S
setarcos
Guest
I contend that Love is not an act of volition but a state of being dissociated from the will.
Can I get some counter arguments please.
Can I get some counter arguments please.
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
What is your definition of love? Why is it the correct definition in the context of your question?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Love, in its truest sense, refers to willing the good of another. Not just wanting the good of another in itself, but wiling and/or acting for the good of another (insofar as action is possible).
This is often associated with strong feelings, but the feelings themselves aren’t in themselves love. One can imagine a spouse with strong feelings of attachment, appreciation, need, etc… who in action is violent or inattentive.
Or perhaps instead of simply saying feelings aren’t love, it might be better to make a distinction between sensitive appetite and intellective appetite, as Saint Thomas Aquinas did, that is, what is possible on an animal level and what is possible on an intellectual level, with humans, of course, experiencing both.
But setarcros, perhaps you can elaborate on what ypu mean, as it’s not clear to me.
This is often associated with strong feelings, but the feelings themselves aren’t in themselves love. One can imagine a spouse with strong feelings of attachment, appreciation, need, etc… who in action is violent or inattentive.
Or perhaps instead of simply saying feelings aren’t love, it might be better to make a distinction between sensitive appetite and intellective appetite, as Saint Thomas Aquinas did, that is, what is possible on an animal level and what is possible on an intellectual level, with humans, of course, experiencing both.
But setarcros, perhaps you can elaborate on what ypu mean, as it’s not clear to me.
A
AnneElizabeth
Guest
Why couldn’t it be both?
I realize this is in the philosophy section, and I love discussions like this, but its just that love is a mystery, and will most likely remain so. Which form of love are you talking about?
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
“…a state of being dissociated from the will.” - can be a side effect of love.
S
setarcos
Guest
Thank you for replying. I appreciate you taking the time.
Simply put…A yearning desire to move towards the good, mentally and/or physically.
Whether or not its the correct definition in the context in which my premise states or whether my premise itself is correct with any contemporarily accepted definition of love is what I wish to explore in this thread.
S
setarcos
Guest
Thanks for your reply.
In what way? I need you to follow through with your thinking. How is it that we distinguish the side effect from the cause?
S
setarcos
Guest
Greetings and bless you for involving yourself in this discussion. I hope to learn much from you and the others.
It couldn’t be both IF it can be established that the will alone initiates volition and Love itself is not the will. Then we would ask what drives the will to initiate its volition? I contend that this is the state of being we call love. A state fundamental to any form of Love expressed through the will. So which ever Love your talking about it would apply. Love initiates the will to act but the act of volition by the will does not initiate Love.
S
setarcos
Guest
Hello and I’m glad you’ve taken the time to help me understand.
Take your pick…Eros, Philia, Ludus, Pragma, Agape, Philautia, Storge, Mania, it doesn’t matter. I believe my premise fundamentally applies to all these various “modes” of Love.
Take your pick…Eros, Philia, Ludus, Pragma, Agape, Philautia, Storge, Mania, it doesn’t matter. I believe my premise fundamentally applies to all these various “modes” of Love.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I think the question is whether the heart and the will are the same thing
S
setarcos
Guest
Greetings kind scholar, thank you for sharing your time and wisdom with me.
Ask yourself, can you make yourself hate a loved one by treating them in a hateful manner? Eventually perhaps but only because this false action erodes away your true feelings, perverting them.
If you were forced somehow to hurt your loved ones, would your actions lessen your love for them?
Can you want good for another if it is not your will? There’s a fine line distinguishing the two. Is the will the overriding factor in making a choice? I may want the chocolate cake but my will is to eat healthier. If I have a weak will, my wants may override it. If I have a strong will my tendency would be to avoid eating junk food. Never the less….I might say that my will is that eating chocolate cake is healthy for me therefore justifying acting on my wants. However, neither the will nor my wants are the originating factor which gives rise to action. This fundamental essence would be perceived, for instance, in liking chocolate cake instead of angel food cake on which my will and wants are called to act on.
One could also say then that her actions do not reflect her feelings and were called into initiation based on some other overriding fundamental essence (at the time), Mental deficiency perhaps? Or her feelings were not fundamentally positive but a result of her own underlying selfishness which perverts the good in her eyes, their true nature unrecognizable by her because of her fundamental essence. One would have to ask then do her actions make her feel a certain way during their initiation? Are the two events correlated at the same time? Does she feel appreciation WHILE assaulting who she appreciates? This is a sign of a fractured psyche if so.
Ask yourself, can you make yourself hate a loved one by treating them in a hateful manner? Eventually perhaps but only because this false action erodes away your true feelings, perverting them.
If you were forced somehow to hurt your loved ones, would your actions lessen your love for them?
I don’t consider feelings Love, however I do believe Love gives rise to certain feelings. I believe I’ve covered sensitive appetites and intellective appetites with my chocolate cake in the post above.
I believe I clarified somewhat in the above posts. Basically I’m saying we don’t create love within us through actions we associate with Love (our volition) - We can act lovingly in a false and misleading manner – but love is a fundamental state which initiates our desire to act in accordance with a yearning for the good. While someone may seemingly show love this does not reflect on whether or not those showing love are actually being loving with all the associated yearnings toward the good that love is. This state is a God given grace not an act of volition. You cannot choose to love. You can only choose to act in accordance with the Love that is within your state of being.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Will, as I understand the term, is a faculty of the mind that chooses.
Our will intentionally selects which of various desires, we act on.
In other words, it is the capacity to act decisively on our desires.
Our will is free, meaning that we are not created good or evil, but choose whom we become with what we have been given.
