Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts

Tough on war: soft on the causes of war - By Martin Prior


Tough on war: soft on the causes of war

To consider this issue in depth I would first like to consider the drawbacks of ‘Make Love not War.’  As argued in an Issue 20 (‘There is no purpose of life...and all people are equal in pursuing it’), we can see a circularity in the purpose of life: the purpose of life is love, and the purpose of love is life:



Can we not have a society that recognises and celebrates this circularity, and recognise that this is incompatible with war, in which the power to exploit is either asserted or defended?

But life can pour cold water on things: love does indeed lead to life, but in a society where economic hardship has been overcome, the population doubles every generation, so we hear.  Thus Britain became ‘great’ through exploiting India among others, then her population increased and many Brits went out to places like Australia, Canada, etc.  And some of course came back!

So by simply asserting love, we are indeed tough on wars, but without recognising factors such as population growth, we are being soft on the causes of war.

A very important illustration of tough on war but soft on the causes, is that of European integration.  The theory goes that with European integration, we come closer together and in effect ‘love each other’.  But to pursue this love, we pursue precisely the same financial orthodoxy that gave rise to Nazism and thence WWII.  Within the economic union, the rich get richer and the poor poorer: not just people within nations, but across nations.  Something has to snap.

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28

There is no purpose of life...and all people are equal in pursuing it - By Martin Prior

There is no purpose of life...and all people are equal in pursuing it
Part II: More sex and love?

In the last issue, in fact Part I of the issues on ‘Purpose of Life’, I argued that the purpose of life is those activities we directly pursue, because we have been evolved to pursue these activities to ensure the survival of the species. 

There are indeed linguistic issues: one might interpret the purpose of life as meaning the purpose for which there is life.  Surely there must be an intelligent power to bring about the manifestation of life.  My argument is that if something is conceptually possible, then in all likelihood it will happen at least once.  

But we must return to the activities we directly pursue: thus if I am a stag, I will not see my purpose of life as maintaining the quality of the gene pool.  What?  The purpose of life is to save the girls from those other guys.  They manage both to be wimps and maltreat the kids at the same time (mine of course).  And if anyone questions that they must be philosophers or the like, and probably not very good philosophers at that.

In Part I, I argued that within a socialist framework, it is the activities we directly pursue rather than socialism itself, that is the purpose of life.  And under socialism there must be a fair opportunity to pursue these goals.  A stag would say fair’s fair, why not, as long as this represents equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome.

Now this might suggest that a stag has a lot in common with an economic liberal, where competition is all.  But let us look at my earlier analyses, not least that for the self-image of a supposed exploiter (RHS):





self-image of ‘maroon’ socialist
self-image of economic liberal


I have shown both diagrams in previous issues, but here I have annotated them.  Note that the outer maroon from last time on the socialist diagram has now been termed ‘customary care’, a term I have come up with in the last week: culture, society and custom all overlap.  It should be said that these diagrams, ‘saying it in maroon’, represent an informal account of stages in a socioeconomic process, and as such should be regarded as a tool for formulating a more rigorous hypothesis.


What we see on the right-hand side is that the wider environment, a resource to be exploited rather than respected, is divorced by the market, via supply and demand, from culture, which is now valued for its feeding the demand curve.  One can say a lot about this, but often a species evolves not so much to improve the gene pool as to make it more sexy. Or better equipped for fighting the other guys.  So perhaps one can say that life is for antlers, but antlers are not necessarily for life.

But coming back to the liberal agenda, the modern market does in fact need infinite expansion - often most profitably exploiting resources to extinction – it sows the seeds of its own destruction and periodically it needs to be bailed out by those exploited.  This purpose of life seems to have more in common with a cancer cell.

Would a stag do this?

