to have “agape” for us (not that I see any reason for that assumption.) There is an underlying assumption that this “agape” must be the result of a volitional act, and that is what I wanted to investigate.

I don’t quite understand your want to detach the emotional element of love, as if emotions can be completely detached from the human experience.

Yes, emotions are intergal part of us. We can feel sorry for someone, and out of sorrow we might be inclined to help them. But to call that “love” would only serve misunderstanding. That is why I use “agape”, which has nothing to do with “love” as the everyday English usage goes.

I don’t think Love, whether or not it is unconditional, can be described as “detached” because it only occurs within a relationship. I’m not sure if you are hinting more towards emotion in terms of sexual arousal and pleasure, in which case I agree that it can confuse the distinction of love as a response to a deeper understanding of the inherent value of the other, to simply an appreciation of “how the other person makes you feel.” A person who thinks he/she in love simply because of the warm fuzzy feelings is misunderstanding the true nature of love.

Well, maybe or maybe not. The generic word “love” has so many menaings that I am inclined to exclude it from this conversation.

The spousal sacrifices can be seen in the lifetime commitment between two people. With their vows, they sacrifice their “I” for “We.” It may seems like semantics, but the amount of sacrifice entailed is dependent on the type of challenges the couple comes across. While there is solidarity within a family, as a child becomes an adult, the focus is on creating a life for his/her self. Thus, the independence of the child is recognized when the dependency no longer exists, and it is sacrificed when someone realizes his/her life is more complete as a part of the other.

You are on the right track when you talk about semantics. The word sacrifice definitely has a connotation of “loss”. So I certainly would not use it in this scenario. To be precise: in entering into a spousal relationship we replace our “independent” existence with a “shared” existence. Such a step only makes sense if there is a mutual gain, and not a mutual loss.

 

[R_Daneel]

It makes no difference whether it is there or not. It does not alter the fact that our knowledge of a person’s motivation affects our attitude to his action.

Only, IF you know it. And in the problem I presented it is not known.

It is good as far as animals are concerned but not human beings because a moral dimension is missing: the motive.

And if the the motivation is unknown, what do you do? Do you only “value” morally good actions and scorn on the “only” ontologically good ones?

 

[tonyrey]

It makes no difference whether it is there or not. It does not alter the fact that our knowledge of a person’s motivation affects our attitude to his action.

Your presentation is one-sided. You are attempting to prove the “volitional” part of an action adds nothing to it. Ignorance of a person’s motivation does not mean it is irrelevant.

It is good as far as animals are concerned but not human beings because a moral dimension is missing: the motive.

And if the motivation is unknown, what do you do? Do you only “value” morally good actions and scorn on the “only” ontologically good ones?

I value all good actions but I value more those which entail courage and decision-making.

 

[anns82]

You are on the right track when you talk about semantics. The word sacrifice definitely has a connotation of “loss”. So I certainly would not use it in this scenario. To be precise: in entering into a spousal relationship we replace our “independent” existence with a “shared” existence. Such a step only makes sense if there is a mutual gain, and not a mutual loss.

The sacrifice involved in the marital relationship is much more prevalent than I think you realize. I guess you can say you “replace” the “I” for the “We,” but I do not see how that is different from simply “sacrificing the ‘I’”. I admit a difficultly with using the term “marital love/relationship” is that many people enter into it without a full understanding or for outside reasons (the arranged marriage that you cited being one example among many.) Looking at the basic understanding of a freely entered marriage, it entails the husband and wife agreeing “what is mine is yours,” which may seem like an even trade, and which I would agree is equal in nature, but it is in no way the same. A very obvious example is the wife’s willingness to sacrifice her body (and considering our society’s obsession with the size 2 figure, that is not a small thing), and at very least a part of her career (being forced to choose between sacrificing her maternal desires or her desires for a career/self identity) for the sake of the physical embodiment of the unity between she and her husband. The love is the mutual gain, a self-centered life is their mutual loss. Considering our society which encourages a focus on the self, the true understanding of marriage is very counter cultural.

I think the strength within the martial love is that it changes the individual’s sense of reality. This does not occur with any other relationship to the extent that it does in the life of a husband and wife. I think it is interesting how in a socialist society, it is encouraged for the people to switch from the “I” mentality to the collective “We” mentality, but it is a false sacrifice of the “I” because people are inherently more concerned for their own life and those with whom they have a personal relationship than for the abstract “common good”. This “I/We” switch - and its unconditional response for a society centered on “the common good” - does not really happen outside a true understanding of love - which inherently requires both free will and personal relationships.

I understand you do not want to bring the concept of a Creator into the discussion, but with that I believe you are limiting your understanding to simply the material world, which can only get you so far.

 

[R_Daneel]

Your presentation is one-sided. You are attempting to prove the “volitional” part of an action adds nothing to it. Ignorance of a person’s motivation does not mean it is irrelevant.

