Materialism and Love

[ITkorea]

Many people see materialism as an idea of seeking and obtaining goods and services is ultimately moral and most important in living one’s life. Due to this negative connotation of this word, many walk away from materialism to seek greater meaning and values through other means of living a fulfilling life. However, I am here to argue that materialism is ultimately humanity’s greatest religion.

Modern materialistic love
Most people, if not all, have their types. My good friend, V’s type is a woman with a french accent, with some sort of striking passion, and more details according to V. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to point out the materialistic aspect that is fundamentally incorporated with this action.
If my friend V was to say that “I want to be with a nice(in a moral sense) girlfriend,” there is nothing wrong with saying that. I want to be with a nice girlfriend too. Note that the adjective phrase “nice” is specified while the object “girlfriend” isn’t. V wouldn’t care who this person is unless this person is “nice.” Naturally, this logically follows that V likes “niceness” of a person, not a specific individual.
If the qualities of a person are deciding factor before meeting such a person, then the person’s characteristics are no less from a selling point of merchandise in a market. I believe most people find love is looking for those characteristics. From how much salary someone makes to what hobbies this person likes to enjoy to their political beliefs, these characteristics that we find attractive are nothing but our best interest to be with someone with those qualities. To put it short, modern people are in love with a high salary, highly stable emotions, excellent in bed, a defined hobby that is relatable, handsomeness, and beauty. How is this any different from us choosing the type of cheese, toppings, crust, and drink for a pizza? People need to stop searching for things from others but must meet people and find and study things that make them unique and loveable.

Unfortunately, the idea of materialism furthermore expands to our emotions. If you want to be “happy” with someone you love then you are ultimately approaching happiness as material that you must possess. If someone wants to be happy with love, this is ultimately seeing your companion as a service provider that will give you satisfaction and happiness by being with. This is an example of why love seems pointless, and why people cannot escape materialism. If you want to study a person by being with them, without any expectations or emotions, that is seeing a person as a provider of information. The action of “wanting to analyze a person” is seeing them as a product. This also makes every person equal, as there are more or less reasons to love a specific person next to other.


To ultimately love someone, there must exist a value to that someone you to love him/her over other people. However, an act of placing a value over a specific person makes them love them for the value placed, not for the person itself. This is why I believe mutual (true) love is nothing but coincidental, double one-way self-love of individualistic value between the couple.

[LuckyR]

Many people see materialism as an idea of seeking and obtaining goods and services is ultimately moral and most important in living one’s life. Due to this negative connotation of this word, many walk away from materialism to seek greater meaning and values through other means of living a fulfilling life. However, I am here to argue that materialism is ultimately humanity’s greatest religion.

Modern materialistic love
Most people, if not all, have their types. My good friend, V’s type is a woman with a french accent, with some sort of striking passion, and more details according to V. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to point out the materialistic aspect that is fundamentally incorporated with this action.
If my friend V was to say that “I want to be with a nice(in a moral sense) girlfriend,” there is nothing wrong with saying that. I want to be with a nice girlfriend too. Note that the adjective phrase “nice” is specified while the object “girlfriend” isn’t. V wouldn’t care who this person is unless this person is “nice.” Naturally, this logically follows that V likes “niceness” of a person, not a specific individual.
If the qualities of a person are deciding factor before meeting such a person, then the person’s characteristics are no less from a selling point of merchandise in a market. I believe most people find love is looking for those characteristics. From how much salary someone makes to what hobbies this person likes to enjoy to their political beliefs, these characteristics that we find attractive are nothing but our best interest to be with someone with those qualities. To put it short, modern people are in love with a high salary, highly stable emotions, excellent in bed, a defined hobby that is relatable, handsomeness, and beauty. How is this any different from us choosing the type of cheese, toppings, crust, and drink for a pizza? People need to stop searching for things from others but must meet people and find and study things that make them unique and loveable.