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Tales – The nature of Love - by Ellese Elliott - Dedicated to Perry Smith


The Philosophy Tales – The nature of Love

Once upon a time, on a wasted beach that had returned wild, a young boy looked upon the sea, solemnly. As the sun appeared to immerse itself in the velvety waters the cold chill of the evening breeze swept the mementos of an inhabited place along the sands and blew his long dark hair across an expression of sadness on his pretty juvenile face.  
The beach seemed to be mostly comprised of bits of plastic, stray trolleys and odd parts of clothing; however you could tell that once it was beautiful.Navigating his way around the remnants of the past he felt a sense of triviality about life and of things, of himself.       Flying scavengers swarmed around him anticipating to eat, ‘and why not’ he thought.
Casting his hand into the debris the boy grasped a handful of history: glass, pebbles, etc.  He threw the pieces into the sea aimlessly, repeating this action a couple of times.  It had become a kind of game. Further and further the formations flew, some skimmed several times before finally going under. But after the third or fourth handful he hesitated to throw one of the objects.  In his hand, cut and grazed by tin and other fragments, he held a smooth large grey rock. 

For some unknown reason he did not want to throw this rock. It was not particularly beautiful, nor did the rock bear any significant characteristics that obviously distinguished it from the other rocks, but the boy took a shine to this rock.  Quite bemused at this unexpected feeling he clutched the rock to his chest, his knees dropped in the sand and he felt joy as he saw the last light of the sun fade. 
‘O rock! I adore you!’ his cheeks rouged.  ‘I cannot explain how and I cannot explain why, but now you are near I feel there is meaning to my life.’  The boy’s heart pulsed deeply in love and his eyes widened as he experienced a paroxysm of ecstasy. He fell in love with the rock; unquestionably in love. 
Placing the rock carefully in his right pocket (as the left bore holes) he walked beyond the beach berm and clambered up onto the street, hungry.  Reality above was chaotic. People bustled past barging carelessly into each other; occupied on their mobiles, distracted by their schedules. Noise polluted the air as much as the gases secreted from the trams and buses while dazzling signs reinforced their endless quests.   Entranced and running in circles, their vessels appeared empty. 
It began to rain. The boy ran across the street blocked up with vehicles. Beeeep, Beeepp, eepppp.  “Get out the way!” a driver yelled. He slipped through a small back road and took refuge under a railway bridge.  It was cold, but at least it was not wet.
Finally they were alone again; just he and his beloved, but then street thugs approached.  Sensing danger he hurriedly got up and tried to walk in the opposite direction.  “Come back here!” one of the street thugs commanded pushing him against the wall. The boy had not seen them coming from both sides.
  'What you got for us rat?'
  'Yeah empty your pockets. Quickly don’t waste time.' the street thugs ordered. 
  'I haven’t got anything.' the boy replied.
  'Don’t back talk!'
Smack! The thugs hit the boy knocking him to the ground.
  'Get back up!'  They frisked him only to find odd bits of metal and his love, the rock. 
  'Hey give me that back. Stop! That is my beloved.' the boy whined.
  'What’s he on about? It’s a rock!' the thugs laughed tossing the rock between them, 
relishing in creating the conditions affecting the boy with misery.
  'How can you love a rock?'
  'Yeah how can you love a rock rat?' the thugs chuckled.
  'I don’t know how, and I don’t know why I just know I do.' he replied.
  The thugs stopped throwing his love. 'But the rock doesn’t love you.  The rock doesn’t love anything. It’s a rock mate. How can you love something that doesn’t love?'
  A philosophical debate had broken out under the most unexpected of circumstances; among the mist of degradation, debauchery and dirt.
  'How do you know the rock does not love me?' the boy argued, 'one cannot know whether one is loved or not.  The rock is no different in that respect to any other. For instance: how do you know your mother loves you?” he elaborated.
  'Hey my mother’s dead you rat. Don’t talk about my-'
  'Calm down Bull.' the other thug interrupted; saving the boy from yet another blow, as he was intrigued by the discussion.
  'What I mean is this: How do you know whether anything loves you?'  the boy asked. 
  'Because they tell you.'
  'Yeah they tell you. The rock can’t chat.' the street thugs chorused illiterately.
  'But people can lie and deceive and be fooled and tricked. Could they not be deceiving you, for their own gain, to please you or to please themselves?' the boy questioned.
  'Well they act like they love you, dumb arse.' the ring leader answered enticed into this debate. 
  'Those who deceive you with their words can also deceive you with their actions,'  the boy’s wit had become faster. 'Words and actions can give us some insight into how one feels, but just because one does not speak or act does not mean we can judge they do not feel .“

