The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Is selfless love possble?
Chesterton
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
And if so, why does nobody seem to advocate it, these days?
What I mean is, conventional wisdom about relationships seems designed to maximize the individual pleasure and benefits of a relationship while minimizing the risks. This applies both to dating relationships and to marriage. Most people would say that if a relationship is not satisfying, or if there is something significantly wrong with it, or if there are significant practical barriers (such as completely divergent life goals), get out before it gets worse. Furthermore, couples will often do what they can to protect themselves, both emotionally and financially (through prenups and the like.)
Everyone acknowledges that a relationship gone bad can cause pain. And most people consider that risk worthwhile - but they stop there, and usually engineer the relationship in such a way that the risk is minimized. Furthermore, if a relationship stops being "beneficial" for them, most people will attempt to end it. It happens all the time.
To a certain extent, this is logical and safe. But, it seems to me, it inherently limits the relationship because, fundamentally, in this paradigm, one is saying that one loves oneself more than one's significant other.
I do not often hear people openly advocating the other paradigm, where one commits oneself wholly to one's loved one, and loves them more than themselves.
It seems to me, a relationship where the love is selfless would be deeper and more profound in many ways...
1. Trust. If you know your significant other loves you selflessly, then the actual facts of what they are or are not doing become almost irrelevant in the light of the knowledge that they are placing your good, your pleasure above your own. And if you love them selflessly, it is easier to have this sort of trust.
2. Forgiveness/conflict resolution. Selfless love won't keep fights from happening. Both sides will still occasionally do stupid or inconsiderate things. But if you care about the other person more than yourself, then when the "shit, we screwed up, how do I solve this" mental processes kick in, the primary goal will be restoring the relationship, not trying to place oneself "in the right" or save face or pride - making it much more likely that full reconciliation can occur.
3. Longevity of relationship. Selfless love is a commitment. You're not going to break up just because you don't like how things are going for a week, a month, or a year. Relational problems, even more long-term ones, can be cured with preservance and a willingness to try, but given the self-protective nature of of most relationships, now, this isn't given a chance if the problem lasts for a significant length of time. Also, say there is a huge relational breach, such as unfaithfulness... obviously one party is not loving selflessly at that time. But if the other is, and is absolutely commited to the other person and the relationship, no matter what the person does, it opens up the possibility for potential future healing where there was none before.
4. Mutuality and depth. If love is fundamentally self-absorbed, then it's relatively easy for that love to wither, if one party looses interest. But if someone honestly loves you selflessly, and you know that, it makes it dramatically easier to love them that way in return. So the love recursively strengthens itself. Both parties are more likely to feel the same way, and the depth of love reached is greater.
These are only the obvious ones... I'm sure there are others, but I just wanted to paint a sort of picture of what I mean.
Of course, I am not advocating this for every relationship... obviously this sort of love is something that must be grown and fostered; you can't just switch it on. Neither is it something that every couple should strive for, immediately - this sort of commitment is not going to work in short-term highschool or college relationships, or between immature people.
But it seems like it is something every couple should strive for and hold as an ideal, at least in theory, once they get to a very serious point, defintely by the time they are considering marriage. However, that is not what I see, usually. I am sure a lot of people feel this way, at the height of romance, but that is different from a deep personal and philosophical commitment to this as a way of life. And mostly, I see people protecting themselves and evaluating their relationships as, ultimately, for their own good.
Think of the impact on the divorce rate if people went into marriages committing themselves to this viewpoint. That's what the marriage vows are supposed to be, actually, but the impression I get is that people don't truly act in accordance with this philosophy, at all.
So, am I overly idealistic? Can such a thing happen? Can it happen to anyone, or only for those incredibly few fortunate couples? I do think I know people who seem to have this, and I believe I am moving into this sort of relationship myself - my (soon to be) fiance and I have talked about it and definitely agree that that is what we both want.
And if it is possible, is it something that we should advocate, and advise people? I don't see this, much. If you look at the help/advice forum, almost all the advice is geared towards the self-protecting type of relationship, not the selfless sort. It does seem to me, though, that for anyone in a serious relationship, this should be a conscious goal. Or maybe it is, and the sort of people who have experienced this don't tend to talk about it much...
What I mean is, conventional wisdom about relationships seems designed to maximize the individual pleasure and benefits of a relationship while minimizing the risks. This applies both to dating relationships and to marriage. Most people would say that if a relationship is not satisfying, or if there is something significantly wrong with it, or if there are significant practical barriers (such as completely divergent life goals), get out before it gets worse. Furthermore, couples will often do what they can to protect themselves, both emotionally and financially (through prenups and the like.)