Please tell me, what is the relevance? If you know about it, certainly it has its relevance. But, if you don’t, then what?

I value all good actions but I value more those which entail courage and decision-making.

I understand you. My question is about the “why”?

 

[R_Daneel]

The sacrifice involved in the marital relationship is much more prevalent than I think you realize. I guess you can say you “replace” the “I” for the “We,” but I do not see how that is different from simply “sacrificing the ‘I’”. I admit a difficultly with using the term “marital love/relationship” is that many people enter into it without a full understanding or for outside reasons (the arranged marriage that you cited being one example among many.) Looking at the basic understanding of a freely entered marriage, it entails the husband and wife agreeing “what is mine is yours,” which may seem like an even trade, and which I would agree is equal in nature, but it is in no way the same. A very obvious example is the wife’s willingness to sacrifice her body (and considering our society’s obsession with the size 2 figure, that is not a small thing), and at very least a part of her career (being forced to choose between sacrificing her maternal desires or her desires for a career/self identity) for the sake of the physical embodiment of the unity between she and her husband. The love is the mutual gain, a self-centered life is their mutual loss. Considering our society which encourages a focus on the self, the true understanding of marriage is very counter cultural.

I think the strength within the martial love is that it changes the individual’s sense of reality. This does not occur with any other relationship to the extent that it does in the life of a husband and wife. I think it is interesting how in a socialist society, it is encouraged for the people to switch from the “I” mentality to the collective “We” mentality, but it is a false sacrifice of the “I” because people are inherently more concerned for their own life and those with whom they have a personal relationship than for the abstract “common good”. This “I/We” switch - and its unconditional response for a society centered on “the common good” - does not really happen outside a true understanding of love - which inherently requires both free will and personal relationships.

I mostly agree with your analysis. But it does not relate to the question at hand as closely as you think. I am not talking about the very complex nature of marriage and family, only about the “unconditional love” - which may be part of these relationships, and may not be.

I wonder if you know Asimov’s “I, Robot” series. One of the short stories is about “someone”, who is suspected to be a robot, but not known to be one. “He” is very sophisticated, and hides his true nature from everyone. He runs for public office and is a very good leader, devoting his life to the well-being of his constituents. Effectively he emulates the perfect agape, according to the intent of his creator. When his term ends, he decides to have his body atomized, so that his true identity will stay a mystery, because he does not want to hurt the human’s feelings with the knowledge that they were lead by a “mere” robot. Susan Calvin, the “famous” robot-psychologist says: “We simply cannot differentiate between a robot and a very good person”.

Think along these lines, if you would.

I understand you do not want to bring the concept of a Creator into the discussion, but with that I believe you are limiting your understanding to simply the material world, which can only get you so far.

That is far enough for me.

 

[tonyrey]

Your presentation is one-sided. You are attempting to prove the “volitional” part of an action adds nothing to it. Ignorance of a person’s motivation does not mean it is irrelevant.

What is relevance of your motive in discussing this topic? If you simply regard it as a game without any intention of attempting to clarify the matter and discover the truth it is a waste of time as far as a reasonable person is concerned…

I value all good actions but I value more those which entail courage and decision-making.

I understand you. My question is about the “why”?

Because courage and decision-making are preferable to cowardice or blind instinct.

 

[R_Daneel]

What is relevance of your motive in discussing this topic? If you simply regard it as a game without any intention of attempting to clarify the matter and discover the truth it is a waste of time as far as a reasonable person is concerned…

Irrelevant. You are under no obligation to participate.

Because courage and decision-making are preferable to cowardice or blind instinct.

Courage and cowardice are not part of the question. Decision making and instinct are. Why is decision making preferable to instinct, if their result is exactly the same? If you cannot give a reason for your opinion, why do you participate? If you have a reason, why don’t you state it?

 

[tonyrey]

What is relevance of your motive in discussing this topic? If you simply regard it as a game without any intention of attempting to clarify the matter and discover the truth it is a waste of time as far as a reasonable person is concerned…

No one is under an obligation to participate in any activity whatsoever but the pursuit of the truth and other worthwhile goals are reasonable activities. The alternative is to opt out of life. Is your motive for discussing topics on this forum irrelevant?

Because courage and decision-making are preferable to cowardice or blind instinct.

Courage and cowardice are not part of the question.

Why not? Are they unrelated to the value of an action?

Decision making and instinct are. Why is decision making preferable to instinct, if their result is exactly the same?

Because unless we are superficial we do not judge by results alone. We are not merely biological machines but rational, sentient beings who are responsible for our actions and can exercise self-control. Why is the question of motive so fundamental in any court of law?

If you cannot give a reason for your opinion, why do you participate? If you have a reason, why don’t you state it?

Do you mean why I participate in these discussions? I have already given the reason.