  'Huh?  Are you saying this rock could have feelings? You’re mad!' they accused.
  'I am not mad I am in love. Quite simply we can never know if we are loved.  Thus, it cannot be we only love on the basis that we think we are loved or else love would never arise.  It must then follow that love is truly selfless.'
  'You’re wrong!'
  'Yeah!' the thugs argued,
  'And I’m going to prove it!” stated the ring leader. 
So the thugs ran away with the rock and the boy gave chase.
Dodging the people and the vehicles, leaping over barriers and ducking under signs the thugs ran toward the wild beach keyed up and lively. 
The seas had become rough and the winds were strong and the thugs held up the rock and threw it into the watery abyss.
  'Nooooooooo!!!!!' the boy screamed, jumping in after the rock. Splash!
The tides were vicious and the weather was harsh. The street thugs looked on in anticipation, but drew scared as the boys head did not come back above water.  Approximately five minutes had elapsed and he did not surface.
Death by drowning.
  'See boys! I proved it! You can tell if someone loves you. I was right.' the ring leader gloated, laughing off the events passed, 'You can tell the rat loved the rock because he jumped!'
  'What did you prove? One of the thugs argued. 'You have not proved the boy loved the rock and you have not proved that the rock did not have feelings, you have not proved anything! At best you have perhaps strengthened my belief that the boy was mad and now I think you are too for your lack of remorse.'
  'You mean the boy was off his rocker?' the ring leader joked and said, 'It was just a rock and the boy was just a boy.'
The end was just as sombre as the beginning with only a glimpse of elation in-between. Is this the nature of love? 

 The End!

by Ellese Elliott - Dedicated to Perry Smith

Love as memory - By Lloyd Duddridge


Love as memory

“He suddenly recalled from Plato's Symposium: People were hermaphrodites until God split then in two, and now all the halves wander the world over seeking one another. Love is the longing for the half of ourselves we have lost.”- Milan Kundera


I am no expert when it comes to love. Who is? There are those that claim that love is ‘nothing more’ than a chemical reaction that can be explained away. However if this were the case, then some bright individual would have thought to bottle it by now. I would hazard a guess that it would be a big seller. As far as we know love potions exist solely in the imagination.
Then what is this love that baffles and confuses us? First of all I would say that it is rarer then we like to admit. Not everybody finds love. Just like anything we value it is rare and hard to come by. It is above all a process, it takes time. This is because love is the art of getting to know somebody. This is not to be confused with other things that are similar. This is not a spying exercise. The line between loving and spying is very thin, however there is a difference. The difference is this: When you spy, you are spying with another end apart from simply knowing that person. When you love, knowing that person is an end it itself. This is why the greatest loves are based on understanding. Understanding is the building blocks of a shared history. Love and history are very much related. It is when both your personal historical narratives merge that we call it love. For history is the art of remembering, or of making memories, as is love. That is why love really starts when you have things that remind you of the one you love. That is why we find love and music so interrelated, it is because music often evokes memories of those we love. It is a simple truism, that those that we forget, we can never love. Thus the strongest love, I would argue, is based around the strongest set of collective memories. That is why it is so important for a couple to do things together.
They may be a simple test for love, and in many ways it is similar to Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche posited the thought experiment that if an demon was to come to you and say you would have to live your life in its entirety over and over for eternity,how would you handle it? Nietzsche said those that could embrace the demons challenge had lived the ideal life. Now to my test for love. Imagine you are on your deathbed, and you want to continue living. An angel comes to your bedside, and whispers in your ear, that he can make you young and healthy again. Now it is at this point that love is tested. For I argue that it is only love is you turn to that angel and say “ On one condition. That I get to live this new life with my love also” That is the test, that however strong a pull life may be, it is not as strong as that shared bond. That is because you have shared so many memories with that person, that you hardly consider life being understandable without them. That is why the real love goes beyond passion, beyond beauty. Love can last, because the great love becomes life itself. For those couples that last, life and love can become interchangeable terms. That is why the man or woman that does not want to know your favourite film, or colour or restaurant, or will not come to the supermarket just to spend time with you, or go to the dentists just to hold your hand is not worth it. You live but once, if you lived hundred times you have time to experiment. Grab that person that wants to become history with you. Grab that person that wants to know what is both good at bad about you. Grab the person that is there for you without even having to say thanks. The one that knows what every look on your face means. Grab the one you understand, and the one that wants to understand you.

