Philosophy of 💗 Love

[value]

In a topic by 3017Metaphysician on the metaphysical philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer - known as both 'The Philosopher of Love' and 'The Philosopher of Pessimism' - it was cited that few philosophers in history have seriously addressed the subject love, leaving the concept mostly to poets. It might explain why it is possible that Schopenhauer - the father of pessimism - has received the name 'The Philosopher of Love'.

The Philosopher of Love Who Lived and Died Alone
In his 1818 essay “Metaphysics of Love,” Schopenhauer writes that “one cannot doubt either the reality or importance of love,” only to name the primary purpose of love as the creation of offspring, an expression of the “will to live,” which was one of his central preoccupations.
https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/th ... les/95895/

This topic intends to question the validity of the idea of Arthur Schopenhauer that love is fundamentally meaningless.

A quick introduction to Schopenhauer's pessimism philosophy that underlays his theory on love:

Philosophical Pessimism: A Study In The Philosophy Of Arthur Schopenhauer
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewco ... phy_theses
https://iep.utm.edu/schopenh/

Schopenhauer’s pessimism resides in two related claims: that “all life is suffering”, and accordingly that the world and life itself “ought not to be”.

Schopenhauer's theory on the three forms of boredom fundamentally underlays his idea "all life is suffering" which makes it appear that his reasoning is based on (personal) experience and feelings related to (a perceived potential of) depression.

The basis of all willing is need, lack, and hence pain, and by its very nature and origin it is therefore destined to pain. If, on the other hand, it lacks objects of willing, because it is at once deprived of them again by too easy a satisfaction, a fearful emptiness and boredom comes over it; in other words, its being and its existence itself becomes an intolerable burden for it. Hence its life swings like a pendulum to and fro between pain and boredom, and these two are in fact its ultimate constituents.

For Schopenhauer, boredom has three forms. The first is when the world shows itself to the bored as lifeless, “dead”, colorless, and “dreary”. Nothing is attractive or interesting and everything is indifferent, detached, and distant. The second form of boredom is when the world shows itself to the bored as valueless, meaningless, and pointless. Schopenhauer says that these feelings of pointlessness, valuelessness, and pointlessness render existence itself burdensome.

In my view Schopenhauer's reasoning on the fundamental meaninglessness of love is wrong. It is only when one attempts to attach oneself to 'value' that one will be in danger for the described experience (depression potential) since the true nature that underlays the world cannot be clinged on to. Emotions serve to propel organisms into the right direction and hence depression has an infinite depth and from the perspective of the experiencer an infinite severity potential - as if it's worse than death. But there is also the opposite with the same infinite potential, which is found in love.

Love in my view is not an expression of the will to live but like the perception of beauty of which Plato wrote the following:

Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God.

With love one perceives true beauty in my opinion which is not a (meaningless) inside-out expression but a perception into the infinite depth of the origin of existence - the trueness behind it all in which 'pure beauty' can be found.

French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - wrote the following about love which in my opinion touches the subject better.

Love remains a relation with the Other that turns into need, transcendent exteriority of the other, of the beloved. But love goes beyond the beloved... The possibility of the Other appearing as an object of a need while retaining his alterity, or again, the possibility of enjoying the Other... this simultaneity of need and desire, or concupiscence and transcendence,... constitutes the originality of the erotic which, in this sense, is the equivocal par excellence.

Levinas has written in more depth about love because it is related to his primary philosophy (Ethics as First Philosophy). There is even a book dedicated to his vision on love:

love-wisdom.jpg (24.97 KiB) Viewed 3681 times

Directly challenging the prevailing interpretation, Corey Beals explores the ideas of twentieth-century philosopher Emmanuel Levinas's concept of love, love's relation to wisdom, and how love makes the Other visible to us. Distinguishing love from other types of wisdom, Beals argues that Levinas's "wisdom of love" is a real possibility, one which grants priority to ethics over ontology.

Levinas and the Wisdom of Love
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/214 ... om_of_Love

Levinas said the following with regard the origin of existence (the cosmos):

"in renouncing intentionality as a guiding thread toward the eidos [formal structure] of the psyche … our analysis will follow sensibility in its pre-natural signification to the maternal, where, in proximity [to what is not itself], signification signifies before it gets bent into perseverance in being in the midst of a Nature. (OBBE: 68, emph. added) "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness." (Levinas in film Absent God 1:06:22)

I would share this vision. The cited 'goodness' would be 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued as origin of value - i.e. 'the origin of the cosmos' - with (moral) valuing being 'signification').

In a sense 'morality' would underlay the physical world and consciousness, and thus Levinas moral philosophy "Ethics as First Philosophy" might be correct from a fundamental philosophy perspective, in my opinion.

What is your opinion on the significance of love? Is it merely functional for reproduction as asserted by Arthur Schopenhauer or ...?


Questions:

1) what is love?
2) what have art and beauty have to do with love?
3) why has the subject love been principally neglected by philosophy in history?


The following film might provide an inspirational philosophical perspective on love. The primary question that is asked in the film is "how does love last?" and it is then described that when one attempts to cling on to love that the beauty of life disappears before ones eyes.

What is love even?
...
Why is it so hard to keep a feeling. Maybe it is better to sit by and watch but never have. The idea of meeting the beauty and magic we see in the world around us to be ours, mine, we end up smothering it. Looking to deeply at it. And then we see how very regular all these things are. I think that magic, beauty and feeling are only real and true when they are free, passing and unscrutinised.

[value]

For anyone with interest in an introduction to the work of the cited philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. His major work is named Totality and Infinity which is commonly referenced to as "Ethics as First Philosophy".

Emmanuel Levinas is one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth, but the complexity of his thought, as well as Heidegger’s, prevents a real spread / democratization of his work. One of his most important works is Totality and Infinity: An essay on exteriority. In the latter, Levinas, according to a phenomenological method, describes how subjectivity arises from the idea of ​​infinity, and how infinite is a product of the relationship of self to another.
https://www.the-philosophy.com/levinas- ... ty-summary
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_and_Infinity

Emmanuel Levinas was Jewish and was born in Lithuania. He shortly fled to Ukraine during the war and then moved to France where he ultimately became a philosophy professor at the University of Paris.

Philosopher Seth Paskin, one of the hosts of the podcast Partially Examined Life, is Jewish and studied Martin Heidegger in Freiburg, Germany, and later dedicated to Levinas.

Episode 145: Emmanuel Levinas: Why Be Ethical?
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2016/ ... 1-levinas/

Episode 146: Emmanuel Levinas on Overcoming Solitude
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2016/ ... 1-levinas/

The following free ebook by the Dutch professor Adriaan Peperzak (University of Chicago) who is specialized in the history of Levinas, provides a quick insight in the history of Levinas.