Everyone acknowledges that a relationship gone bad can cause pain. And most people consider that risk worthwhile - but they stop there, and usually engineer the relationship in such a way that the risk is minimized. Furthermore, if a relationship stops being "beneficial" for them, most people will attempt to end it. It happens all the time.
To a certain extent, this is logical and safe. But, it seems to me, it inherently limits the relationship because, fundamentally, in this paradigm, one is saying that one loves oneself more than one's significant other.
I do not often hear people openly advocating the other paradigm, where one commits oneself wholly to one's loved one, and loves them more than themselves.
It seems to me, a relationship where the love is selfless would be deeper and more profound in many ways...
1. Trust. If you know your significant other loves you selflessly, then the actual facts of what they are or are not doing become almost irrelevant in the light of the knowledge that they are placing your good, your pleasure above your own. And if you love them selflessly, it is easier to have this sort of trust.
2. Forgiveness/conflict resolution. Selfless love won't keep fights from happening. Both sides will still occasionally do stupid or inconsiderate things. But if you care about the other person more than yourself, then when the "shit, we screwed up, how do I solve this" mental processes kick in, the primary goal will be restoring the relationship, not trying to place oneself "in the right" or save face or pride - making it much more likely that full reconciliation can occur.
3. Longevity of relationship. Selfless love is a commitment. You're not going to break up just because you don't like how things are going for a week, a month, or a year. Relational problems, even more long-term ones, can be cured with preservance and a willingness to try, but given the self-protective nature of of most relationships, now, this isn't given a chance if the problem lasts for a significant length of time. Also, say there is a huge relational breach, such as unfaithfulness... obviously one party is not loving selflessly at that time. But if the other is, and is absolutely commited to the other person and the relationship, no matter what the person does, it opens up the possibility for potential future healing where there was none before.
4. Mutuality and depth. If love is fundamentally self-absorbed, then it's relatively easy for that love to wither, if one party looses interest. But if someone honestly loves you selflessly, and you know that, it makes it dramatically easier to love them that way in return. So the love recursively strengthens itself. Both parties are more likely to feel the same way, and the depth of love reached is greater.
These are only the obvious ones... I'm sure there are others, but I just wanted to paint a sort of picture of what I mean.
Of course, I am not advocating this for every relationship... obviously this sort of love is something that must be grown and fostered; you can't just switch it on. Neither is it something that every couple should strive for, immediately - this sort of commitment is not going to work in short-term highschool or college relationships, or between immature people.
But it seems like it is something every couple should strive for and hold as an ideal, at least in theory, once they get to a very serious point, defintely by the time they are considering marriage. However, that is not what I see, usually. I am sure a lot of people feel this way, at the height of romance, but that is different from a deep personal and philosophical commitment to this as a way of life. And mostly, I see people protecting themselves and evaluating their relationships as, ultimately, for their own good.
Think of the impact on the divorce rate if people went into marriages committing themselves to this viewpoint. That's what the marriage vows are supposed to be, actually, but the impression I get is that people don't truly act in accordance with this philosophy, at all.
So, am I overly idealistic? Can such a thing happen? Can it happen to anyone, or only for those incredibly few fortunate couples? I do think I know people who seem to have this, and I believe I am moving into this sort of relationship myself - my (soon to be) fiance and I have talked about it and definitely agree that that is what we both want.
And if it is possible, is it something that we should advocate, and advise people? I don't see this, much. If you look at the help/advice forum, almost all the advice is geared towards the self-protecting type of relationship, not the selfless sort. It does seem to me, though, that for anyone in a serious relationship, this should be a conscious goal. Or maybe it is, and the sort of people who have experienced this don't tend to talk about it much...
Chesterton on
0
Posts
You bring up interesting points, but I think, as a rule, you should never love someone else more than you love yourself. I see a healthy relationship as loving someone else almost as much or even as much as you love yourself, but the old adage of keeping a clean house holds true, in my humble opinion.
Not sure.
I stand by my statement. You should love your children as much as you love yourself. There's no need to sacrifice your self-image. Love is really an unlimited resource. The point is both your love for yourself and your love for your children should be unconditional and vast. Loving someone else more than you love yourself is a different thing, and not necessarily related to unconditional love. In other words, you can have unconditional love that doesn't sacrifice your self worth.
That's basically what the OP is talking about.
t OP: all of those things you described can be relationship features without abandoning the self. All it requires is maturity.