By Lloyd Duddridge

The Philosophical Orgasm


“All men, in the vertiginous moment of coitus, are the same man. All men who repeat a line from Shakespeare are William Shakespeare.”
- Jorge Luis Borges

Philosophy is difficult. You can read the same piece over and over, making little progress each time, losing faith and on the verge of giving up and then... something happens. The fog clears, everything slots into place, the philosophy offers itself up to you, the tension subsides and your whole being is filled with warmth and understanding; new clarity dawns. This moment is something many of you will be familiar with. It comes on quickly, and strong. And it changes the way you understand forever. You’ve taken it, conquered it, made it yours. Borges sums it up perfectly; in that moment of clarity we become part of something larger than ourselves - we access that shared knowledge (shared, that is, by all those who have gone before, who have walked the same path) and can speak the words as our own.

Some people call this the ‘Eureka!’ moment, but I am inclined to say there is even more to it than that. The Ancient Greek εὕρηκα translates roughly as ‘I have found it!’, hence its association with scientific discovery. We can all recall the story of Archimedes jumping out of his bath and running naked through the street exclaiming ‘eureka!’ upon his discovery that the volume of water displaced in his bath was equal to the volume of the part of his body that was submerged. In the case of philosophical understanding, something more personal is going on. It is not merely a case of seeing how concepts operate within arguments - the understanding goes deeper than that, is internalised, changes you. It’s like an orgasm in your mind, that permeates your whole being. The more difficult the philosophy you are trying to grasp, the more intense the orgasm. It isn’t about finding a solution to a problem, it’s about augmenting your ideas in preparation for the next exploration. On each subsequent journey, you’ll take those new ideas along with you.

Philosophy doesn’t translate as ‘love of wisdom’ for nothing...

Saffron Bowles

The Phenomenology of Love - By Sean Ash

The Phenomenology of Love

When I think of the word love, and when I think of how best to write an article based on such a thing, I'm left here just staring at my keyboard in a state of melancholy. I begin to reminisce on many painful memories and events that have, hitherto, taken place within my experience of twenty-first century love and life. I no longer feel the immediate joy of what 'love' may have meant to me ten years ago, but instead I now relate to an entire new meaning of what the word love actually both means and implies.

We often see a pretty painted house from the outside and assume that only beautiful things can exist within. Often do we also see two people in-love emerging from the beautiful house; pecking one another on the cheek as they make their way to work. As they do so, we may even think to ourselves that they must share a happy matrimonial home. Unfortunately, we have no real access to formally declare such a thing as truth, even though we frequently display the tendency to do so we are often mistaken as inside the house exists a reality of its own.

As a divorcee that was once married for four years, as well as someone who has experienced the feeling of being "in-love" throughout numerous relationships, I have come to realise that love is not what it says it is or what it first presents itself to be. Love can be all the bad in the world, the same way that it can be all the good in the world. I guess, to understand why I have chosen to begin this article by placing love in such a negative light, is because I ask the reader to question, why not? Why must we always hold an immediate denotation for such a word that is painted out to be so beautiful when it also has the potential of producing negative connotations. It is this denotation that strangely asks of us to immediately believe that love can only exist within its very own extreme.

