Quotes About Love, Fitting for LTROI

[a_contemplative_life]

Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), is rather famously quoted as having said about pornography that while he could not define it, "I know it when I see it." Maybe we have the same problem with love: we can't define it very well, but each of us seems to know when we experience it. It's extremely subjective, but yet it is not something that can be experienced alone; it must be shared with someone. And I think that because we are all human, each of us is entitled to try and define it, and thereby to discuss it, any way we can. It is something that must be shared, I think, for us to be human.

[Lacenaire]

Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), is rather famously quoted as having said about pornography that while he could not define it, "I know it when I see it." Maybe we have the same problem with love: we can't define it very well, but each of us seems to know when we experience it. It's extremely subjective, but yet it is not something that can be experienced alone; it must be shared with someone. And I think that because we are all human, each of us is entitled to try and define it, and thereby to discuss it, any way we can. It is something that must be shared, I think, for us to be human.

This is well said and I certainly do not disagree with it, although I have to confess to a certain doubt about the last sentence (I am not quite sure, in fact, about its intended meaning). Do you mean that loving another person is a condition of "being human"? I don't think you do as this would possibly deprive of their humanity many undoubted human's, including, some of the most remarkable ones.

As an example I will just mention one case: that of Leonardo da Vinci. In his many biographies it is frequently stated that we do not know of any individual human being Leonardo might have loved (at least as a grown-up man). He left a huge volume of writings, including a lot of correspondence, yet there is not one hint in it, at least not one that any one has ever found, of anything resembling love for any other person. There is, on the other hand, a lot of other "love" quite visible in Leonardo's writings and his work: love of knowledge, love of beauty and even love of man kind - but no love of any other human being. Must we assume that Leonardo must have really loved someone of whom we know nothing, for him to be considered human? And, in fact, his cases is not so isolated: similar questions have been raised about, for example, Newton or Beethoven. Maybe super-humans do not need to express their humanity in this way.

More likely, I would argue, the concept of "love", meaning just love for another human beings, has to be replaced by a more general one, which includes more abstract loves, as well as, of course, "love of God" - for we also know of many who have devoted all their lives to "love of God" (or perhaps even "love of mankind") rather than to love of another individual human being. (In particular, this includes, I think, the already mentioned in this thread, Mother Theresa.)

[sauvin]

Why does every little thing have to be such a [deleted] game of semantic chess?

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

[Lacenaire]

Why do some people feel compelled to barge into other people's games of chess if they know well they won't enjoy the experience?

[genie47]

Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), is rather famously quoted as having said about pornography that while he could not define it, "I know it when I see it." Maybe we have the same problem with love: we can't define it very well, but each of us seems to know when we experience it. It's extremely subjective, but yet it is not something that can be experienced alone; it must be shared with someone. And I think that because we are all human, each of us is entitled to try and define it, and thereby to discuss it, any way we can. It is something that must be shared, I think, for us to be human.

Yes. It is a real shared experience instead of a feeling.

Watch LTROI. Watch and experience love.

[a_contemplative_life]

Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), is rather famously quoted as having said about pornography that while he could not define it, "I know it when I see it." Maybe we have the same problem with love: we can't define it very well, but each of us seems to know when we experience it. It's extremely subjective, but yet it is not something that can be experienced alone; it must be shared with someone. And I think that because we are all human, each of us is entitled to try and define it, and thereby to discuss it, any way we can. It is something that must be shared, I think, for us to be human.

This is well said and I certainly do not disagree with it, although I have to confess to a certain doubt about the last sentence (I am not quite sure, in fact, about its intended meaning). Do you mean that loving another person is a condition of "being human"? I don't think you do as this would possibly deprive of their humanity many undoubted human's, including, some of the most remarkable ones.

As an example I will just mention one case: that of Leonardo da Vinci. In his many biographies it is frequently stated that we do not know of any individual human being Leonardo might have loved (at least as a grown-up man). He left a huge volume of writings, including a lot of correspondence, yet there is not one hint in it, at least not one that any one has ever found, of anything resembling love for any other person. There is, on the other hand, a lot of other "love" quite visible in Leonardo's writings and his work: love of knowledge, love of beauty and even love of man kind - but no love of any other human being. Must we assume that Leonardo must have really loved someone of whom we know nothing, for him to be considered human? And, in fact, his cases is not so isolated: similar questions have been raised about, for example, Newton or Beethoven. Maybe super-humans do not need to express their humanity in this way.

More likely, I would argue, the concept of "love", meaning just love for another human beings, has to be replaced by a more general one, which includes more abstract loves, as well as, of course, "love of God" - for we also know of many who have devoted all their lives to "love of God" (or perhaps even "love of mankind") rather than to love of another individual human being. (In particular, this includes, I think, the already mentioned in this thread, Mother Theresa.)

I agree, and I think that in my haste, I overstated my case. I don't think love must be shared, or that we must be able to experience love to be considered human. Let's suppose, for example, that I saw a particular actress in a film and liked what I saw very much, and in my heart I wished very strongly that she do well in her career. Even if I would never tell her how I feel, I would say that I still "love" her, not like I love my wife or children, but in the sense that I want to see her grow and do well in some capacity that I believe would bring her happiness.

Or, as you say, we can experience "love" for something that isn't even real. This whole website being a very good example of that.

I can also think of people who might lack the capacity to experience love in the way we commonly understand it. Say, for example, a baby born with extreme hydocephalus who has, essentially, no brain. I think we would still consider such a baby a human person, even though we know (or at least, strongly suspect) that he or she will never be able to experience "love."

All of that having been said, I still think that love is best understood as something that is shared between living things.

[covenant6452]

As an example I will just mention one case: that of Leonardo da Vinci. In his many biographies it is frequently stated that we do not know of any individual human being Leonardo might have loved (at least as a grown-up man). He left a huge volume of writings, including a lot of correspondence, yet there is not one hint in it, at least not one that any one has ever found, of anything resembling love for any other person. There is, on the other hand, a lot of other "love" quite visible in Leonardo's writings and his work: love of knowledge, love of beauty and even love of man kind - but no love of any other human being. Must we assume that Leonardo must have really loved someone of whom we know nothing, for him to be considered human? And, in fact, his cases is not so isolated: similar questions have been raised about, for example, Newton or Beethoven. Maybe super-humans do not need to express their humanity in this way.

Maybe Leo, Newt or Beeth just didn't want to share their love with anyone, other than the ones they loved. Some people just don't want anyone to know anything about that aspect of their lives and are the complete opposite of some of the white trash "superhumans" we have today.

I don't think love must be shared,

Only the kind of love that is returned is shared isn't it?

[gattoparde59]

Has anyone noticed something ironic about the way this thread has developed?

Anyway. . .

Children, at least, need to be loved, and they are my guides as far as understanding human nature. This is not a matter of speculation, but a real physical need for developing children.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/neuro.php

Eli is very much a feral child. Perhaps Eli has survived as well as she has because of the love she received from her family before she became a vampire?

[TΛPETRVE]

Has anyone noticed something ironic about the way this thread has developed?

It's not ironic, it's inevitable human failure .

[gattoparde59]

Why does every little thing have to be such a goddamn game of semantic chess?

Sorry, that metaphor does not work for me. Try "verbal Hungry Hungry Hippos."