 

[R_Daneel]

Is your motive for discussing topics on this forum irrelevant?

Yes, it is.

Why not? Are they unrelated to the value of an action?

They are unrelated to the volitional/instinctive aspect of the action.

Because unless we are superficial we do not judge by results alone. We are not merely biological machines but rational, sentient beings who are responsible for our actions and can exercise self-control.

We are both biological machines and sentient beings. (And I am not going to discuss that.) We are not being held “responsible” for our good deeds, are we? We are not supposed to exercise self-control, if our actions are benevolent toward others.

Why is the question of motive so fundamental in any court of law?

Irrelevant. We are not discussing criminal matters, we are supposed to be discussing “ontologically good deeds”, with or without volition.

 

[tonyrey]

Is your motive for discussing topics on this forum irrelevant?

In that case you’re indistinguishable from a robot!

Why not? Are they unrelated to the value of an action?

They are unrelated to the volitional/instinctive aspect of the action.

So both volitional and instinctive actions reveal courage or cowardice?

Because unless we are superficial we do not judge by results alone. We are not merely biological machines but rationa

l, sentient beings who are responsible for our actions and can exercise self-control.
We are both biological machines and sentient beings.

Why do you omit rational? Do you always judge actions solely by their results?

(And I am not going to discuss that.)

I’m not surprised because unlike rational beings biological machines don’t have motives.

We are not being held “responsible” for our good deeds, are we?

Of course we are - unless you believe we do all our good deeds automatically.

We are not supposed to exercise self-control, if our actions are benevolent toward others.

Why on earth not? Many benevolent actions are the result of self-control. In addition there is no guarantee our actions will continue to be benevolent nor they don’t have an ulterior motive…

Why is the question of motive so fundamental in any court of law?

Irrelevant. We are not discussing criminal matters, we are supposed to be discussing “ontologically good deeds”, with or without volition.

Criminal matters concern the goodness or evil of actions. Your notion of “ontologically good deeds” is an abstraction divorced from reality.

 

[Slowlearner]

The natural phenomena supporting life are “ontologically good”.

This false premise dooms this thread (unless someone hijacks it from you).

 

[anns82]

I wonder if you know Asimov’s “I, Robot” series. One of the short stories is about “someone”, who is suspected to be a robot, but not known to be one. “He” is very sophisticated, and hides his true nature from everyone. He runs for public office and is a very good leader, devoting his life to the well-being of his constituents. Effectively he emulates the perfect agape, according to the intent of his creator. When his term ends, he decides to have his body atomized, so that his true identity will stay a mystery, because he does not want to hurt the human’s feelings with the knowledge that they were lead by a “mere” robot. Susan Calvin, the “famous” robot-psychologist says: “We simply cannot differentiate between a robot and a very good person”.

Hmmm… thank you for the narrative - that does clarify the specific question for me. Dietrich Von Hildebrand (a philosopher from around WWII) explained “agape” as a value response (which I mentioned before, but did not go into it very extensively). By this, a person recognizes the inherent value of each human life (which is attributed to being made in God’s image, but I do not think identifying it as such is necessary as long as the individual recognizes each human as intolerantly valuable), for which the natural and worthy response is agape. It would be unconditional in a sense that the value is there for everyone of us because our very nature is valuable, but the “will” would be involved in recognizing and responding to the value.

Where this is slightly different within a spousal relationship is the spouse recognizes on a deeper level the value of the other. To the individual, the spouse is more valuable than any other person in his/her life. This is not a distorted view of the spouse, but rather, more fully understanding the other for who he/she is rather than any public facade. This is of course not the situation in every relationship because many think they are in love, but in reality they are more interested in how the person makes them feel (as you suggested, clouded by emotions) rather than responding to the person him/her self in a way that is due to their very being.

I find an example with this in the work of Mother Teresa in that her work was to treat the people with the dignity and care they deserve due to the value of their nature, rather than anything superficial or their usefulness to society. Looking at her life, I believe her “will” played a very important role considering it involved her actively centering her life not on herself, but rather, on others. She recognized that her love was unconditional because everyone holds this value, but it was up to her will to respond rightly.

Again, thank you for bringing my thoughts back on track to the original question.

 

[R_Daneel]

Hmmm… thank you for the narrative - that does clarify the specific question for me. Dietrich Von Hildebrand (a philosopher from around WWII) explained “agape” as a value response (which I mentioned before, but did not go into it very extensively). By this, a person recognizes the inherent value of each human life (which is attributed to being made in God’s image, but I do not think identifying it as such is necessary as long as the individual recognizes each human as intolerantly valuable), for which the natural and worthy response is agape. It would be unconditional in a sense that the value is there for everyone of us because our very nature is valuable, but the “will” would be involved in recognizing and responding to the value.