Unfortunately, the idea of materialism furthermore expands to our emotions. If you want to be “happy” with someone you love then you are ultimately approaching happiness as material that you must possess. If someone wants to be happy with love, this is ultimately seeing your companion as a service provider that will give you satisfaction and happiness by being with. This is an example of why love seems pointless, and why people cannot escape materialism. If you want to study a person by being with them, without any expectations or emotions, that is seeing a person as a provider of information. The action of “wanting to analyze a person” is seeing them as a product. This also makes every person equal, as there are more or less reasons to love a specific person next to other.


To ultimately love someone, there must exist a value to that someone you to love him/her over other people. However, an act of placing a value over a specific person makes them love them for the value placed, not for the person itself. This is why I believe mutual (true) love is nothing but coincidental, double one-way self-love of individualistic value between the couple.

I get what you're saying, but IMO you are overly focusing on a description instead of what is being described. Specifically, V's (or anyone's) description of what they like in their spouse or future spouse prospect, is an attempt to verbalize what many would describe as multifactorial at minimum and possibly indescribable.

[Consul]

Many people see materialism as an idea of seeking and obtaining goods and services is ultimately moral and most important in living one’s life. Due to this negative connotation of this word, many walk away from materialism to seek greater meaning and values through other means of living a fulfilling life. However, I am here to argue that materialism is ultimately humanity’s greatest religion.

It is important to mention that metaphysical/ontological materialism is different from and independent of ethical or economical materialism:

QUOTE:
"[A] quite different sense of the word 'Materialism' should be noted in which it denotes not a metaphysical theory but an ethical attitude. A person is a Materialist in this sense if he is interested mainly in sensuous pleasures and bodily comforts and hence in the material possessions that bring these about. A man might be a Materialist in this ethical and pejorative sense without being a metaphysical Materialist, and conversely. An extreme physicalistic Materialist, for example, might prefer a Beethoven record to a comfortable mattress for his bed; and a person who believes in immaterial spirits might opt for the mattress."

(Smart, J. J. C. "Materialism." In Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy)
:QUOTE

[heracleitos]

Materialism is indeed a key element in human sexuality.

The reason why men rapidly build up sexual tension is because biology seeks to force men to return to a willing female for sexual tension relief. That in turn allows the female to extract money out of him.

If men wanted sex only once a year, then half the world population would go starving. Most women would simply not be able to feed themselves nor their brood.

Hence, men work hard because they need to pay off their female sexual tension relief provider. In fact, the entire global economy would collapse if that wasn't the case.

So, yes, for sheer reasons of biological survival, sex is highly materialistic.

Men don't just "love" women. Men first and foremost are deeply addicted to sex. Women, on the other hand, will go to great lengths denying that they only "love" what men can do for them, i.e. to give them money.

Therefore, biochemical pair bonding, i.e. "love", is irrelevant if the underlying tit-for-tat business does not work.

A man does not "love" a woman who does not provide him with sexual tension relief. A woman does not "love" a man who doesn't give her money. That is just a delusional fairy tale.

[Consul]

Materialism is indeed a key element in human sexuality.

The adjective "carnal" expresses a connection between the body and sex, between materiality/corporeality and sexuality. "Carnal" is derived from the Latin adjective "carnalis", which is itself derived from the Latin noun "caro", which means "flesh" or (as prepared or intended for eating) "meat". Carnalism is "fleshism", and it can be "sexual materialism".

By the way, the noun "carnival" etymologically means "Farewell, flesh!" ("carne vale!" in Latin).

[heracleitos]

Materialism is indeed a key element in human sexuality.

The adjective "carnal" expresses a connection between the body and sex, between materiality/corporeality and sexuality. "Carnal" is derived from the Latin adjective "carnalis", which is itself derived from the Latin noun "caro", which means "flesh" or (as prepared or intended for eating) "meat". Carnalism is "fleshism", and it can be "sexual materialism".