To the Other: Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/20/

[3017Metaphysician]

In a topic by @3017Metaphysician on the metaphysical philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer - known as both 'The Philosopher of Love' and 'The Philosopher of Pessimism' - it was cited that few philosophers in history have seriously addressed the subject love, leaving the concept mostly to poets. It might explain why it is possible that Schopenhauer - the father of pessimism - has received the name 'The Philosopher of Love'.

The Philosopher of Love Who Lived and Died Alone
In his 1818 essay “Metaphysics of Love,” Schopenhauer writes that “one cannot doubt either the reality or importance of love,” only to name the primary purpose of love as the creation of offspring, an expression of the “will to live,” which was one of his central preoccupations.
https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/th ... les/95895/

This topic intends to question the validity of the idea of Arthur Schopenhauer that love is fundamentally meaningless.

A quick introduction to Schopenhauer's pessimism philosophy that underlays his theory on love:

Philosophical Pessimism: A Study In The Philosophy Of Arthur Schopenhauer
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewco ... phy_theses
https://iep.utm.edu/schopenh/

Schopenhauer’s pessimism resides in two related claims: that “all life is suffering”, and accordingly that the world and life itself “ought not to be”.

Schopenhauer's theory on the three forms of boredom fundamentally underlays his idea "all life is suffering" which makes it appear that his reasoning is based on (personal) experience and feelings related to (a perceived potential of) depression.

The basis of all willing is need, lack, and hence pain, and by its very nature and origin it is therefore destined to pain. If, on the other hand, it lacks objects of willing, because it is at once deprived of them again by too easy a satisfaction, a fearful emptiness and boredom comes over it; in other words, its being and its existence itself becomes an intolerable burden for it. Hence its life swings like a pendulum to and fro between pain and boredom, and these two are in fact its ultimate constituents.

For Schopenhauer, boredom has three forms. The first is when the world shows itself to the bored as lifeless, “dead”, colorless, and “dreary”. Nothing is attractive or interesting and everything is indifferent, detached, and distant. The second form of boredom is when the world shows itself to the bored as valueless, meaningless, and pointless. Schopenhauer says that these feelings of pointlessness, valuelessness, and pointlessness render existence itself burdensome.

In my view Schopenhauer's reasoning on the fundamental meaninglessness of love is wrong. It is only when one attempts to attach oneself to 'value' that one will be in danger for the described experience (depression potential) since the true nature that underlays the world cannot be clinged on to. Emotions serve to propel organisms into the right direction and hence depression has an infinite depth and from the perspective of the experiencer an infinite severity potential - as if it's worse than death. But there is also the opposite with the same infinite potential, which is found in love.

Love in my view is not an expression of the will to live but like the perception of beauty of which Plato wrote the following:

Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God.

With love one perceives true beauty in my opinion which is not a (meaningless) inside-out expression but a perception into the infinite depth of the origin of existence - the trueness behind it all in which 'pure beauty' can be found.

French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - wrote the following about love which in my opinion touches the subject better.

Love remains a relation with the Other that turns into need, transcendent exteriority of the other, of the beloved. But love goes beyond the beloved... The possibility of the Other appearing as an object of a need while retaining his alterity, or again, the possibility of enjoying the Other... this simultaneity of need and desire, or concupiscence and transcendence,... constitutes the originality of the erotic which, in this sense, is the equivocal par excellence.

Levinas has written in more depth about love because it is related to his primary philosophy (Ethics as First Philosophy). There is even a book dedicated to his vision on love:


love-wisdom.jpg

Directly challenging the prevailing interpretation, Corey Beals explores the ideas of twentieth-century philosopher Emmanuel Levinas's concept of love, love's relation to wisdom, and how love makes the Other visible to us. Distinguishing love from other types of wisdom, Beals argues that Levinas's "wisdom of love" is a real possibility, one which grants priority to ethics over ontology.

Levinas and the Wisdom of Love
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/214 ... om_of_Love

Levinas said the following with regard the origin of existence (the cosmos):

"in renouncing intentionality as a guiding thread toward the eidos [formal structure] of the psyche … our analysis will follow sensibility in its pre-natural signification to the maternal, where, in proximity [to what is not itself], signification signifies before it gets bent into perseverance in being in the midst of a Nature. (OBBE: 68, emph. added) "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness." (Levinas in film Absent God 1:06:22)

I would share this vision. The cited 'goodness' would be 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued as origin of value - i.e. 'the origin of the cosmos' - with (moral) valuing being 'signification').

In a sense 'morality' would underlay the physical world and consciousness, and thus Levinas moral philosophy "Ethics as First Philosophy" might be correct from a fundamental philosophy perspective, in my opinion.

What is your opinion on the significance of love? Is it merely functional for reproduction as asserted by Arthur Schopenhauer or ...?


Questions:

1) what is love?
2) what have art and beauty have to do with love?
3) why has the subject love been principally neglected by philosophy in history?


The following film might provide an inspirational philosophical perspective on love. The primary question that is asked in the film is "how does love last?" and it is then described that when one attempts to cling on to love that the beauty of life disappears before ones eyes.

What is love even?
...
Why is it so hard to keep a feeling. Maybe it is better to sit by and watch but never have. The idea of meeting the beauty and magic we see in the world around us to be ours, mine, we end up smothering it. Looking to deeply at it. And then we see how very regular all these things are. I think that magic, beauty and feeling are only real and true when they are free, passing and unscrutinised.

Subscribed!!!!


More to come.....

[value]

Schopenhauer has been inspirational for many artists. He is also named as second philosopher next to Plato in books on Nature Mysticism. I am still wondering how it could have been that he - as the father of pessimism - has been named The Philosopher of Love and is used as the paragon of Nature Mysticism.

Late-19th and early-20th century philosophers, writers, composers and artists such as Nietzsche, Wagner, Brahms, Freud, Wittgenstein, Horkheimer, Hardy, Mann, Rilke, Proust, Tolstoy, Borges, Mahler, Langer and Schönberg were influenced by Schopenhauer's thought.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scho ... esthetics/

About Beauty Shopenhauer argued the following:

When the subject’s transition to the tranquil, will-less state of aesthetic contemplation occurs easily, that is, when the objects “meet that state halfway,” becoming “representatives of their Ideas by virtue of their intricate and at the same time clear and determinate form” (WWR I, 225), then the subject experiences the beautiful. Natural objects, especially flora, accommodate themselves most easily to the experience of the beautiful.

However, objects can be resistant to aesthetic contemplation in two main ways: either they may be stimulating to the bodily appetites or they may be hostile in some way to the human will to life.

I believe that his reasoning is wrong and that Beauty is not merely (meaningless) subjective experience. I would agree with the cited quote of Plato in the OP.

Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God.

The concepts Beauty and Love seem to be related. But how? Why has philosophy neglected the subject?

This topic has received no reply (no interest). Why would the concept Love be shunned by philosophy and for example by users on this forum?

Love in my opinion can be found in a state of flow - a concept that is popular in human performance. Love can be found in the positive psychology movement in masked forms such as Empathy or Compassion.

