Universal Love

[Xenoglade Plugins]

Inspired from the thread on attractiveness, I have a few questions for NSG which I myself am not sure of.

1. Is it acceptable to partition the world into "attractive and unattractive," "friends and enemies," or any other such grouping? Are these simply shallow and self-serving categories or are they perfectly permissible?

2. Should we really divide our love toward a small group of people or should we seek to foster a sense of universal love, feeling an unconditional love for all human beings, and perhaps all life in general?

3. Is such an attitude something that can be achieved in the first place.

I don't know, it just feels like "love" and both physical and emotional attractiveness are exclusionary behaviors. They seek to exclude others from a group, solely for entirely subjective reasons. Is this not the heart of discrimination, to exclude not for meritorious, but rather arbitrary reasons? I feel that we are either obligated to feel universal love, or that it may be preferable to the general welfare if we could foster such emotions.

[Ashmoria]

only a fool strives for universal love for all people.

you do whatever you can for the people you love. if that is everyone you will be taken advantage of until you are destroyed.

[Xenoglade Plugins]

only a fool strives for universal love for all people.

you do whatever you can for the people you love. if that is everyone you will be taken advantage of until you are destroyed.

I'm arguing that love is a form of discrimination. You either love everyone or you love no one. I can't really see how any other state of affairs is free from discrimination of some kind.

[The Blaatschapen]

only a fool strives for universal love for all people.

you do whatever you can for the people you love. if that is everyone you will be taken advantage of until you are destroyed.

I'm arguing that love is a form of discrimination. You either love everyone or you love no one. I can't really see how any other state of affairs is free from discrimination of some kind.

Discrimination in general isn't bad. It's discrimination based on certain aspects that is bad.

[Ashmoria]

only a fool strives for universal love for all people.

you do whatever you can for the people you love. if that is everyone you will be taken advantage of until you are destroyed.

I'm arguing that love is a form of discrimination. You either love everyone or you love no one. I can't really see how any other state of affairs is free from discrimination of some kind.

there is nothing wrong with discriminating in favor of those you love.

[Xenoglade Plugins]

there is nothing wrong with discriminating in favor of those you love.

Isn't that nepotism?

[New England and The Maritimes]

I like a lot of people, but I love only a few. I think it's not an exclusionary thing; I don't have the time or energy to get to know and love everyone.

[Xenoglade Plugins]

Discrimination in general isn't bad. It's discrimination based on certain aspects that is bad.

Arbitrary discrimination is bad. This seems like arbitrary discrimination to me.

[The Blaatschapen]

Discrimination in general isn't bad. It's discrimination based on certain aspects that is bad.

Arbitrary discrimination is bad. This seems like arbitrary discrimination to me.

What's arbitrary about it?

[Xenoglade Plugins]

I like a lot of people, but I love only a few. I think it's not an exclusionary thing; I don't have the time or energy to get to know and love everyone.

There seem to be some arguments that you can train yourself to feel unconditional love toward everyone, including those you've never met before. We would need to check to make sure that these arguments are scientifically legitimate, but, assuming that they are, I would suggest that it is a preferable path to take.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I have a few questions for NSG which I myself am not sure of.

Yeah, right.

[Astrolinium]

Universal love is a terrible idea, for the same reason world peace is a terrible idea: things would be fucking boring. The entire human race functions on the principle that we like some people more than others.

[Caotic chaos]

Inspired from the thread on attractiveness, I have a few questions for NSG which I myself am not sure of.

1. Is it acceptable to partition the world into "attractive and unattractive," "friends and enemies," or any other such grouping? Are these simply shallow and self-serving categories or are they perfectly permissible?

2. Should we really divide our love toward a small group of people or should we seek to foster a sense of universal love, feeling an unconditional love for all human beings, and perhaps all life in general?

3. Is such an attitude something that can be achieved in the first place.

I don't know, it just feels like "love" and both physical and emotional attractiveness are exclusionary behaviors. They seek to exclude others from a group, solely for entirely subjective reasons. Is this not the heart of discrimination, to exclude not for meritorious, but rather arbitrary reasons? I feel that we are either obligated to feel universal love, or that it may be preferable to the general welfare if we could foster such emotions.

perhaps you should read martin luther kings letter from a birmingham jail.

[Xenoglade Plugins]

What's arbitrary about it?

Love is rarely based on objective, justified reasoning and careful deliberation. It's more typically based on accidents of history and random neurological phenomena.

You love your parents because they're you're parents. You don't love them because a careful consideration of the facts convinced you that love was an appropriate disposition toward them.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Universal love is a terrible idea, for the same reason world peace is a terrible idea: things would be fucking boring.

Not that I'm for this universal love bull crap, but world strife and discord don't exactly solve my boredom issues. I really hope that was a really poor choice of words.

Instead of universal love, how about universal cordiality?

[Souseiseki]

all people are loved. but some people are more loved than others.

beep boop

[The Blaatschapen]

What's arbitrary about it?

Love is rarely based on objective, justified reasoning and careful deliberation. It's more typically based on accidents of history and random neurological phenomena.

You love your parents because they're you're parents. You don't love them because a careful consideration of the facts convinced you that love was an appropriate disposition toward them.

I'm quite sure that if I didn't know my parents that I wouldn't love them. So their choice of not abandoning me but rather helping me out during the time when I grew up is certainly worthy of my love.

And while I do subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KynIKjRwqDI that it is likely that if I didn't find partner A, that I'd find partner A' I do not think the love will be based on arbitrary things. After all, if it is working out, it also means that she's making the choice to love me back. And be there for me when I need her (and vice versa). Surely that is worthy of my love?