By the way, the noun "carnival" etymologically means "Farewell, flesh!" ("carne vale!" in Latin).

Yes. Carnalism is an essential element in human sexuality. Without carnalist payoff for the male, the female would fail to extract her financial payoff.

[Consul]

Yes. Carnalism is an essential element in human sexuality.

Antimaterialist/spiritualist theology has always been a foe of the flesh, of fleshly lust.

"I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."
—BIBLE (New King James Version), Galatians 5:16-25

[heracleitos]

Yes. Carnalism is an essential element in human sexuality.

Antimaterialist/spiritualist theology has always been a foe of the flesh, of fleshly lust.

"I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."
—BIBLE (New King James Version), Galatians 5:16-25

On grounds of the scriptures, I reject antimaterialism:

Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers.

In the Firefly movie, they even confuse the Quran with the Bible in that respect. That is quite a funny passage in the movie:

I do know my Bible, sir. “On the night of their betrothal, the wife shall open to the man as the furrow to the plow, and he shall work in her, in and again, till she bring him to his full, and rest him then upon the sweat of her breast.”

By the way, "Galatians" was written by Paul, the false apostle, who was an utmost notorious apostate from the law. The following are some of his obnoxious heresies:

Much of Christendom does not understand what place the Mosaic Law has with regard to the Church. Paul faced this problem with the Galatians and his primary purpose in writing them was to correct their misguided thinking and behavior of trying to live the Christian life under the Mosaic Law. He declared that believers of his gospel, the gospel of the grace of God (Act 20.24; 1 Corinthians 15.1-4), the glorious gospel (1 Timothy 1.11), were to live under the administration of grace, not Law (Romans 6.14). A brief review of Galatians should cure anyone of the notion that Christians are under the Mosaic Law.

Paul had the temerity to abolish the Law and to proclaim "grace" instead. What a horrible man! Therefore, I completely subscribe to the views of the original Ebionites in Jerusalem, followers of James the Just, Jesus brother, successor to the Christ at the helm of the Congregation of the Poor, that Paul, the false apostle, will burn in hell:

The Ebionites rejected the Pauline Epistles,[3] and according to Origen they viewed Paul as an "apostate from the law".[78] The Ebionites may have been spiritual and physical descendants of the "super-apostles" — talented and respected Jewish Christian ministers in favour of mandatory circumcision of converts — who sought to undermine Paul in Galatia and Corinth.[79]

Epiphanius relates that the Ebionites opposed Paul, who they saw as responsible for the idea that Gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate.[20] Epiphanius further relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel, but apostatized when she rejected him.

I profoundly despise apostasy from the law, as well as all the heretics who advocate that depravity. That is why I spit, pee, and **** on Paul, the Satanic heresiarch.

[Count Lucanor]

Many people see materialism as an idea of seeking and obtaining goods and services is ultimately moral and most important in living one’s life. Due to this negative connotation of this word, many walk away from materialism to seek greater meaning and values through other means of living a fulfilling life. However, I am here to argue that materialism is ultimately humanity’s greatest religion.

Modern materialistic love
Most people, if not all, have their types. My good friend, V’s type is a woman with a french accent, with some sort of striking passion, and more details according to V. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to point out the materialistic aspect that is fundamentally incorporated with this action.
If my friend V was to say that “I want to be with a nice(in a moral sense) girlfriend,” there is nothing wrong with saying that. I want to be with a nice girlfriend too. Note that the adjective phrase “nice” is specified while the object “girlfriend” isn’t. V wouldn’t care who this person is unless this person is “nice.” Naturally, this logically follows that V likes “niceness” of a person, not a specific individual.
If the qualities of a person are deciding factor before meeting such a person, then the person’s characteristics are no less from a selling point of merchandise in a market. I believe most people find love is looking for those characteristics. From how much salary someone makes to what hobbies this person likes to enjoy to their political beliefs, these characteristics that we find attractive are nothing but our best interest to be with someone with those qualities. To put it short, modern people are in love with a high salary, highly stable emotions, excellent in bed, a defined hobby that is relatable, handsomeness, and beauty. How is this any different from us choosing the type of cheese, toppings, crust, and drink for a pizza? People need to stop searching for things from others but must meet people and find and study things that make them unique and loveable.