We are presented with the fallacy that love is a garden abundant with beautiful insects and flowers; where all people are at one with each other and that this is the absolute truth of what love actually is, however. When you are enabled to not only read a word but can also become the word, it is only then can you grasp the meaning of such concept; a concept that was at first observed as a mere object but has soon-after become even more-so tangible.

Is it possible that love, just as with anything else, has a secret method of working that we fail to see due to the fact that we are always happy to accept the first appearance? The more I look back at all of my experiences as well as all the pain I have experienced, in the name of love, the more it draws me closer to the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel who posited that things worked dialectically, and opposing forces were essential to reaching the absolute (synthesis). It reminds me of when my son entered the world for the very first time. The moment I first encountered a visual of my son, I loved him very much and pretty much more than words could describe. However, what reason could be applied to such an instant and on the spot love? What I loved of my son I'm not so sure of, as I knew nothing more of the baby I held in my arms than I knew how to explain what it was about him that I loved. In fact, nearly six years on, I still have not reached a full understanding of this love! Although, we sometimes arrive at discord with one another, the love only seems to grow harmonious from this and the word love then becomes enabled to be defined to a greater extent.

It is exactly the same should our relationships with one another dissolve, as we enter the experience of hurt and pain due to the fact we are experiencing loss and so we find ourselves confining ourselves quite frequently to our memories. We take a look back as we stand on the dark lonesome road and all we see is a corner; never knowing what is around the corner as most times we tend to dwell on our losses rather than make way for time so that it can take us around the corner and into happiness again.

Love cannot be a form of utopia or heaven, as I believe that love is an equal balance of both love and hate as it continues to move forward and grow just as we do. There is an equilibrium to where both love (Thesis) and hate (Anti-Thesis) clash together thus creating the absolute attachment (Synthesis). To try to imagine the perfect relationship between two people or between Nations as something being 'bliss' would be to ignore the truths that actually bind all together. It has taken many wars to show people how to love. For example, post-Second World War in the UK, minorities have faced racism and violence while here in this country. Even though this country fought against the likes of Hitler and fascism, we started off by (the thesis) a noble cause by standing up and fighting against such vile hatred. Soon after, when minorities first came to the UK to take up much lower paid work, we then alienated them (the anti-thesis). In 2012, we now embrace them as our own and are mostly proud to call them British, just as they are to identify themselves as British. It could also be argued on a supra-level that Hitler's 'hate' could have been the original thesis or the anti-thesis to a single human race. Maybe his movement worked for the good of humanity as many of us now, despite our differences, like to see one another as equals.

Therefore, the synthesis can only mean equality, and such equality can never be balanced without understanding both sides. Love was never meant to be easy as if it were easy, who would truly want it? As something that is earned produces more value than something that is simply given away for nothing. Love and hate are all to thank for the struggle towards equality on a national level right the way down to the relationship level between two people.

by Sean Ash

Heart on a chain - By Perry Smith

Heart on a chain
Flushed away
Limbo Messiahs
Change your desires
Broken and bruised
Change it for someone new
Who knows?
Who cares?
With so many, you can't lose
Don't place your bet
Life's not a gamble
Don't wait for that one diamond sandal
It doesn't exist
Not now
Not ever
Futile to persist
"My son, just go out and get pissed"


By Perry Smith

Love - By Eliza Veretilo

Love

Love...

So many human acts, crazy acts, unjust, just, random, even evil acts, are justified under the banner of love. What amazes me is how powerful it is, as a justification. Its power to heal and turn everything into something good and how it takes over all other human emotions. What keeps a mother forgiving an ungrateful child? Love. What keeps a working man in a 9 to 5 jobs he hates? Survival, yes, but also and even more importantly, love to his family. Ultimately, love is an affection which causes joy and attachment. We need it, we crave it. It is goodness and we are inclined to feel it for everyone. The problem? Our society has turned this powerful, almost universal human love that everyone needs, into a selfish kind of love, the only accepted ‘love’ is love between couples.