[Xenoglade Plugins]

I'm quite sure that if I didn't know my parents that I wouldn't love them. So their choice of not abandoning me but rather helping me out during the time when I grew up is certainly worthy of my love.

And while I do subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KynIKjRwqDI that it is likely that if I didn't find partner A, that I'd find partner A' I do not think the love will be based on arbitrary things. After all, if it is working out, it also means that she's making the choice to love me back. And be there for me when I need her (and vice versa). Surely that is worthy of my love?

But then A' is excluded from your love, simply because you happened to meet A by accident. It's random, and it's exclusive. Can anyone propose a system which is more compatible with egalitarian principles?

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm quite sure that if I didn't know my parents that I wouldn't love them. So their choice of not abandoning me but rather helping me out during the time when I grew up is certainly worthy of my love.

And while I do subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KynIKjRwqDI that it is likely that if I didn't find partner A, that I'd find partner A' I do not think the love will be based on arbitrary things. After all, if it is working out, it also means that she's making the choice to love me back. And be there for me when I need her (and vice versa). Surely that is worthy of my love?

But then A' is excluded from your love, simply because you happened to meet A by accident. It's random, and it's exclusive. Can anyone propose a system which is more compatible with egalitarian principles?

Yet both A', A and me wouldn't mind this. A and me because we're happy with each other. And A' because she cannot miss what she never had (my love), thus she would be blissfully ignorant So I fail to see the problem.

[Trotskylvania]

there is nothing wrong with discriminating in favor of those you love.

Isn't that nepotism?

It is nepotism when you do it in the public sphere.

That's why the hiring of friends and family, particularly in government, is frowned upon.

[Cameroi]

Inspired from the thread on attractiveness, I have a few questions for NSG which I myself am not sure of.

1. Is it acceptable to partition the world into "attractive and unattractive," "friends and enemies," or any other such grouping? Are these simply shallow and self-serving categories or are they perfectly permissible?

2. Should we really divide our love toward a small group of people or should we seek to foster a sense of universal love, feeling an unconditional love for all human beings, and perhaps all life in general?

3. Is such an attitude something that can be achieved in the first place.

I don't know, it just feels like "love" and both physical and emotional attractiveness are exclusionary behaviors. They seek to exclude others from a group, solely for entirely subjective reasons. Is this not the heart of discrimination, to exclude not for meritorious, but rather arbitrary reasons? I feel that we are either obligated to feel universal love, or that it may be preferable to the general welfare if we could foster such emotions.

#1, probably not. its something we've been conditioned to do, by those who exploit our doing it. that's love. as for eros and reproduction, there may be for some of us an aesthetic factor involved. fortunately aesthetic is an individual perception and varies widely.

#2 depends on filia, eros or agape. filia can and ought to be universal of course. selectivity in eros is a kind of natural eugenics. not that it always chooses wisely either.

#3 for both filia and agape, absolutely yes. as for eros, well its not like there's any shortage of human mating behavior as it is.

[Imsogone]

Inspired from the thread on attractiveness, I have a few questions for NSG which I myself am not sure of.

1. Is it acceptable to partition the world into "attractive and unattractive," "friends and enemies," or any other such grouping? Are these simply shallow and self-serving categories or are they perfectly permissible?

2. Should we really divide our love toward a small group of people or should we seek to foster a sense of universal love, feeling an unconditional love for all human beings, and perhaps all life in general?

3. Is such an attitude something that can be achieved in the first place.

I don't know, it just feels like "love" and both physical and emotional attractiveness are exclusionary behaviors. They seek to exclude others from a group, solely for entirely subjective reasons. Is this not the heart of discrimination, to exclude not for meritorious, but rather arbitrary reasons? I feel that we are either obligated to feel universal love, or that it may be preferable to the general welfare if we could foster such emotions.

1. It may not be fair, but it is acceptable. Humans will judge and choose based on personal preference. The categories may be self serving, but they aren't shallow and they aren't just permissable, they're desirable. You may want to love all of humanity, but really, do you want to socialize with all of them, especially if you have nothing in common with them, may even dislike things about them - from something as trivial as hygiene to something as major as their being a mass murderer. Really, do you love Rick Santorum and the GOP? Do you love Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? More to the point, can you?

2. Universal love is a nice myth. I prefer to consider universal regard or universal consideration. I may like, even love, an individual but that doesn't stop me from feeling a sense of responsibility vis-a-vis the rest of the human race.

3. Some people have achieved this universality of feeling - Mother Theresa for example, but this didn't require that she give up having personal and particular friendships and loves. (Well, ok, the Catholic Church does have some sort of rule about it but it's honored more in the breach than the observance).

You limit and harm people when you tell them they can't like one person or group more than another just as much as you do if you tell them they must ignore the good of the whole in favor of the good of a few.

Universal love as I understand it is rather bland and savorless. It's dull, amorphous and uninteresting. Paricular love for a person or a group is interesting and may actually indicate the potential to love on a greater level.

[Mavorpen]

I hate everyone. What do I win?

[Disserbia]

We should definitely strive for it, but under the current world system, it will never happen. In order for that to happen politics would need to cease to exist in the form we know it today. To this end I have dedicated nearly all of my adult life and will continue to do so until I die. You can call someone an enemy all you want sitting behind your computer screen or in your office or studio in front of a camera but its not so easy when you can look into their eyes and see their humanity.

[Terruana]

Personally I'd be a little creeped out if some random dude I'd never met before came up to me and told me he loved me...