Our being I understand to be in the image of the Triune Godhead.
We are relational, self-others, perfect when we love.
While we individually perceive, feel, think and act, we clearly must do so in relation to what is other to us.
As has been already stated, love is willing the good of the other.
One gives of oneself for the benefit of the other, with whom one becomes united in that act.
Being is an act, from its eternal presence as God, to His reflection that is seen in all creation.
God is Love, within Himself as the Trinity, and in relation to us, His creation, whom He desires become His children, in and through Christ and with the grace of the Holy Spirit, as He is our Father. We are thereby able to become and return the love that He is.
Love I would say is a unity that we may alternatively understand to be an act, a decision, Goodness, and a communion between a self and what is other. Its ultimate, Divine, eternal and infinite expression is God Himself.
I would say that love is dissociated from the will when we sin.
S
setarcos
Guest
Do you believe they are?
S
STT
Guest
They are different (love is like engine and will like steering wheel). We cannot will without Love (you need to have an interest to be able to differentiate options).
S
setarcos
Guest
I believe your correct. Do you believe though that Love is THE engine or an emotion vying for attention among many? I can certainly, it would seem, act according to my will without loving what I am doing. Interest can be stimulated without love. How free can free will be if the action that stimulates one to act is not itself free but contingent upon unrealized factors? It seems to me that the steering wheel in our hands is like the one in the car I drove in for drivers education training back in high school. While one has a steering wheel in ones hands and thinks one has total and only control over the vehicle, there’s also a second set of controls on the passenger side for the instructor who may at any time take over control of the vehicle. The difference is while we were aware of this transfer of control back in drivers ed., we are not aware of this transfer of control in our general lives when it happens due to unperceived factors. We are deluded in thinking we always make free will choices.
S
STT
Guest
You are correct. You can differentiate between option by using knowledge.
I think free will is still free.
Yes.
S
setarcos
Guest
The problem I see with your conclusion is that it would seem a “person”, whatever that entails, often acts against their own will. It has been shown that our will, like muscles, can become weakened and overruled by our desires or even environment. Our so called “will-powers” ability to make a decisive decision is tempered by the circumstances we happen to find ourselves in at the time we seem to exercise it. We are not on an even playing field when it comes to exercising our free will. Our will does not create its own capacity to act decisively.
Do we really choose? There are so many unrealized factors which affect the choices we supposedly make freely that it would seem there is hardly room left for our self-identity to be choosing anything at all. St. Paul wrestled with this dilemma and it gives us a clue as to where a person’s will really sits in the plane, whoever’s piloting the plane often it’s not the will.
“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” Romans 7:15
I believe men have created an image of the Triune Godhead which is never reflected upon in scripture.
So the image our being is of is only of speculative consequence and debatable.
I believe you are correct, we are relational beings but the relational aspect of our being always reflects back upon the self and not the other. The other is merely a reference for enlightening the self on the self. There is an impassible barrier, except by God, between truly knowing the other through the self and knowing the self by the self. I would say that because we can act only in relation to what is other than us this indicates an imperfection in our state of being. If we were perfected, the self would know itself without need of further reflection on the other since the other is the primary means by which the self enlightens itself on itself and not on the other. Love is not simply willing the good of the other. In its perfected state Love is the good. The other benefits not from a choice the self makes to love the other but as a consequent of the self being in a state of Love. This is why the other can be truly loved even though the self can never truly know the other without itself becoming the other. We don’t truly unite with the other; we become united in our self-enlightenment in so much as the self is true to itself. We don’t unite with those who hate us by loving them in spite of their hatred. We unite with our self-enlightenment of which the one who hates us cannot partake because of his hatred.
I’m not sure what you mean by the self being perfect when we love? Perfect in what way, in fulfilling Gods purpose for us perhaps? Then what way do we fulfill this purpose in order that it be perfected?
S
setarcos
Guest
What do you mean by this? What action does ”being” take? Action by God does not translate into action from mans perspective. Since God has no potential no action can be taken. What is simply is. What is created was created, no further action need take place. God is, always was, and always shall be. To act is to change.
Gods love is not perfected in his relationship to his creation. Gods love is perfected within itself. God knows himself and needs no further reflection upon any other thing unlike the creatures he has created. Perfect contentment within the self is the apex of Love. I believe Love is not a relationship. It’s a state of being with consequent effects upon anything the being recognizes as other than itself. “Love your neighbor as yourself”. We truly are returning Gods love to him by trying to obey all his commandments because it is he that sustains our ability to love in the first place. God is merely perfecting his own love through us.
I would have to say that if Love is a state of being this state need not act in order to retain its existence within the self. If we are not in a state of love, simply by making a decision to act as if we were so that we may benefit there from somehow would not bring us any closer to being in a loving state. Love therefore is not merely a label to be applied to a decision we’ve made. Love effects our decisions, our decisions don’t effect whether or not we are loving. We would otherwise be merely acting. As I’ve stated before the communion is always between the self and God as these are the only two entities that can truly relate to the self not the other.
By dissociated do you mean that we are not in a state of being which is called Love, by which the will is initiated to act, at the time we are sinning?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Anyone who has done Theology/Philosophy of Man 101 knows that “love” can refer to either the sensual or rational appetites and most of us get them mixed up and confused even as adults.
The “rational appetite” is but a sophisticated way of saying “will” and therefore “volition”.
Nothing new to see here, move along please
.
V
Vico
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part,Question 23 Charity, considered in itself, Article 2. Whether charity is something created in the soul?
newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm#article1
“Therefore it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity, there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.”
- Status