Unfortunately, the idea of materialism furthermore expands to our emotions. If you want to be “happy” with someone you love then you are ultimately approaching happiness as material that you must possess. If someone wants to be happy with love, this is ultimately seeing your companion as a service provider that will give you satisfaction and happiness by being with. This is an example of why love seems pointless, and why people cannot escape materialism. If you want to study a person by being with them, without any expectations or emotions, that is seeing a person as a provider of information. The action of “wanting to analyze a person” is seeing them as a product. This also makes every person equal, as there are more or less reasons to love a specific person next to other.


To ultimately love someone, there must exist a value to that someone you to love him/her over other people. However, an act of placing a value over a specific person makes them love them for the value placed, not for the person itself. This is why I believe mutual (true) love is nothing but coincidental, double one-way self-love of individualistic value between the couple.

You're confusing hedonism (aka materialism) with objectification, or at least some form of it, in the sense that another person is mainly seen as instrumental in satisfying one's own needs, paying less attention to their intrinsic value as a person. This is actually normal and necessary for every day life, but if you add selfishness, you get what you're describing.

[3017Metaphysician]

Many people see materialism as an idea of seeking and obtaining goods and services is ultimately moral and most important in living one’s life. Due to this negative connotation of this word, many walk away from materialism to seek greater meaning and values through other means of living a fulfilling life. However, I am here to argue that materialism is ultimately humanity’s greatest religion.

Modern materialistic love
Most people, if not all, have their types. My good friend, V’s type is a woman with a french accent, with some sort of striking passion, and more details according to V. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to point out the materialistic aspect that is fundamentally incorporated with this action.
If my friend V was to say that “I want to be with a nice(in a moral sense) girlfriend,” there is nothing wrong with saying that. I want to be with a nice girlfriend too. Note that the adjective phrase “nice” is specified while the object “girlfriend” isn’t. V wouldn’t care who this person is unless this person is “nice.” Naturally, this logically follows that V likes “niceness” of a person, not a specific individual.
If the qualities of a person are deciding factor before meeting such a person, then the person’s characteristics are no less from a selling point of merchandise in a market. I believe most people find love is looking for those characteristics. From how much salary someone makes to what hobbies this person likes to enjoy to their political beliefs, these characteristics that we find attractive are nothing but our best interest to be with someone with those qualities. To put it short, modern people are in love with a high salary, highly stable emotions, excellent in bed, a defined hobby that is relatable, handsomeness, and beauty. How is this any different from us choosing the type of cheese, toppings, crust, and drink for a pizza? People need to stop searching for things from others but must meet people and find and study things that make them unique and loveable.

Unfortunately, the idea of materialism furthermore expands to our emotions. If you want to be “happy” with someone you love then you are ultimately approaching happiness as material that you must possess. If someone wants to be happy with love, this is ultimately seeing your companion as a service provider that will give you satisfaction and happiness by being with. This is an example of why love seems pointless, and why people cannot escape materialism. If you want to study a person by being with them, without any expectations or emotions, that is seeing a person as a provider of information. The action of “wanting to analyze a person” is seeing them as a product. This also makes every person equal, as there are more or less reasons to love a specific person next to other.


To ultimately love someone, there must exist a value to that someone you to love him/her over other people. However, an act of placing a value over a specific person makes them love them for the value placed, not for the person itself. This is why I believe mutual (true) love is nothing but coincidental, double one-way self-love of individualistic value between the couple.

