You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Sculptor1 »

Evolution25 wrote: February 12th, 2021, 8:45 am
Sculptor1 wrote: February 11th, 2021, 5:42 pm
Evolution25 wrote: February 7th, 2021, 9:40 am Erich Fromm according to his book the Art of Loving that you cannot love one person if you cannot love everyone..
He is not only wrong, but the converse is true.

You cannot love unless you know how to hate.
Hmm, our ability to choose who or what to love or hate allows us to survive. Imagine if we love the direct feel of fire on our skin. :shock:
Why would I imagine such an absurd notion.
And why can't you attend to the matter I actually addressed?
If you love everything, it is meaningless.
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by BobS »

I'm not seeing any evidence offered that Fromm knew everyone or that he conducted any empirical studies of the issue. Nor any evidence that love is and always will be the same for every single person. Does anyone really believe that?

For my own part, I do know that I loved my wife of 38 years. I don't know what sort of logic or evidence Fromm could possibly come up with to prove me wrong. And since Hitler has been mentioned, I'll admit that I'm not feeling any love there. Nor do I care why Hitler was the way he was. Maybe his dad was mean to him (but see p. 19 of the recent Volker Ulrich biography: "From all we know, Hitler seems to have had a fairly normal childhood"). Does that make him more or less lovable than if the explanation were simply that he had "bad genes"? Or that his school mates weren't as nice to him as they could have been? It seems to me that Hitler was pretty unlovable no matter how he got there.

In any case, if we accept Fromm's position that "You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone," the reason Hitler was the way he was is irrelevant. We're simply supposed to love Hitler in order to love anyone else. Merely expressing such a thought should be enough to see its invalidity. At least for me, though I'll concede that Fromm's mileage apparently varied.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Sy Borg »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 12th, 2021, 6:23 pmIf you love everything, it is meaningless.
Given that no one loves everyone, if the Fromm inference is true then no one is capable of loving, in which case the word "love" becomes meaningless, as you say.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Alias »

I wonder whether there is one specific quote that embodies his view, on which we might comment. Or whether, perhaps, Fromm's ideas can be understood better in a somewhat larger context than a third party's brief and simplified interpretation.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Sy Borg »

Alias wrote: February 12th, 2021, 7:10 pm I wonder whether there is one specific quote that embodies his view, on which we might comment. Or whether, perhaps, Fromm's ideas can be understood better in a somewhat larger context than a third party's brief and simplified interpretation.
“Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one “object” of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty.”
So it's not loving everyone necessarily but loving some undefined number of others. Still formulaic IMO.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Tegularius »

Alias wrote: February 12th, 2021, 7:10 pm I wonder whether there is one specific quote that embodies his view, on which we might comment. Or whether, perhaps, Fromm's ideas can be understood better in a somewhat larger context than a third party's brief and simplified interpretation.
The quote given earlier says it all and definitely enlarges the context beyond simply an object or quality.
“Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one “object” of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty.”
― Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving
It's even possible to describe love as a kind of demiurge forcing the cosmos into being.

Fromm made the distinction very clear. When love is inherent it operates as a faculty which doesn't focus only on one object. This is precise and couldn't be clearer. As a faculty it adapts itself and receives feedback from what it reflects on.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Tegularius »

Greta wrote: February 12th, 2021, 8:18 pm
Alias wrote: February 12th, 2021, 7:10 pm I wonder whether there is one specific quote that embodies his view, on which we might comment. Or whether, perhaps, Fromm's ideas can be understood better in a somewhat larger context than a third party's brief and simplified interpretation.
“Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one “object” of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty.”
So it's not loving everyone necessarily but loving some undefined number of others. Still formulaic IMO.
Fromm doesn't say "some undefined number of others". That's only your version of it. Love is explicitly defined as a faculty. What does that mean and what is a faculty? It's defined as an inherent power or ability which does not define its object even though it could apply itself in some focused manner. It applies as much to loving your pets and animals as loving a human. It can also be perverse in loving something which doesn't deserve to be loved, etc.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Alias »

Greta wrote: February 12th, 2021, 8:18 pm So it's not loving everyone necessarily but loving some undefined number of others.
I read it as being open to the possibility of love toward the world; having 'good will toward men', if you like.
Still formulaic IMO.
Of course it is - at least in that short summary. (I'd seen the part about ignoring everyone else, and certainly agree with him on that point.)
As I said, I sincerely believe that Shakespeare had a firmer grasp on human love in its various manifestations.
Fromm's stance is more of an ideology than of mundane experience, but he did elaborate on various aspects of his philosophy in books, so there's plenty of explanation, if we want it. I don't think they were intended as dating or marriage manuals! And anyway, some of us have been scratched and dented enough by the world to require no more instruction. ...
..... still a more engaging subject than "What Did T****...?"
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Sy Borg »

Tegularius wrote: February 12th, 2021, 9:38 pm
Greta wrote: February 12th, 2021, 8:18 pm
Alias wrote: February 12th, 2021, 7:10 pm I wonder whether there is one specific quote that embodies his view, on which we might comment. Or whether, perhaps, Fromm's ideas can be understood better in a somewhat larger context than a third party's brief and simplified interpretation.
“Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one “object” of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty.”
So it's not loving everyone necessarily but loving some undefined number of others. Still formulaic IMO.
Fromm doesn't say "some undefined number of others". That's only your version of it. Love is explicitly defined as a faculty. What does that mean and what is a faculty? It's defined as an inherent power or ability which does not define its object even though it could apply itself in some focused manner. It applies as much to loving your pets and animals as loving a human. It can also be perverse in loving something which doesn't deserve to be loved, etc.
Well, it's clearly an undefined number of others. It's not as though he would say you need to love at least five people to truly love, is it?

