You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
- Evolution25
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: February 7th, 2021, 9:38 am
You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
I personally think that there is a difference between “accepting” everyone and “loving” everyone. For example, I can accept Adolf Hitler for what he has done, I accepted that he was emotionally abused as a child by his father, I accepted that by killing millions of Jews he had changed the world and made society more vigilant of what one damaged man can become and signs we should look for to prevent something like the Holocaust from happening again. But will I ever date someone and even love someone like that? I will have to say no.
-
- Posts: 177
- Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
In short, we do not give in order to receive, but if we give and there is nothing in return, it can't work.
In this context, what is "love"?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
Yes, this is related to the question of whether altruism can ever be said to genuinely exist. It's perfectly possible to define altruism in such a way that it's never deemed to be present because we can always say that people do things because they just liked the feeling of doing them.Pattern-chaser wrote:I can't help thinking that all human relationships are transactional - I do this for you, and you do that for me, in return - but, if we actually treat them that way, everything goes wrong. Our relationships seem to work better if we pretend there is more altruism and generosity there than is really the case.
I suppose one reason for us being naturally reluctant to explicitly think of either love or altruism in that way is that we're often looking for predictive patterns. Thinking of them in transactional ways might make us more apt to make predictions of future behaviour that we don't like. This is where the concept of "faith" can often come in. It's difficult to express faith in transactional terms, other than by falling back on: "I have faith because I enjoy the feeling of having faith".
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
Does he present any sort of justification for that?
- Diascarus
- Posts: 8
- Joined: October 26th, 2020, 9:51 am
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
-
- 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
It's been too long since I read Fromm - was impressed with him at 21 or so - to recall the thrust of that message, so I'll treat is as a new, earnest question.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.
I never believe anything at face value. I ask: What is the significance of 'cannot', rather than 'do not' or 'will not'?Do you guys believe in this? Why or why not?
A possible interpretation is that if one is capable of loving, no entity is categorically denied the possibility of being loved.
That is: I can love anyone, regardless of race, creed, physical appearance, age, etc. - but that doesn't mean I will love them all equally, or in the same way, or all the time.
Wait. Loving and doing for are not interchangeable. Transactional love would say: I couldn't love you if didn't convert to my faith. That doesn't rule out transactions in all other areas: I'll go to the ballet if you'll come to the ball game. You can still love somebody who is watching a ballet while you're watching a ballgame.He also mentioned that love should NOT be transactional and that you shouldn’t do things for someone because you want something in return.
You'd better, if you don't want to grow old and die alone! There are many situations in a relationship when one person is more needy, more damaged, more lost, more demanding and less stable and giving than the other. In those times, you provide whatever comfort and support you can. Hopefully, the partner you helped back to full strength will be able to do the same when you fall off the mountain. It even happens that one partner will always be the more needy. Love responds accordingly, because love can do nothing else.Which is odd because would you give lending ears to your girlfriend or wife(be there for her emotionally) if she is NOT having sex with you(not providing for your sexual desires)?
Of course there is. And wouldn't expect anyone to accept everyone. It's impossible.I personally think that there is a difference between “accepting” everyone and “loving” everyone.
No, you don't. You accept a name, a bookmark in history. You never met the man and have no idea how you would react to or feel about him.For example, I can accept Adolf Hitler for what he has done,
All that "can love everyone" means is: if you meet someone for the first time, you are open to the possibility of loving them.
Fromm:
iow, codependency, before it was invented as such.“If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism.”
- Evolution25
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: February 7th, 2021, 9:38 am
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
Not that I agree with...Fromm also insinuated that love between a man and another man cannot be real love.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2021, 12:10 pm "Erich Fromm according to his book the Art of Loving that you cannot love one person if you cannot love everyone. "
Does he present any sort of justification for that?
- Evolution25
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: February 7th, 2021, 9:38 am
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
You mentioned "possibility", so it is possible that you might love a person or you might NOT? Will this be based on how they can meet your needs emotionally? Wouldn't this be transactional? I will love you, if you make me feel a certain way. I benefit and you benefit. Like a transaction when you purchase a product.
- Evolution25
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: February 7th, 2021, 9:38 am
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
Maybe the person who couldn't love the other person for not converting to their faith does NOT offer anything else that stands out that can compensate for NOT converting to the faith. But if there is something the religious person can powerfully benefit from the non-religious person, then love can exist.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
With age, I don't care much for either. I think it's essential to love something (not necessarily someone) in this life - to feel passionate about something. It could be a person, or a pet, or animals or plants in general. It might be the Earth, or space, the arts, one's work, one's hobbies, eating, whatever. If you love something, then your life will be better. It's only necessary to love in some way for peace of mind (even if as a temporary salve). The idea of loving everyone is abstract and unrealistic.
Logically, if it was necessary to feel Agape to experience Philia, Pragma, Storge, Eros or Ludus, then I don't see why the Greeks would have bothered categorising other forms of love. Fromm may have thought that, for instance, a theist's love for their own "team" (with hatred of secularists) is not "real love" due to its conditionality, but that is shifting the definition of love.
Love need not be unconditional and lasting. Fromm's notion that love is work rather than an emotion no doubt applies rather well to marriages, but he is again trying to redefine love as only unstinting unconditional love. Unlike Fromm, I think it important to appreciate the parts of the world that are not human, that humanity's obsessive inward focus is uncentred and spiritually unhealthy.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: You Can’t Love One person if You Can’t Love Everyone
Unless Fromm said so directly, which doesn't make sense under any interpretation, least of all from someone like him, I can only think of it as your perception of what he actually said.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.
As close as I can get to it is this quote which has no relationship to what you're saying:
This implies to me that one can have the faculty without having an object just as one can have a talent which seldom gets used.“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
-
- 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
The operative and critical word is "can". It means: I am able to love - without specifying the object or setting preconditions or making any other reference to others.Evolution25 wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 6:58 pm Hi Alias, you said "i can love everyone, but that doesn't mean I will love them all equally, or in the same way, or all the time" and then later say "All that "can love everyone" means is: if you meet someone for the first time, you are open to the possibility of loving them".
Right. I can walk. That doesn't mean I can't or won't ever sit down or run or ride. It doesn't mean I'm required to, or intend to walk around the world, or walk to any particular place at any particular time.You mentioned "possibility", so it is possible that you might love a person or you might NOT?
Not necessarily. They might not even be aware.Will this be based on how they can meet your needs emotionally?
One can only hope it's reciprocal - and it isn't always, and even when it is, love is hardly ever equal.Wouldn't this be transactional?
No. I love someone because they already make me feel that way. Nobody you don't love, or whom you do not find lovable, can make you feel that way, however how hard they try, and their trying won't generate love - only pity and contempt.I will love you, if you make me feel a certain way.
I already explained the difference once. You either love somebody or you don't. They either love you or they don't.I benefit and you benefit. Like a transaction when you purchase a product.
You can make all sorts of deals about all sort of other things with all sorts of people, whether you love them or not.
You can offer your child a trip to the amusement park if he gets all A's, but you can't stop loving him, even if he fails.
Love itself is not negotiable - simply because it's not controllable.
-
- 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
Notice the example: it's a proclamation of categorical requirement. She's saying: I'm forbidden to love (or have been conditioned to deny love) outside of my faith. If you enter the permitted pool of partner, I can choose you.Evolution25 wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 7:04 pm Alias, you mentioned "Transactional love would say: I couldn't love you if didn't convert to my faith.
Whatever other attractions the might have, or lack, is irrelevant to the example.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023