Consider the ubiquitous subject-object dynamic in all of reality. Then consider the archetypical model of Eros. Eros is physical love or sexual desire. Eros is the type of love that involves passion, lust, and/or romance. Examples of eros would be the love felt between, well, lovers. Eros is the sensual love between people who are sexually attracted to each other.

In full consideration of those, existentially, we cannot escape the importance of how one perceives an object of desire. For some reason, we desire aesthetically pleasing objects to be around us. This not only seems to be a human need, but different objects effect us differently. Kant would be another resource there in his curiously about how Aesthetics impact our senses behavior.

In this way, being self-directed individuals who are looking for and seeking to fulfill their own desires for love (or for procreation of other object's of love like children), therein lies your intrinsic value. While the feeling for the object perceived is satisfying in itself, and all part of the equation, it's sufficient to say that a modern-day Mind Body Spirit connection is that which can be considered as a higher value of something enduring.... .

Is that considered a 'value', of some kind?

[ITkorea]

Many people see materialism as an idea of seeking and obtaining goods and services is ultimately moral and most important in living one’s life. Due to this negative connotation of this word, many walk away from materialism to seek greater meaning and values through other means of living a fulfilling life. However, I am here to argue that materialism is ultimately humanity’s greatest religion.

Modern materialistic love
Most people, if not all, have their types. My good friend, V’s type is a woman with a french accent, with some sort of striking passion, and more details according to V. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to point out the materialistic aspect that is fundamentally incorporated with this action.
If my friend V was to say that “I want to be with a nice(in a moral sense) girlfriend,” there is nothing wrong with saying that. I want to be with a nice girlfriend too. Note that the adjective phrase “nice” is specified while the object “girlfriend” isn’t. V wouldn’t care who this person is unless this person is “nice.” Naturally, this logically follows that V likes “niceness” of a person, not a specific individual.
If the qualities of a person are deciding factor before meeting such a person, then the person’s characteristics are no less from a selling point of merchandise in a market. I believe most people find love is looking for those characteristics. From how much salary someone makes to what hobbies this person likes to enjoy to their political beliefs, these characteristics that we find attractive are nothing but our best interest to be with someone with those qualities. To put it short, modern people are in love with a high salary, highly stable emotions, excellent in bed, a defined hobby that is relatable, handsomeness, and beauty. How is this any different from us choosing the type of cheese, toppings, crust, and drink for a pizza? People need to stop searching for things from others but must meet people and find and study things that make them unique and loveable.

Unfortunately, the idea of materialism furthermore expands to our emotions. If you want to be “happy” with someone you love then you are ultimately approaching happiness as material that you must possess. If someone wants to be happy with love, this is ultimately seeing your companion as a service provider that will give you satisfaction and happiness by being with. This is an example of why love seems pointless, and why people cannot escape materialism. If you want to study a person by being with them, without any expectations or emotions, that is seeing a person as a provider of information. The action of “wanting to analyze a person” is seeing them as a product. This also makes every person equal, as there are more or less reasons to love a specific person next to other.


To ultimately love someone, there must exist a value to that someone you to love him/her over other people. However, an act of placing a value over a specific person makes them love them for the value placed, not for the person itself. This is why I believe mutual (true) love is nothing but coincidental, double one-way self-love of individualistic value between the couple.

Consider the ubiquitous subject-object dynamic in all of reality. Then consider the archetypical model of Eros. Eros is physical love or sexual desire. Eros is the type of love that involves passion, lust, and/or romance. Examples of eros would be the love felt between, well, lovers. Eros is the sensual love between people who are sexually attracted to each other.

In full consideration of those, existentially, we cannot escape the importance of how one perceives an object of desire. For some reason, we desire aesthetically pleasing objects to be around us. This not only seems to be a human need, but different objects effect us differently. Kant would be another resource there in his curiously about how Aesthetics impact our senses behavior.