An example is the theory by professor Kim Cameron (Ross School of Business). The theory describes that organisms naturally move in the direction of the positive similar to how plants move in the direction of the light and he proposes the concept positive deviance.

With positive deviance one will need to address concepts such as "Beyond Health" which requires concepts such as Virtue and Compassion. At the core of those concepts might be Love but that concept is not seen anywhere near his theory (as it appears to me).

Dr. Kim Cameron's research focuses on virtuousness in and of organizations, such as forgiveness, gratitude, kindness, and compassion, and their relationship to performance. Dr. Cameron is William Russell Kelly Professor of Management and Organizations in the Ross School of Business.

In my opinion it is important to fundamentally address the concept Love to better understand the value and significance of higher concepts such as Virtue and Compassion. Love might be a vital concept for Morality.

[3017Metaphysician]

Schopenhauer has been inspirational for many artists. He is also named as second philosopher next to Plato in books on Nature Mysticism. I am still wondering how it could have been that he - as the father of pessimism - has been named The Philosopher of Love and is used as the paragon of Nature Mysticism.

Late-19th and early-20th century philosophers, writers, composers and artists such as Nietzsche, Wagner, Brahms, Freud, Wittgenstein, Horkheimer, Hardy, Mann, Rilke, Proust, Tolstoy, Borges, Mahler, Langer and Schönberg were influenced by Schopenhauer's thought.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scho ... esthetics/

About Beauty Shopenhauer argued the following:

When the subject’s transition to the tranquil, will-less state of aesthetic contemplation occurs easily, that is, when the objects “meet that state halfway,” becoming “representatives of their Ideas by virtue of their intricate and at the same time clear and determinate form” (WWR I, 225), then the subject experiences the beautiful. Natural objects, especially flora, accommodate themselves most easily to the experience of the beautiful.

However, objects can be resistant to aesthetic contemplation in two main ways: either they may be stimulating to the bodily appetites or they may be hostile in some way to the human will to life.

I believe that his reasoning is wrong and that Beauty is not merely (meaningless) subjective experience. I would agree with the cited quote of Plato in the OP.

Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God.

The concepts Beauty and Love seem to be related. But how? Why has philosophy neglected the subject?

This topic has received no reply (no interest). Why would the concept Love be shunned by philosophy and for example by users on this forum?

Love in my opinion can be found in a state of flow - a concept that is popular in human performance. Love can be found in the positive psychology movement in masked forms such as Empathy or Compassion.

An example is the theory by professor Kim Cameron (Ross School of Business). The theory describes that organisms naturally move in the direction of the positive similar to how plants move in the direction of the light and he proposes the concept positive deviance.

With positive deviance one will need to address concepts such as "Beyond Health" which requires concepts such as Virtue and Compassion. At the core of those concepts might be Love but that concept is not seen anywhere near his theory (as it appears to me).

Dr. Kim Cameron's research focuses on virtuousness in and of organizations, such as forgiveness, gratitude, kindness, and compassion, and their relationship to performance. Dr. Cameron is William Russell Kelly Professor of Management and Organizations in the Ross School of Business.

In my opinion it is important to fundamentally address the concept Love to better understand the value and significance of higher concepts such as Virtue and Compassion. Love might be a vital concept for Morality.

I think the main reason why there is little response is because of Love's mysterious phenomena that seems to be the opposite of logic (another Kantian antinomy). Nevertheless, in cognitive science or otherwise, no one really knows what love is, there are only theories about it.
The experience is much like music, it has metaphysical qualities. Generally speaking, if someone were to ask me, what is love, and if I were to put logic to it I typically broad-brush it by positing a mind, body, spirit connection. Pragmatically, it then can translate to about an 80/20 split within those three categories of compatibility. Of course, for Greek philosophy we can also understand the logic of things like Eros, Agape, and so on.

The two books that I have, Emotional Intelligence and the Psychology of Love are good reads from cognitive science perspective. For example:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ology-love

Here's the book and a little bit about the Auther:

https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Love- ... merReviews

Robert J. Sternberg's spectacular research career in psychology had a rather inauspicious beginning. In elementary school he performed poorly on IQ tests, and his teachers' actions conveyed their low expectations for his future progress. Everything changed when his fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Alexa, saw that he had potential and challenged him to do better. With her encouragement, he became a high-achieving student, eventually graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University. In a gesture of gratitude, Dr. Sternberg dedicated his book, Successful Intelligence to Mrs. Alexa.

Dr. Sternberg's personal experiences with intelligence testing in elementary school lead him to create his own intelligence test for a 7 th grade science project. He happened to find the Stanford-Binet scales in the local library, and with unintentional impertinence, began administering the test to his classmates; his own test, the Sternberg Test of Mental Abilities (STOMA) appeared shortly thereafter. In subsequent years he distinguished himself in many domains of psychology, having published influential theories relating to intelligence, creativity, wisdom, thinking styles, love and hate.

Dr. Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of (Successful) Intelligence contends that intelligent behavior arises from a balance between analytical, creative and practical abilities, and that these abilities function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success within particular sociocultural contexts. Analytical abilities enable the individual to evaluate, analyze, compare and contrast information. Creative abilities generate invention, discovery, and other creative endeavors. Practical abilities tie everything together by allowing individuals to apply what they have learned in the appropriate setting. To be successful in life the individual must make the best use of his or her analytical, creative and practical strengths, while at the same time compensating for weaknesses in any of these areas. This might involve working on improving weak areas to become better adapted to the needs of a particular environment, or choosing to work in an environment that values the individual's particular strengths. For example, a person with highly developed analytical and practical abilities, but with less well-developed creative abilities, might choose to work in a field that values technical expertise but does not require a great deal of imaginative thinking. Conversely, if the chosen career does value creative abilities, the individual can use his or her analytical strengths to come up with strategies for improving this weakness. Thus, a central feature of the triarchic theory of successful intelligence is adaptability-both within the individual and within the individual's sociocultural context.

In spite of the cognitive approach, Schop seemed to be one of the few postmodern philosophers (aside from Kierkegaard and a little bit of Hume) to emphasize passion's role in the human experience. In other words, the causal qualities that correspond to all of human existence give us wants and needs for such an emotive experience. As such, the universal feelings associated with Love, and the Will to Love, is a powerful causal property or force.

Similarly, the feelings one has relative to experiencing certain kinds of music is closely related to this phenomenon of love, passion, etc.. Schop is one of the few that attempted a philosophy/explanation about how music apperception has casual effects on the human spirit, or should I say the human condition... Also, Romanticism is closely related to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

[value]

3017Metaphysician

Thank you for the valuable posts and insights! Your posts have been exceptionally inspirational for me and I am very happy to have been introduced to Arthur Schopenhauer which has so far been an interesting study.

I am still wondering what your link is with Paul Davies. Do you know him personally or is there a specific reason that you share his video's besides the subjects that are addressed?