Earlier I spoke of how love need not be for humans and mentioned a range of other entities so there's no disagreement there.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Sy Borg »

Alias wrote: February 12th, 2021, 10:18 pmFromm's stance is more of an ideology than of mundane experience, but he did elaborate on various aspects of his philosophy in books, so there's plenty of explanation, if we want it. I don't think they were intended as dating or marriage manuals! And anyway, some of us have been scratched and dented enough by the world to require no more instruction. ...
About forty years ago I was crazy about Fromm's famous little book, but back then I was looking for ideologies, a philosophical home, so to speak. I don't remember the content too well now but I expect that I would recall, if reminded. What I've been reminded of so far is how naive I was back then.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Alias »

OTOH, I've been reading some more quotes - an isolated sentence can be misleading - and begin to see what I saw back then.
I may have been naive - I think my whole culture was rather more starry-eyed in the 60's - but I wasn't stupid. And he did have other books; he wrote extensively on the madness in our modern industrial societies, and the difficulties of maintaining individual integrity in such an environment, that I came only much later to appreciate.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... rich_Fromm
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Tegularius »

Greta wrote: February 12th, 2021, 11:28 pm
Tegularius wrote: February 12th, 2021, 9:38 pm
Greta wrote: February 12th, 2021, 8:18 pm
Alias wrote: February 12th, 2021, 7:10 pm I wonder whether there is one specific quote that embodies his view, on which we might comment. Or whether, perhaps, Fromm's ideas can be understood better in a somewhat larger context than a third party's brief and simplified interpretation.
“Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one “object” of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty.”
So it's not loving everyone necessarily but loving some undefined number of others. Still formulaic IMO.
Fromm doesn't say "some undefined number of others". That's only your version of it. Love is explicitly defined as a faculty. What does that mean and what is a faculty? It's defined as an inherent power or ability which does not define its object even though it could apply itself in some focused manner. It applies as much to loving your pets and animals as loving a human. It can also be perverse in loving something which doesn't deserve to be loved, etc.
Well, it's clearly an undefined number of others. It's not as though he would say you need to love at least five people to truly love, is it?

Earlier I spoke of how love need not be for humans and mentioned a range of other entities so there's no disagreement there.
If not a faculty, a means of extending oneself in non-preconceived ways which only experience makes known then what is it?

As for Shakespeare's somewhat sentimental sonnet on love dedicated to one person is only one manifestation of love, the one most obvious to most people which due to its sentimentality is the easiest to understand.

There's a number of people including C.G. Jung to whose ideas I no-longer subscribe. That doesn't imply that I would now consider them invalid just because I later acquired a different perspective on things. There's plenty that both Jung, Fromm among many others have written which remains valid to this day and not likely to change in the future.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Alias »

Tegularius wrote: February 13th, 2021, 12:03 am As for Shakespeare's somewhat sentimental sonnet on love dedicated to one person is only one manifestation of love, the one most obvious to most people which due to its sentimentality is the easiest to understand.
That sentiment used to be required as a pledge between bride and groom, so it's typical of one kind of love.
It doesn't preclude the love of friends, parents, horses, Jesus or beer - it just says, if you love somebody, you'll keep loving them even if they become sick, wrinkled, broke or unpopular.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Tegularius »

Alias wrote: February 13th, 2021, 1:34 am
Tegularius wrote: February 13th, 2021, 12:03 am As for Shakespeare's somewhat sentimental sonnet on love dedicated to one person is only one manifestation of love, the one most obvious to most people which due to its sentimentality is the easiest to understand.
That sentiment used to be required as a pledge between bride and groom, so it's typical of one kind of love.
It doesn't preclude the love of friends, parents, horses, Jesus or beer - it just says, if you love somebody, you'll keep loving them even if they become sick, wrinkled, broke or unpopular.
I agree. That's why I called it one manifestation of love the kind which is usually the easiest to understand. Nowadays that sentiment is more of an ideal or there wouldn't be as many divorce lawyers around.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone

Post by Sculptor1 »

BobS wrote: February 12th, 2021, 6:54 pm I'm not seeing any evidence offered that Fromm knew everyone or that he conducted any empirical studies of the issue. Nor any evidence that love is and always will be the same for every single person. Does anyone really believe that?

For my own part, I do know that I loved my wife of 38 years. I don't know what sort of logic or evidence Fromm could possibly come up with to prove me wrong. And since Hitler has been mentioned, I'll admit that I'm not feeling any love there. Nor do I care why Hitler was the way he was. Maybe his dad was mean to him (but see p. 19 of the recent Volker Ulrich biography: "From all we know, Hitler seems to have had a fairly normal childhood"). Does that make him more or less lovable than if the explanation were simply that he had "bad genes"? Or that his school mates weren't as nice to him as they could have been? It seems to me that Hitler was pretty unlovable no matter how he got there.

In any case, if we accept Fromm's position that "You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone," the reason Hitler was the way he was is irrelevant. We're simply supposed to love Hitler in order to love anyone else. Merely expressing such a thought should be enough to see its invalidity. At least for me, though I'll concede that Fromm's mileage apparently varied.
It's so obvioulsy BS.
You loved your wife. Did you love all women? Clearly she would have had something to say about that!!!
Case is closed on Fromm I think.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021