In this way, being self-directed individuals who are looking for and seeking to fulfill their own desires for love (or for procreation of other object's of love like children), therein lies your intrinsic value. While the feeling for the object perceived is satisfying in itself, and all part of the equation, it's sufficient to say that a modern-day Mind Body Spirit connection is that which can be considered as a higher value of something enduring.... .

Is that considered a 'value', of some kind?

I think to exist is to place one's values upon others. If one wants children or wants sexual intimacy, the person you engage with is loved because of those very activities you value, assuming they are willing to. I don't think there is innate value within people. I think value and status are placed unto you, as some people can see you as good or bad, depending on one's perception.
I think the argument is heading towards that, if people observe you for their value perceived in you, and decide to act on it, such as love, then are you just a mesh of values that are perceived by others? For without those values that you were seen, you wouldn't be where you are standing now. The existence of mind, body or mind-body connection seems pointless, because the existing one perceives within cannot be understood by others, nor it matters. Social existence of how others see you determine how you are seen, as a bunch of values, is the reason why one exists in some form in other's mind. If you live alone on an isolated island, are you still alive? do you truly exist if nobody knows that you, in fact, exist? even if you do, does it matter?

[3017Metaphysician]

Many people see materialism as an idea of seeking and obtaining goods and services is ultimately moral and most important in living one’s life. Due to this negative connotation of this word, many walk away from materialism to seek greater meaning and values through other means of living a fulfilling life. However, I am here to argue that materialism is ultimately humanity’s greatest religion.

Modern materialistic love
Most people, if not all, have their types. My good friend, V’s type is a woman with a french accent, with some sort of striking passion, and more details according to V. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to point out the materialistic aspect that is fundamentally incorporated with this action.
If my friend V was to say that “I want to be with a nice(in a moral sense) girlfriend,” there is nothing wrong with saying that. I want to be with a nice girlfriend too. Note that the adjective phrase “nice” is specified while the object “girlfriend” isn’t. V wouldn’t care who this person is unless this person is “nice.” Naturally, this logically follows that V likes “niceness” of a person, not a specific individual.
If the qualities of a person are deciding factor before meeting such a person, then the person’s characteristics are no less from a selling point of merchandise in a market. I believe most people find love is looking for those characteristics. From how much salary someone makes to what hobbies this person likes to enjoy to their political beliefs, these characteristics that we find attractive are nothing but our best interest to be with someone with those qualities. To put it short, modern people are in love with a high salary, highly stable emotions, excellent in bed, a defined hobby that is relatable, handsomeness, and beauty. How is this any different from us choosing the type of cheese, toppings, crust, and drink for a pizza? People need to stop searching for things from others but must meet people and find and study things that make them unique and loveable.

Unfortunately, the idea of materialism furthermore expands to our emotions. If you want to be “happy” with someone you love then you are ultimately approaching happiness as material that you must possess. If someone wants to be happy with love, this is ultimately seeing your companion as a service provider that will give you satisfaction and happiness by being with. This is an example of why love seems pointless, and why people cannot escape materialism. If you want to study a person by being with them, without any expectations or emotions, that is seeing a person as a provider of information. The action of “wanting to analyze a person” is seeing them as a product. This also makes every person equal, as there are more or less reasons to love a specific person next to other.


To ultimately love someone, there must exist a value to that someone you to love him/her over other people. However, an act of placing a value over a specific person makes them love them for the value placed, not for the person itself. This is why I believe mutual (true) love is nothing but coincidental, double one-way self-love of individualistic value between the couple.

Consider the ubiquitous subject-object dynamic in all of reality. Then consider the archetypical model of Eros. Eros is physical love or sexual desire. Eros is the type of love that involves passion, lust, and/or romance. Examples of eros would be the love felt between, well, lovers. Eros is the sensual love between people who are sexually attracted to each other.

In full consideration of those, existentially, we cannot escape the importance of how one perceives an object of desire. For some reason, we desire aesthetically pleasing objects to be around us. This not only seems to be a human need, but different objects effect us differently. Kant would be another resource there in his curiously about how Aesthetics impact our senses behavior.