I think the main reason why there is little response is because of Love's mysterious phenomena that seems to be the opposite of logic (another Kantian antinomy). Nevertheless, in cognitive science or otherwise, no one really knows what love is, there are only theories about it.

Can you provide an example of a theory?

In spite of the cognitive approach, Schop seemed to be one of the few postmodern philosophers (aside from Kierkegaard and a little bit of Hume) to emphasize passion's role in the human experience. In other words, the causal qualities that correspond to all of human existence give us wants and needs for such an emotive experience. As such, the universal feelings associated with Love, and the Will to Love, is a powerful causal property or force.

Similarly, the feelings one has relative to experiencing certain kinds of music is closely related to this phenomenon of love, passion, etc.. Schop is one of the few that attempted a philosophy/explanation about how music apperception has casual effects on the human spirit, or should I say the human condition... Also, Romanticism is closely related to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

Wouldn't that be a reductionist view on Love?

[3017Metaphysician]

@3017Metaphysician

Thank you for the valuable posts and insights! Your posts have been exceptionally inspirational for me and I am very happy to have been introduced to Arthur Schopenhauer which has so far been an interesting study.

I am still wondering what your link is with Paul Davies. Do you know him personally or is there a specific reason that you share his video's besides the subjects that are addressed?

I think the main reason why there is little response is because of Love's mysterious phenomena that seems to be the opposite of logic (another Kantian antinomy). Nevertheless, in cognitive science or otherwise, no one really knows what love is, there are only theories about it.

Can you provide an example of a theory?

In spite of the cognitive approach, Schop seemed to be one of the few postmodern philosophers (aside from Kierkegaard and a little bit of Hume) to emphasize passion's role in the human experience. In other words, the causal qualities that correspond to all of human existence give us wants and needs for such an emotive experience. As such, the universal feelings associated with Love, and the Will to Love, is a powerful causal property or force.

Similarly, the feelings one has relative to experiencing certain kinds of music is closely related to this phenomenon of love, passion, etc.. Schop is one of the few that attempted a philosophy/explanation about how music apperception has casual effects on the human spirit, or should I say the human condition... Also, Romanticism is closely related to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

Wouldn't that be a reductionist view on Love?

Value!

Well, I'm honored that you would give me such accolade and am not worthy, thank you kindly Value. At the same time, I consider myself well rounded enough to know and appreciate that our species has two brains--a left and right one-- which houses both thoughts and feelings about stuff (not to mention the power of the limbic system). Cognitively, Maslow's incessant warning to us advises not to dichotomize our reality.

In our context, we know that we have to wear certain hat's (the multitasking of life) depending upon the circumstances. However, to only be one-sided both literally and figuratively all the time is one way to shortchange your own way of Being. Simply put, to become a whole person, both sides of the brain should be utilized interchangeably as required. To always process everything in one manner does not enhance the outcomes. Remember, (with few exception) living life is both/and, not either/or.

At the very least, that is what emotional intelligence teaches us. To that end, the concept of Love seems to be all inclusive. To love oneself, as well as to love each other, is a good example there. Both are good. Or, to put both logic and emotion together, often involves the reasons why people choose partners or otherwise to be who they are or be who they want to become. Both seem to be logically necessary for a sense of purpose, intentionality and wholeness, in achieving some end-goal (Teleology). The engineer designs the structure to affect the desires for having a purpose, a purposeful existence. The musician writes a song or plays a song to affect some purpose. You know, quality of life stuff that effects our ontology/Being. Our intrinsic or perceived needs to feel happy about stuff.

With respect to Mr. Davies, I've read some of his books (The Mind of God--'the bible') and still have many more to go (the Matter Myth, The Cosmic Blueprint, etc.). Much like other philosophers and cognitive scientists, I can relate to his philosophies concerning the so-called pragmatics of theoretical physics. His theories speak to me, as i understand his intentions. In short, I relate to his theories and get what he's laying down. In many ways, knowledge is indeed power (i.e., Aristotelian ethics). And the beauty of it all is that which Keats so succinctly posits: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,". I do plan to go to one of the conferences (see my Materialism VIII thread) and hope to meet him along with others of course. In a similar way, it would be cool to meet some people on here too!!

To your second question, I'll paraphrase from the book the Psychology of Love. One of the theories posited (each chapter has a different psychologist offering his/her theory about love) a 'Love as an Attachment' theory. Such a theory describes the mother entering the baby's room where baby sees mom. Then mom leaves the baby and bay cries. In this scenario, arguably there is no Stevie Winwood 'bring me the higher love' going on. But instead, a lower-level physical presence and resulting abandonment or fear of same that causes baby to cry.

As it relates to adults, it seems to affect only the Body portion of my so-called Mind, Body, Spirit connection. Hence, a lower type of Love, or a Love that is not necessarily a completely whole and an all-encompassing connection to include our intellectual and spiritual needs. And those spiritual needs often relate to that illusive chemistry between man and woman. That thing-in-itself that also seems to transcend logic itself. That thing that tells us we just feel comfortable with that other person for some reason. We feel good in their presence. We feel good about the way they look too. We feel passionate toward their existence (Eros), albeit fleeting when there is no other connection. Philosophically, Kant's aesthetic theories are also a good read there. It's amazing how objects cause certain feelings. Both genders can't escape that dynamic force. Nevertheless, it still has to be there, we can't escape that need (back to my so-called 80/20 split). Another discussion all together of course.

And so, the love as an attachment theory is just one of many from that book. Definitely a good read.

Finally, with respect to any given reductionist theory, what are you thinking there? As a start, perhaps the question is, once again, not the exclusivity of either/or, but the question of primacy between all elements i.e., both/and (?). Please share your thoughts!

[value]

Wouldn't that be a reductionist view on Love?

... the concept of Love seems to be all inclusive. To love oneself, as well as to love each other, is a good example there. Both are good. Or, to put both logic and emotion together, often involves the reasons why people choose partners or otherwise to be who they are or be who they want to become. Both seem to be logically necessary for a sense of purpose, intentionality and wholeness, in achieving some end-goal (Teleology). The engineer designs the structure to affect the desires for having a purpose, a purposeful existence. The musician [artist] writes a song or plays a song to affect some purpose. You know, quality of life stuff that effects our ontology/Being. Our intrinsic or perceived needs to feel happy about stuff.

It would seem that you would agree with Schopenhauers pessimistic view on Love. I don't think that Love is merely subjectively serving a purpose.

Artists often describe that they immerse with a cosmic phenomenon that brings them in a state of flow by which their art would become a respresentative of something other than a mere subjective (inside-out determined) purpose.

The quote of Plato in the OP would describe it:

Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God.

Beauty and art would not be created as an image produced by a physical brain - i.e. an 'empirical product' that is then to be judged subjectively by others - but it would be the result of an (artistic) process that seeks to connect and adhere to a cosmic phenomenon that lays 'beyond' physical reality and in my opinion that 'beyond' would be the origin of existence in which 'pure beauty' can be found.