Where this is slightly different within a spousal relationship is the spouse recognizes on a deeper level the value of the other. To the individual, the spouse is more valuable than any other person in his/her life. This is not a distorted view of the spouse, but rather, more fully understanding the other for who he/she is rather than any public facade. This is of course not the situation in every relationship because many think they are in love, but in reality they are more interested in how the person makes them feel (as you suggested, clouded by emotions) rather than responding to the person him/her self in a way that is due to their very being.

I find an example with this in the work of Mother Teresa in that her work was to treat the people with the dignity and care they deserve due to the value of their nature, rather than anything superficial or their usefulness to society. Looking at her life, I believe her “will” played a very important role considering it involved her actively centering her life not on herself, but rather, on others. She recognized that her love was unconditional because everyone holds this value, but it was up to her will to respond rightly.

Again, thank you for bringing my thoughts back on track to the original question.

I am not going to argue with your post, because I agree with it (mostly). Let’s take your example of how Mother Theresa took care of the sick, how she was more concerned about the well-being of others and not about her own. I don’t deny that such a life is praiseworthy. What I have been asking all along, in what respect is such a life more “valuable” than the actions of a perfectly functioning “robot”, who has no choice but to emulate what Mother Theresa did? To cut to the chase, what is the difference between the real McCoy and a perfect emulation of it?

 

[R_Daneel]

This false premise dooms this thread (unless someone hijacks it from you).

Do you think that you made a valuable contribution?

 

[R_Daneel]

In that case you’re indistinguishable from a robot!

No, what it means is that it is none of your business.

Do you always judge actions solely by their results?

Ontologically good actions, yes. I don’t peek into the mouth of horse which was given as a gift.

 

[Slowlearner]

Do you think that you made a valuable contribution?

Yep.

I don’t think the phrase “ontologically good” has meaning, and certainly not in the manner you used it:

The natural phenomena supporting life are “ontologically good”

Please explain to me what you understand “ontologically good” to mean.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t think the phrase “ontologically good” has meaning, and certainly not in the manner you used it:

Well, to begin with, if a phrase does not have any meaning at all, then it cannot have a meaning in a specific instance. So this sentence of yours is rather confusing.

Please explain to me what you understand “ontologically good” to mean.

It means that something is “good” without moral overtones. In a universe completely devoid of life there is nothing “good” or nothing “bad”. If there is simple life (without a nervous system) then anything that promotes life is “good” or useful, or beneficial; while anything that hinders life is “bad”. If the life has a nervous system, the same applies, but there is more to it. If something evokes a sense of well-being, it is also “good”; if something evokes pain or suffering is bad. That is all. If the life forms also include sentient beings, then the concept of “morally good” and “morally bad” are also applicable.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, it is.
In that case you’re indistinguishable from a robot!
No, what it means is that it is none of your business.

Touché! The cold fact remains that a motiveless person is not a genuine person at all but merely a meaningless caricature…

Why not? Are they unrelated to the value of an action?

They are unrelated to the volitional/instinctive aspect of the action.
So both volitional and instinctive actions reveal courage or cowardice?

No response!

Because unless we are superficial we do not judge by results alone. We are not merely biological machines but rational, sentient beings who are responsible for our actions and can exercise self-control.

We are both biological machines and sentient beings.
Why do you omit rational? Do you always judge actions solely by their results?

No response!

(And I am not going to discuss that.)

I’m not surprised because unlike rational beings biological machines don’t have motives.

No response!

We are not being held “responsible” for our good deeds, are we?

Of course we are - unless you believe we do all our good deeds automatically.

No response!

We are not supposed to exercise self-control, if our actions are benevolent toward others.

Why on earth not? Many benevolent actions are the result of self-control. In addition there is no guarantee our actions will continue to be benevolent nor they don’t have an ulterior motive…

No response!

Why is the question of motive so fundamental in any court of law?

Irrelevant. We are not discussing criminal matters, we are supposed to be discussing “ontologically good deeds”, with or without volition.
Criminal matters concern the goodness or evil of actions. Your notion of “ontologically good deeds” is an abstraction divorced from reality.

No response!
[/QUOTE]

 

[anns82]

I am not going to argue with your post, because I agree with it (mostly). Let’s take your example of how Mother Theresa took care of the sick, how she was more concerned about the well-being of others and not about her own. I don’t deny that such a life is praiseworthy. What I have been asking all along, in what respect is such a life more “valuable” than the actions of a perfectly functioning “robot”, who has no choice but to emulate what Mother Theresa did? To cut to the chase, what is the difference between the real McCoy and a perfect emulation of it?

It is more valuable for the person who freely chooses because they had other options they could have pursued in responding to the situation. With every “yes” answer, they are also saying “no” to something else, thus making it more meaningful. They sacrifice numerous other possible responses for the one they choose. For a robot who can only say “yes,” the meaning stops there.