Let me explain myself better, I’m not saying that having one partner is being selfish, it’s not, you can only love one heart at the time, they claim. What I mean is that humanity is more inclined to love each other, to share with each other, but it is more convenient to our economy for people to group in pairs and spend all their love tokens on each other. This is not exactly something we are naturally inclined to do. Our ancestors lived in communities where they shared; they shared time, resources and attention. Altruism is saintly, not as a coincidence, but because it’s loving. Our current focus on the couple as the centre of ‘life’ actually has some damaging consequences on us. For example, people who don’t have a partner feel less adequate and people who have one feel forced to stay in that relationship even though maybe their real interest is elsewhere. Neither of this people has something wrong with them and I’m sure, everyone has the same amount of ‘love’ to give. They are just doing what is ‘acceptable’.

I would like to point out the example of teachers; teachers educate and look after children that are not theirs, for the most part of the kid’s awake day. The children form an attachment, without asking question about ‘blood relations’ and so do the teachers, they begin to care. Could there be anything more natural than the human inclination to educate and look after the young? But no, love nowadays is equated with sex. The human you have sex with is the human you must love. And thus love turns into a cheesy, caricaturized, caramelised version of it. A pre-packed set of dresses, chocolate boxes, flowers and lube. Love is more than that. Love is caring, love is appreciating, not impressing, love is open, not jealous, love is universal, not only lustful. Love is life giver, not an accessory. Love is what prompts people to do things for others, not a certain partner you need to show off, to prove your value, like all the other items you need to literally hang on yourself nowadays to be somebody.

If love was the pink and red bubble portrayed mainly on television, if love was a quest that women needed to wear make-up to embark on and men needed to fill their wallets to join, love would not be that blanket under which some of the biggest craziest acts in history have been sheltered under. Love, raw, real human love to ourselves, to others, to nature, to animals, to knowledge, to art, to music, to sport, to hope, to life cannot be compared to the petty image of lust that romcoms sell us on a daily basis. Could we claim and re-brand the word love? Could we escape the set of ‘must-haves’ that are expected of each individual in Western society (must have a partner, must have an office job, must have a fiat, corsa, whatever, must have this month’s it colour, most have office party... you know the rest). Could we take the cheese out of the most powerful of human emotions and reclaim it as a basis for action? For growth instead of drama? Could we? Could we rid ourselves from the illusion and destroy the false idol that has been built instead of love? There is a little love heart sitting next to me on my desk, its reads ‘my hero’. I still want to claim, yes, we can reclaim love.

By Eliza Veretilo

Love: the ultimate -ism‏ - by Martin Prior


Love: the ultimate -ism
It was my intention to contribute an article in reply to various points in last week's Politics Special, but this week's edition is "all about Love".

Well I think I shall still make a contribution, since of course love and -isms are related. What I was going to say, in my political article,was that -isms are all about modal and deontic logic – respectively about what is necessary or possible, and what is obligatory or permissible - and to say that you don't have an -ism really means that you do not use strong modal or deontic operators (necessary and obligatory respectively) in the characterisation of your belief. More about that on some other occasion.



Strong modal and deontic operators are of course central to Love, such that we can say:

It is necessary that everything is possible.

in other words, nothing is necessary. But this contradicts the above principle, which does of course assert that something is necessary.

Therefore love is fundamentally inconsistent, which is of course what we would expect, and would explain the concept of a 'love-hate' relationship.

"Maybe we should leave the matter to the meta-physicists... "

by Martin Prior


References:

G. H. von Wright, 1951. "Deontic logic," Mind 60: 1-15. ( a very respectable source!)

Want to write for us?

If you would like to submit an article for consideration, please contact thephilosophytakeaway@gmail.com

Search This Blog