The discovery process of some of the biggest music songs have shown a similar artistic process.

In science as well.

Simultaneous Discoveries in History
“Rather than being the products of the individual mind, multiples (aka - simultaneous discoveries) are said to prove that creative ideas are the effects of the zeitgeist, or universal mind.
https://www.savvyhistory.com/simultaneo ... n-history/

A real world example would be the Cambrian Explosion, a period of the early earth ~530 million years ago in which all the basic structures of life forms of earth suddenly appeared on earth.

(2020) The Cambrian Explosion Mystery: Fossils still say no to Darwin
In the Cambrian Explosion, all the major animal groups first appear as fossils. They appear suddenly, fully-formed, and functional, and the older rock layers below them contain no ancestors.
https://www.icr.org/article/the-fossils ... -explosion

Another clue may be what is named carcinization. In nature, crustacean animals keep evolving into asymmetrical crab-form with one big claw and a smaller claw, and many features that are specific to crab-form. It received its own name: carcinization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

In a Supernovae explosion, 99% of a stars energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos. The other 1% is matter. Neutrinos are like photons (energy).

A recent study showed a correlation between supernovae explosions and an explosion of life forms (creative process) on earth.

(2022) Supernovae and life on Earth appear closely connected
A remarkable link between the number of nearby exploding stars, called supernovae, and life on Earth has been discovered.
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html

With respect to Mr. Davies, I've read some of his books (The Mind of God--'the bible') and still have many more to go (the Matter Myth, The Cosmic Blueprint, etc.). Much like other philosophers and cognitive scientists, I can relate to his philosophies concerning the so-called pragmatics of theoretical physics. His theories speak to me, as i understand his intentions. In short, I relate to his theories and get what he's laying down. In many ways, knowledge is indeed power (i.e., Aristotelian ethics). And the beauty of it all is that which Keats so succinctly posits: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,". I do plan to go to one of the conferences (see my Materialism VIII thread) and hope to meet him along with others of course. In a similar way, it would be cool to meet some people on here too!!

That's cool! The Closer To Truth interviews that you shared are very interesting and value-able in general. Do the mentioned scientists also organize public or community initiatives themselves?

https://closertotruth.com/

To your second question, I'll paraphrase from the book the Psychology of Love. One of the theories posited (each chapter has a different psychologist offering his/her theory about love) a 'Love as an Attachment' theory.

... the love as an attachment theory is just one of many from that book. Definitely a good read.

Finally, with respect to any given reductionist theory, what are you thinking there? As a start, perhaps the question is, once again, not the exclusivity of either/or, but the question of primacy between all elements i.e., both/and (?). Please share your thoughts!

The attachment theory would 'reduce' love to a functional tool in the face of a purpose. I don't believe that Love is that simple.

Some argue that the fundamental forces in nature are a lot like Love which might correspond to the attachment theory. However, mere attachment would produce a clump while the cosmos is evidently different and resulted in human life so Love (when compared with attaching forces of nature) would involve the 'information problem' that you mentioned in other topics, which is not a 'clump-able' information but 'meaningful information' of which Love can be an exponent. In my opinion it is the 'meaning' factor that makes a difference and not information by itself.

When it concerns the information problem, one is to explain the potential for Love in the first place and it is then at question whether Love can stand independently as a mere functional tool for the purpose of the well-being of a subject.

In my opinion it is simple logic that something of a nature Otherwise than Being must precede Being fundamentally and that that aspect cannot be of the nature of an existent and thus does not cause or be affected by the mentioned problems.

In my opinion the consideration of plausibility of the idea 'meaningful relevance beyond/preceding existence' (beyond from within a subjective perspective, preceding from an outside-philosophical view) is a key to a solution.

Do you know the work Otherwise than Being by French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/252 ... nd_Essence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherwise_than_Being

Value, I'm generally familiar with the name but have not studied him. Sounds like a good way to interpolate the concept of (human) meaning within our discussion of information and qualities of things-in-themselves, yes?

There are some users on this forum that are a fan of Emmanuel Levinas. The author of the following topic could provide you with free copies of ebooks and other material.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16848

[3017Metaphysician]

Wouldn't that be a reductionist view on Love?

... the concept of Love seems to be all inclusive. To love oneself, as well as to love each other, is a good example there. Both are good. Or, to put both logic and emotion together, often involves the reasons why people choose partners or otherwise to be who they are or be who they want to become. Both seem to be logically necessary for a sense of purpose, intentionality and wholeness, in achieving some end-goal (Teleology). The engineer designs the structure to affect the desires for having a purpose, a purposeful existence. The musician [artist] writes a song or plays a song to affect some purpose. You know, quality of life stuff that effects our ontology/Being. Our intrinsic or perceived needs to feel happy about stuff.

It would seem that you would agree with Schopenhauers pessimistic view on Love. I don't think that Love is merely subjectively serving a purpose.

Only to the extent of some views of it. Otherwise, Like Fromm once said, love is an art... .

Artists often describe that they immerse with a cosmic phenomenon that brings them in a state of flow by which their art would become a respresentative of something other than a mere subjective (inside-out determined) purpose.

The quote of Plato in the OP would describe it:

Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God.

Beauty and art would not be created as an image produced by a physical brain - i.e. an 'empirical product' that is then to be judged subjectively by others - but it would be the result of an (artistic) process that seeks to connect and adhere to a cosmic phenomenon that lays 'beyond' physical reality and in my opinion that 'beyond' would be the origin of existence in which 'pure beauty' can be found.

The discovery process of some of the biggest music songs have shown a similar artistic process.

In science as well.

Simultaneous Discoveries in History
“Rather than being the products of the individual mind, multiples (aka - simultaneous discoveries) are said to prove that creative ideas are the effects of the zeitgeist, or universal mind.
https://www.savvyhistory.com/simultaneo ... n-history/

A real world example would be the Cambrian Explosion, a period of the early earth ~530 million years ago in which all the basic structures of life forms of earth suddenly appeared on earth.

(2020) The Cambrian Explosion Mystery: Fossils still say no to Darwin
In the Cambrian Explosion, all the major animal groups first appear as fossils. They appear suddenly, fully-formed, and functional, and the older rock layers below them contain no ancestors.
https://www.icr.org/article/the-fossils ... -explosion

Another clue may be what is named carcinization. In nature, crustacean animals keep evolving into asymmetrical crab-form with one big claw and a smaller claw, and many features that are specific to crab-form. It received its own name: carcinization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

In a Supernovae explosion, 99% of a stars energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos. The other 1% is matter. Neutrinos are like photons (energy).

A recent study showed a correlation between supernovae explosions and an explosion of life forms (creative process) on earth.