In this way, being self-directed individuals who are looking for and seeking to fulfill their own desires for love (or for procreation of other object's of love like children), therein lies your intrinsic value. While the feeling for the object perceived is satisfying in itself, and all part of the equation, it's sufficient to say that a modern-day Mind Body Spirit connection is that which can be considered as a higher value of something enduring.... .

Is that considered a 'value', of some kind?

I think to exist is to place one's values upon others. If one wants children or wants sexual intimacy, the person you engage with is loved because of those very activities you value, assuming they are willing to. I don't think there is innate value within people. I think value and status are placed unto you, as some people can see you as good or bad, depending on one's perception.
I think the argument is heading towards that, if people observe you for their value perceived in you, and decide to act on it, such as love, then are you just a mesh of values that are perceived by others? For without those values that you were seen, you wouldn't be where you are standing now. The existence of mind, body or mind-body connection seems pointless, because the existing one perceives within cannot be understood by others, nor it matters. Social existence of how others see you determine how you are seen, as a bunch of values, is the reason why one exists in some form in other's mind. If you live alone on an isolated island, are you still alive? do you truly exist if nobody knows that you, in fact, exist? even if you do, does it matter?

ITK!

I must admit, I'm at a bit of a loss with where you are going with that. On the one hand you seem to be saying that there is no intrinsic value to one's Being. Then on the other, you are saying that personal value is solely determined by other's? The easy answer is that both, are at play. In simple terms, one has or can offer intrinsic value to their partner, and one can be perceived to have such value as a desirable feature to fulfill a need. In other words, having both self-love and a desire to love someone else (unconditional love, etc.) would seem to make sense. A starting point for that kind of discussion could be in the simple definitions from Greek antiquity:

https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/bl ... ent-greeks

Maybe what you are saying is something to the effect of, other's projecting their sense of value upon people in general? As such, of course we have an ideal sense of what we consider as being of value to us, based upon the qualitative needs that human's have and desire. Some of those needs are universal needs, like the need for love. While other needs are experienced as being more of a subjective phenomenon; ineffable, metaphysical, spiritual, and so on... .

I agree that we are 'just a mesh of values that are perceived by others' based upon a logical criteria of Mind Body Spirit. And that connection has both intrinsic and extrinsic value. For example, someone else may perceive something that is considered undesirable as being desirable, in whatever form that may take. The concept of 'value' is an interesting one no doubt. We also know that a perceived value can occur, or connection if you like, that often times transcends the logic of Love, in that we find couple's who say something like 'I don't know what it is about him/her, I've just always felt very comfortable in their presence'.

Pragmatically, this dynamic of having a connection or perceived value has other obvious implications. Whether it's professional relationships or personal ones, we cannot escape this need for having connections. We see this in the working world where people succeed based upon the philosophical connection and value systems one brings to the table within corporations, or in a successful group of musicians who make music together, or a sports team that meshes well and wins championships, so on and so forth.

Lots of directions we can take this discussion of perceived value both intrinsically and extrinsically. But the mystery of Love (between men/women) is quite an enigma, to say the least... . I've actually studied the psychology of Love, and can share that cognitive science does not really understand what it is, there are only various theories about it. And I've seen it in the corporate world where people just want to be seen, heard, valued and loved. It's all about emotion. So we are in good company

[Ecurb]

Philia, storge, eros and agape differ from each other, but they are also similar.

Parents who love their children are clearly not materialistic -- the kids cost them money, effort, trouble and care. But most parents love them anyway. So any theory of love which concentrates on eros and ignores the similarities betwee eros and storge is likely to be simplistic.

Even when we consider only eros, it is often the case that eros is strongest when unrequited. There is no material benefit to it at all. Indeed, there is only misery and pain. But there is a beauty to tragedy, and tragedy is the inevitable result of not only eros, but storge, philia, and (maybe) agape as well.