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

[Alias]

I think Shakespeare was better at this then Fromm

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me prov'd,
I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.

[Sy Borg]

It's not true love in the same way as a migrant is not a true Scotsman.

[Sculptor1]

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 concerse is true.

You cannot love unless you know how to hate.

[Atla]

Have you noticed that people who claim to "love everyone" always turn out to have some kind of subtle defect, which makes them incapable of forming deep personal bonds?

[Evolution25]

Alias, you say you love someone because they already make you feel a certain way to begin with. But how does it get to a point where you feel a certain way about someone? They must do or act in a way that makes you feel loved. It can be from the way they speak to you, the way they look in your eyes, attentively listen to you, the way they smile or the way they make you feel a sense of importance causes you love that someone. In a way, you benefit, thus you love.

[Evolution25]

I benefit and you benefit. Like a transaction when you purchase a product.

I already explained the difference once. You either love somebody or you don't. They either love you or they don't.
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.

It's difficult to stop loving your child even if he/she fails. Overall, having someone who depends on you gives you a sense of responsibility, gives your life purpose, a reason to exist. So you benefit. Transactional. You give, child gives.

[Alias]

Alias, you say you love someone because they already make you feel a certain way to begin with.

I didn't say 'to begin with'; I said 'because'.

But how does it get to a point where you feel a certain way about someone?

The development of love is individual and particular. No two relationships are alike - and that includes every kind of love, fondness, devotion and passion, of all depths, colours and degrees. Every one unique.

They must do or act in a way that makes you feel loved.

Why? I thought this was about you loving someone or something else, not them loving you.
The man who in the poem is supposed to have said "I could not love thee, Dear, so much, loved I not Honour more." could have meant it quite literally: that his deepest and greatest love was for this concept - which never once acted in a way as to make him feel loved - but without which his self-image would be crippled in all areas of his life.
People love their newborn infants, which can give them nothing and demand everything. People love their icons, their country, and Nature and Music and also very often love other people who are not interested in them at all.

It can be from the way they speak to you, the way they look in your eyes, attentively listen to you, the way they smile or the way they make you feel a sense of importance causes you love that someone. In a way, you benefit, thus you love.

Overall, having someone who depends on you gives you a sense of responsibility, gives your life purpose, a reason to exist. So you benefit. Transactional. You give, child gives.

If you believe that, you're entirely transactional.
I don't suppose you're unique in this - though you may be in much else.

[Tegularius]

I think Shakespeare was better at this then Fromm

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me prov'd,
I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.

Not at all! What Fromm said has nothing to do with what Shakespeare said. Love is a very complicated subject which doesn't refer to humans only. Nice speech but only one version of what love denotes.

[Alias]

Not at all! What Fromm said has nothing to do with what Shakespeare said. Love is a very complicated subject which doesn't refer to humans only. Nice speech but only one version of what love denotes.

It's not a speech; it's a sonnet.
He wrote many, all different. Wide range; deep insight; good grasp of subject.
Better cadence than Fromm, too.

[Tegularius]

Not at all! What Fromm said has nothing to do with what Shakespeare said. Love is a very complicated subject which doesn't refer to humans only. Nice speech but only one version of what love denotes.

It's not a speech; it's a sonnet.
He wrote many, all different. Wide range; deep insight; good grasp of subject.
Better cadence than Fromm, too.

Your right! I should have noticed. It's been quite a while since I read Shakespeare. That being said, Fromm writes very well in what he wants to say, which is true for many, and that's all that's required to make one's ideas understood, whether one agrees or not. It also goes without saying that Shakespeare wrote with better cadence than most of the writers who ever lived. Most, but not all.

[Steve3007]

"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?

Not that I agree with...Fromm also insinuated that love between a man and another man cannot be real love.

What is that justification that he presents with which you disagree? Since men make up about half of the population, does he say that men cannot love one person?

[Evolution25]

They must do or act in a way that makes you feel loved.

Why? I thought this was about you loving someone or something else, not them loving you.
People love their newborn infants, which can give them nothing and demand everything. People love their icons, their country, and Nature and Music and also very often love other people who are not interested in them at all.

A newborn infant gives us a future to look forward to, a personality, brain, body to mold, gives us a reason to wake up everyday to nourish and nurture someone who depend on us provides us a certain type of feeling that gives us purpose, a reason to wake up everyday and live our lives, to live for them. As far as nature goes, plenty of studies show its benefits. Nature is an antidote for stress. It can lower blood pressure, reduce nervous system arousal, enhance immune system function, reduce anxiety and improve mood. These are just some of the reasons why people love nature because it benefits them. An icon, a country and others you mentioned make people feel a certain way that causes them to love. We are emotionally driven creatures. If something meets our emotional needs, it can cause us to love. Benefits. Transaction.

[Evolution25]

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 concerse 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.

[Thomyum2]

Erich Fromm according to his book the Art of Loving that you cannot love one person if you cannot love everyone. Do you guys believe in this? Why or why not? He also mentioned that love should NOT be transactional and that you shouldn’t do things for someone because you want something in return. 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)?

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.

I read Fromm's book many years ago and was quite impressed with it at the time, but his argument isn't fresh enough in my mind to speak one way or the other on his behalf about the question you've asked. Just taking a quick look at the Wikipedia article on the book, I see: Fromm presents love as an activity, a skill that can be taught and developed, rejecting the idea of love as a magical and mysterious sensation that cannot be analyzed and explained.

I do agree with this and would also argue that love is not transactional. I've always felt that love is reflected in actions and deeds, not in emotions or words - in other words love is an act of the will, not just a feeling or sentiment that we experience. I think that in our culture it is often mistakenly identified with the emotional states that accompany or motivate love rather than recognized as something distinct from those. While love does involve giving, it cannot be transactional because it must be given freely and unconditionally, without expectation of reward or compensation, which I think is so eloquently captured in the Shakespeare sonnet that Alias posted, in the lines "Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds".

Your thread has prompted me to get the book out of the library and read it again - something I've actually been meaning to do for a while now. Once I've had a chance to dig into it a bit more, I'd enjoy continuing the discussion in a little more depth if that's of interest. These are ideas well worth revisiting - thanks for your posts on an interesting topic.

[Alias]

A many-splendoured thing, indeed!

[yid]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSF8l_Yh_gY[/yid]