(2022) Supernovae and life on Earth appear closely connected
A remarkable link between the number of nearby exploding stars, called supernovae, and life on Earth has been discovered.
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html

With respect to Mr. Davies, I've read some of his books (The Mind of God--'the bible') and still have many more to go (the Matter Myth, The Cosmic Blueprint, etc.). Much like other philosophers and cognitive scientists, I can relate to his philosophies concerning the so-called pragmatics of theoretical physics. His theories speak to me, as i understand his intentions. In short, I relate to his theories and get what he's laying down. In many ways, knowledge is indeed power (i.e., Aristotelian ethics). And the beauty of it all is that which Keats so succinctly posits: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,". I do plan to go to one of the conferences (see my Materialism VIII thread) and hope to meet him along with others of course. In a similar way, it would be cool to meet some people on here too!!

That's cool! The Closer To Truth interviews that you shared are very interesting and value-able in general. Do the mentioned scientists also organize public or community initiatives themselves?

I'm not sure. I know that Davies is out in Arizona. i plan to pursue some of the conferences/seminars in the very near furure.

https://closertotruth.com/

To your second question, I'll paraphrase from the book the Psychology of Love. One of the theories posited (each chapter has a different psychologist offering his/her theory about love) a 'Love as an Attachment' theory.

... the love as an attachment theory is just one of many from that book. Definitely a good read.

Finally, with respect to any given reductionist theory, what are you thinking there? As a start, perhaps the question is, once again, not the exclusivity of either/or, but the question of primacy between all elements i.e., both/and (?). Please share your thoughts!

The attachment theory would 'reduce' love to a functional tool in the face of a purpose. I don't believe that Love is that simple.

Some argue that the fundamental forces in nature are a lot like Love which might correspond to the attachment theory. However, mere attachment would produce a clump while the cosmos is evidently different and resulted in human life so Love (when compared with attaching forces of nature) would involve the 'information problem' that you mentioned in other topics, which is not a 'clump-able' information but 'meaningful information' of which Love can be an exponent. In my opinion it is the 'meaning' factor that makes a difference and not information by itself.

When it concerns the information problem, one is to explain the potential for Love in the first place and it is then at question whether Love can stand independently as a mere functional tool for the purpose of the well-being of a subject.

In my opinion it is simple logic that something of a nature Otherwise than Being must precede Being fundamentally and that that aspect cannot be of the nature of an existent and thus does not cause or be affected by the mentioned problems.

In my opinion the consideration of plausibility of the idea 'meaningful relevance beyond/preceding existence' (beyond from within a subjective perspective, preceding from an outside-philosophical view) is a key to a solution.

Do you know the work Otherwise than Being by French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/252 ... nd_Essence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherwise_than_Being

Value, I'm generally familiar with the name but have not studied him. Sounds like a good way to interpolate the concept of (human) meaning within our discussion of information and qualities of things-in-themselves, yes?

There are some users on this forum that are a fan of Emmanuel Levinas. The author of the following topic could provide you with free copies of ebooks and other material.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16848

Thank you, Value! I checked out your podcast and the concern with aloneness, solitude, or otherwise that feeling of existential angst. To that end, you might appreciate this audio book from Erich Fromm (Maslow's books introduced him to me) and albeit a little dated (gender issues) it is a wonderfully lucid existential view of Love being about the practicing of it. In parahrase, more of a law of attraction phenomenon where the practicing of love itself has returns. Yet it provides for the distinctions of the dysfunctions being analogous to culture and socio political expectation levels. It's a life changing read. It has quite a bit of pragmatic application(s). Here's the audio book:

His thoughts tend to mirror mine relative in that the existential 'lower level love' that I described earlier, just focusing on just one aspect (aforementioned) from the attachment theory/object's (mind, 'BODY,' spirit) is an incomplete theory. Albeit physical presence, the body (the intrinsic beauty of an object) is obviously important to all people, remember it's both/and, not either/or. Fromm suggests his 'mature love' is not only that higher level love of a mind, body, spirit connection, but a discovery and uncovery of the self-awareness required for the question and answers of why pursue love to begin with. Just a couple of excerpts/bullet points:

“There is hardly any activity, any enterprise, which is started with such tremendous hopes and expectations, and yet, which fails so regularly, as love.”

Most people see the problem of love primarily as that of being loved, rather than that of loving, of one’s capacity to love. Hence the problem to them is how to be loved, how to be lovable.

People think that to love is simple, but that to find the right object to love — or to be loved by — is difficult. This attitude has several reasons rooted in the development of modern society. One reason is the great change which occurred in the twentieth century with respect to the choice of a “love object.”

"If two people who have been strangers, as all of us are, suddenly let the wall between them break down, and feel close, feel one, this moment of oneness is one of the most exhilarating, most exciting experiences in life. It is all the more wonderful and miraculous for persons who have been shut off, isolated, without love. This miracle of sudden intimacy is often facilitated if it is combined with, or initiated by, sexual attraction and consummation. However, this type of love is by its very nature not lasting. The two persons become well acquainted, their intimacy loses more and more its miraculous character, until their antagonism, their disappointments, their mutual boredom kill whatever is left of the initial excitement. Yet, in the beginning they do not know all this: in fact, they take the intensity of the infatuation, this being “crazy” about each other, for proof of the intensity of their love, while it may only prove the degree of their preceding loneliness."

"The first step to take is to become aware that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art, say music, painting, carpentry, or the art of medicine or engineering. What are the necessary steps in learning any art? The process of learning an art can be divided conveniently into two parts: one, the mastery of the theory; the other, the mastery of the practice. If I want to learn the art of medicine, I must first know the facts about the human body, and about various diseases. When I have all this theoretical knowledge, I am by no means competent in the art of medicine. I shall become a master in this art only after a great deal of practice, until eventually the results of my theoretical knowledge and the results of my practice are blended into one — my intuition, the essence of the mastery of any art.

"But, aside from learning the theory and practice, there is a third factor necessary to becoming a master in any art — the mastery of the art must be a matter of ultimate concern; there must be nothing else in the world more important than the art. This holds true for music, for medicine, for carpentry — and for love. And, maybe, here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power — almost all our energy is used for the learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving."


I hope you enjoy the audio book. It's quite illuminating!

[value]

Happy New Year!

Wouldn't that be a reductionist view on Love?

It would seem that you would agree with Schopenhauers pessimistic view on Love. I don't think that Love is merely subjectively serving a purpose.

Only to the extent of some views of it. Otherwise, Like Fromm once said, love is an art...

...

"But, aside from learning the theory and practice, there is a third factor necessary to becoming a master in any art — the mastery of the art must be a matter of ultimate concern; there must be nothing else in the world more important than the art. This holds true for music, for medicine, for carpentry — and for love. And, maybe, here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power — almost all our energy is used for the learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving."

I hope you enjoy the audio book. It's quite illuminating!

Thank you for the audio book and for introducing me to Erich Fromm!

I've listened to the first hour of the audio book so far (from 2.5h) and it starts with the assertion that love is an art. The arguments are interesting and - utilitarian wise - seem to be valid to achieve quality of life when it concerns love in human relationships. However, can it be said that it addressed the concept Love from a philosophical perspective?

When you argue that love is an art, is that argument done philosophically or humanly? Your arguments in the previous post indicate that you seek to explain love from the perspective of human relations and quality of life (purely utilitarian).

If you would argue that Love is an art philosophically, it would seem like a reductionist perspective on love that reduces Love to what can qualitatively be considered within the scope of utilitarian value relative to love.

What do you think about the idea that Love is a channel through art?

Do you know the work Otherwise than Being by French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas?

There are some users on this forum that are a fan of Emmanuel Levinas. The author of the following topic could provide you with free copies of ebooks and other material.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16848

Value, I'm generally familiar with the name but have not studied him. Sounds like a good way to interpolate the concept of (human) meaning within our discussion of information and qualities of things-in-themselves, yes?

Emannuel Levinas his work is similar to that of Martin Heidegger (Being and Time). It addresses the concept Being from a fundamental philosophy perspective.

"Heidegger's influence on French philosophy began in the 1930s, when Being and Time, "What is Metaphysics?" and other Heideggerian texts were read by Jean-Paul Sartre and other existentialists, as well as by thinkers such as Emmanuel Levinas."

Martin Heidegger concluded after a thorough examination of Western philosophy and thinking that one question was never asked: the question of Being. Today the question is put aside as meaningless by many, see for example GE Morton.

What do you think of the concept Otherwise than Being that would describe a concept that is meaningfully relevant as origin of existence and not 'nothing' in the sense of the idea of existing turned around into an opposite?

I think it is just another excursion into metaphysical nonsense, of which most of metaphysics consists, with no explanatory power or utility.

Levinas concluded the following in the film Absent God (1:06:22)

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."

At question in my opinion would be: what is that 'meaning' or what can be said about its meaningful relevance?

When you speak of information as an aspect that could fundamentally underlay the cosmos, wouldn't the non-empirical aspect of that concept be 'meaning'? Isn't it only relevant to dedicate to that meaning when seeking to fundamentally explain the cosmos while information as a concept would be similar to the idea of a pattern or anything manifested within the scope of a pattern?

With regard Levinas his assertion that the world must start from goodness (good per se or 'good that cannot be valued because it is the logical origin of valuing and therewith value'). In my opinion it is 'pure meaning' that lays at the root of the cosmos and while it may appear to be similar or the same as 'goodness', the concept would be more pure as would be required to be the origin of the cosmos.

Goodness or good per se can only be conceived of AFTER the act of valuing has taken place. Levinas calls the act of valuing signification.

"in renouncing intentionality as a guiding thread toward the eidos [formal structure] of the psyche … our analysis will follow sensibility in its pre-natural signification to the maternal, where, in proximity [to what is not itself], signification signifies before it gets bent into perseverance in being in the midst of a Nature. (OBBE: 68, emph. added) "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

It means that what actually underlays the cosmos must be of a different nature than goodness and one is to seek a higher pureness. It is therefore pure meaning which is also evident by the simple logic that the fundamental origin of a pattern cannot be a pattern but must be meaningful.

Pure meaning can retro-perspectively manifest itself as a good that cannot be valued (goodness) but in the same time it isn't actually good. Pure meaning would transcend even the concept good.

If you do decide to study Levinas it might be of interest to PM the author of the following topic who is a fan of Levinas and who might be able to provide reading tips that can save time.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16848

[3017Metaphysician]

Happy New Year!

Wouldn't that be a reductionist view on Love?

It would seem that you would agree with Schopenhauers pessimistic view on Love. I don't think that Love is merely subjectively serving a purpose.

Only to the extent of some views of it. Otherwise, Like Fromm once said, love is an art...

...

"But, aside from learning the theory and practice, there is a third factor necessary to becoming a master in any art — the mastery of the art must be a matter of ultimate concern; there must be nothing else in the world more important than the art. This holds true for music, for medicine, for carpentry — and for love. And, maybe, here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power — almost all our energy is used for the learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving."

I hope you enjoy the audio book. It's quite illuminating!

Thank you for the audio book and for introducing me to Erich Fromm!

I've listened to the first hour of the audio book so far (from 2.5h) and it starts with the assertion that love is an art. The arguments are interesting and - utilitarian wise - seem to be valid to achieve quality of life when it concerns love in human relationships. However, can it be said that it addressed the concept Love from a philosophical perspective?

When you argue that love is an art, is that argument done philosophically or humanly? Your arguments in the previous post indicate that you seek to explain love from the perspective of human relations and quality of life (purely utilitarian).

If you would argue that Love is an art philosophically, it would seem like a reductionist perspective on love that reduces Love to what can qualitatively be considered within the scope of utilitarian value relative to love.

What do you think about the idea that Love is a channel through art?

Do you know the work Otherwise than Being by French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas?

There are some users on this forum that are a fan of Emmanuel Levinas. The author of the following topic could provide you with free copies of ebooks and other material.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16848

Value, I'm generally familiar with the name but have not studied him. Sounds like a good way to interpolate the concept of (human) meaning within our discussion of information and qualities of things-in-themselves, yes?

Emannuel Levinas his work is similar to that of Martin Heidegger (Being and Time). It addresses the concept Being from a fundamental philosophy perspective.

"Heidegger's influence on French philosophy began in the 1930s, when Being and Time, "What is Metaphysics?" and other Heideggerian texts were read by Jean-Paul Sartre and other existentialists, as well as by thinkers such as Emmanuel Levinas."

Martin Heidegger concluded after a thorough examination of Western philosophy and thinking that one question was never asked: the question of Being. Today the question is put aside as meaningless by many, see for example GE Morton.

What do you think of the concept Otherwise than Being that would describe a concept that is meaningfully relevant as origin of existence and not 'nothing' in the sense of the idea of existing turned around into an opposite?

I think it is just another excursion into metaphysical nonsense, of which most of metaphysics consists, with no explanatory power or utility.

Levinas concluded the following in the film Absent God (1:06:22)

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."

At question in my opinion would be: what is that 'meaning' or what can be said about its meaningful relevance?

When you speak of information as an aspect that could fundamentally underlay the cosmos, wouldn't the non-empirical aspect of that concept be 'meaning'? Isn't it only relevant to dedicate to that meaning when seeking to fundamentally explain the cosmos while information as a concept would be similar to the idea of a pattern or anything manifested within the scope of a pattern?

With regard Levinas his assertion that the world must start from goodness (good per se or 'good that cannot be valued because it is the logical origin of valuing and therewith value'). In my opinion it is 'pure meaning' that lays at the root of the cosmos and while it may appear to be similar or the same as 'goodness', the concept would be more pure as would be required to be the origin of the cosmos.

Goodness or good per se can only be conceived of AFTER the act of valuing has taken place. Levinas calls the act of valuing signification.

"in renouncing intentionality as a guiding thread toward the eidos [formal structure] of the psyche … our analysis will follow sensibility in its pre-natural signification to the maternal, where, in proximity [to what is not itself], signification signifies before it gets bent into perseverance in being in the midst of a Nature. (OBBE: 68, emph. added) "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

It means that what actually underlays the cosmos must be of a different nature than goodness and one is to seek a higher pureness. It is therefore pure meaning which is also evident by the simple logic that the fundamental origin of a pattern cannot be a pattern but must be meaningful.



Pure meaning can retro-perspectively manifest itself as a good that cannot be valued (goodness) but in the same time it isn't actually good. Pure meaning would transcend even the concept good.

If you do decide to study Levinas it might be of interest to PM the author of the following topic who is a fan of Levinas and who might be able to provide reading tips that can save time.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16848

Value!

Yes. To your first question, philosophically, Fromm's work corresponds well with pragmatism (the practicing of Love). In that sense, Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes. Specifically, being more familiar with William James, his philosophical view of radical empiricism captures the problems for philosophy:

Radical empiricism, or Immediate Empiricism in Dewey's words, wants to give a place to meaning and value instead of explaining them away as subjective additions to a world of whizzing atoms.

William James gives an interesting example of this philosophical shortcoming:

[A young graduate] began by saying that he had always taken for granted that when you entered a philosophic classroom you had to open relations with a universe entirely distinct from the one you left behind you in the street. The two were supposed, he said, to have so little to do with each other, that you could not possibly occupy your mind with them at the same time. The world of concrete personal experiences to which the street belongs is multitudinous beyond imagination, tangled, muddy, painful and perplexed. The world to which your philosophy-professor introduces you is simple, clean and noble. The contradictions of real life are absent from it. ... In point of fact it is far less an account of this actual world than a clear addition built upon it ... It is no explanation of our concrete universe[29]

Hence, the Metaphysics associated with experience, that experience being Love, can be thought of as:

Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.[1]

James put forth the doctrine because he thought ordinary empiricism, inspired by the advances in physical science, has or had the tendency to emphasize 'whirling particles' at the expense of the bigger picture: connections, causality, meaning. Both elements, James claims, are equally present in experience and both need to be accounted for.

The observation that our adherence to science seems to put us in a quandary is not exclusive to James. For example, Bertrand Russell notes the paradox in his Analysis of Matter (1927): we appeal to ordinary perception to arrive at our physical theories, yet those same theories seem to undermine that everyday perception, which is rich in meaning.

James’s “radical empiricism” is distinct from his “pure experience” metaphysics. It is never precisely defined in the Essays, and is best explicated by a passage from The Meaning of Truth where James states that radical empiricism consists of a postulate, a statement of fact, and a conclusion.


Ad so to your first point, (and mine) philosophical pragmatism seeks to connect theory to practice. In ethics it can seem natural to interpret this as recommending that normative notions be reduced to practical utility.


One of many questions then, could relate to objects, and the faith that we hold knowing the object will somehow satisfy some human universal, intrinsic need for meaning and purpose. Afterall, Love has universal meaning and purpose.

To this end, and to my earlier point about Schopenhauer being one of the few who attempted a metaphysical explanation of love and music, it can be said the following are interchangeable experiences:

" Music [or Love] is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore, music is by no means like the other arts, namely a copy of the Ideas, but a copy of the will itself, the objectivity of which are the Ideas. For this reason, the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.

The inexpressible depth of all music, by virtue of which it floats past us as a paradise quite familiar and yet eternally remote and is so easy to understand and yet so inexplicable, is due to the fact that it reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain. In the same way, the seriousness essential to it and wholly excluding the ludicrous from its direct and peculiar province is to be explained from the fact that its object is not the representation, in regard to which deception and ridiculousness alone are possible, but that this object is directly the will; and this is essentially the most serious of all things, as being that on which all depends."

Perhaps we can work through that first question first(?).

[Baby Augustine]

Schopenhauer was effectively an atheist and so relentless in his error that it appears he couldn't even love himself.
Go back to Dante
Dante's God is the love that moves the sun and the other stars: “l'amor che move 'l sole e l'altre stelle”.
Polar opposites.

After taking a course on Dietrich von Hildebrand's book The Nature of Love, I've come to see that views on love are ultimately views about God

Was the world created good by a loving God under no necessity? Is "Yes" then we start with love, literally everywhere.
Schopenhauer is misogynist and if he has any view of complementarity of the sexes it is greatly against women and toward men

Some have referred to S as The Architect of the Culture of Death"
Look at his own words:
We should "regard every man first and foremost as a being who exists only as a consequence of his culpability and whose life is an expiation of the crime of being born."
On women he says : . In his "Essay on Women," he scorns their beauty and contends that women "are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything . . . The most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really genuine and original, or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere."

[3017Metaphysician]

Schopenhauer was effectively an atheist and so relentless in his error that it appears he couldn't even love himself.
Go back to Dante
Dante's God is the love that moves the sun and the other stars: “l'amor che move 'l sole e l'altre stelle”.
Polar opposites.

After taking a course on Dietrich von Hildebrand's book The Nature of Love, I've come to see that views on love are ultimately views about God

Was the world created good by a loving God under no necessity? Is "Yes" then we start with love, literally everywhere.
Schopenhauer is misogynist and if he has any view of complementarity of the sexes it is greatly against women and toward men

Some have referred to S as The Architect of the Culture of Death"
Look at his own words:
We should "regard every man first and foremost as a being who exists only as a consequence of his culpability and whose life is an expiation of the crime of being born."
On women he says : . In his "Essay on Women," he scorns their beauty and contends that women "are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything . . . The most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really genuine and original, or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere."

Certainly, one takeaway from Schop is that he could not escape the emotive nature of both love and music. This phenomenon is indeed an existential phenomenon, affecting everyone's Will to be. Perhaps in his view, albeit glass half-empty, another type of literal love/hate relationship with the Will.

I wish I could remember, but I read somewhere that there is a fine line between love and hate relative to the sexes... .

Beyond this, he could have been indeed, a frustrated misogynist. Personally, since I love all women, I'm probably a bit of a naive idealist.

[thrasymachus]

value wrote
"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."

You agree with this? But how how is this not ambiguous. I see good couches and bad couches, good business and bad, yet this is not what you have in mind. The meaning of 'good' here is a different matter; or is it? When Levinas talks about love and the Other, he fails to account for this. What do you think?

[thrasymachus]

3017Metaphysician wrote
I hope you enjoy the audio book. It's quite illuminating!

And he is helpful and insightful about how to manage love situations, no doubt. But the philosophical questions about are different. You are 3017Metaphysician, so I wonder, what do you think of the metaphysics of love? This is where Levinas takes us. Some would say metaphysics has no place in thought at all.