It seems to me that widespread truly selfless love would result in a wacky, if not logically impossible, world.
What I am basically saying is its possible for someone to be happy from such a relationship, but they really shouldn't be if they are a normal human beings.
Example: The," If I die will you get married again?" or "Would you put yourself in mortal danger to save me?" questions. In which case the only way out is to lie.
I'm not up for explaining it in-depth tonight, because there's a massive history on this stuff, but a lot of it comes from shit like the Courts of Love and crazy shit like "Love Sickness." In short, there's a pretty well-documented history of emotionally-abusive relationships, putting people on pedestals, people being frustrated by arranged marriage, and stupid emo shit. It tends to revolve around the general treatment of human beings as objects; idols, really.
Really, the more extreme ranges of it really are very religious in nature, all the way to martyr complexes, and crazy rage when the idol is marred somehow.
One-sided romance can edge rather quickly into an unhealthy and dangerous obsession, and one-sided relationships can quickly become outright abusive.
While I admit to being a romantic of sorts myself (whether I like it or not :P), a rather large amount of it is pretty fucked up. Healthy, wholesome relationships just don't have enough melodrama to entertain people, I guess.
Like the selfish, conditional love a parent has for a child.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'll grant that.
I would also suggest that despite having some similarities, they're really not the same thing, and the fact that we have one simple (and quite loaded) word 'love' to refer to several very different types of relationship is confounding this discussion.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Even sacrificing yourself for the sake of another person benefits you because you don't have to live with pain of that loss.
T minus 10... 9... 8...
Edit: Okay, I'll be a little less glib. If we can't agree to a functional definition of selfishness that does involves one person making material, objective sacrifices for another's well-being, then the discussion is likely to head into a semantic cul-de-sac where any behavior, no matter how altruistic, can be portrayed as selfish if we simply make an arbitrarily large assumption about the mental state of the actor making the sacrifice. And that cul-de-sac is suburban, boring, and full of semantic fucktards masturbating on each other. I suggest we agree to just drive past and not look back.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I have a friend I've had for a long time that I can honestly say I would put myself in mortal danger to save, so I'd probably be able to say the same about a significant other (assuming I have one)
It's not that I value his life more than his, I just don't think I could live with myself knowing I didn't take the risks to save my best friend.
I disagree with the popular understanding, but it's really just short for the ten-page debate.
Love as I'm using it is a deep emotional attachment for a person. And the parent child relationship as an example of a selfless, sacrificing love (An example I would hope some in the thread can relate to). I suppose if you want I could star whipping out greek since they have multiple words to describe different kinds of love (eros, philia, and agape).
The idea that there's some "perfect love" that everyone who's in love should aspire to always irked me a little. Everybody loves differently. The reason completely selfless love is out of fashion is because it generally leads to resentment, dependence, and unhealthy, unbalanced relationships.
This is probably not the case for the majority of relationships. If someone does not love and respect you enough to remain faithful (or merely thoughtless enough to do such a thing regardless of their feelings), it is likely that they are not ever going to, and the relationship is not going to be healthy or fulfilling for either couple. Constant, unconditional forgiveness might open up the possiblity for "healing", but it CERTAINLY opens up the possibility of emotional (or physical) abuse. And someone who does not respect themselves enough to stop abuse is not healthy enough for ANY type of relationship, let alone a serious and committed one. If you do nothing but forgive over and over again, ignoring your own pain in exchange for focusing on the happiness of your partner...it's not good, not for you OR your partner.
You might not be able to stop loving someone, but you do have control over who you're with, and no one should stay with someone if they are not happy in the relationship, period.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
No, that's just love. The "selfless" qualifier changes the meaning to what people are actually discussing in this thread.
Unless you'd like to give me a definition of love, with no qualifiers, that doesn't somehow include "acting with [the object of your affection's] best interests in mind, because you care about them."
Attachment? You mean, like wanting to be in that person's close proximity on a regular basis? That's what "attachment" means to me, and I don't think that parent-child love necessarily reflects that. In fact, healthy parent-child love assumes that detachment is going to occur as the child grows into adulthood. Parents - non-scary ones anyway - want their children to move away from them and be independent at some point.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's not to say that the actions you take in loving someone aren't you caring for the other, it's just that there is something gained by doing the actions and the loving. And since there is no way (apparent to me) for an action to not be motivated by causation, there cannot be any love for its own sake.
Thoughts?
Selfless love for your abusive alcoholic spouse = wrong
Selfless love for your newborn baby = ok
Feral: Enjoying the pleasure of someones company doesn't mean wanting to be around them every waking moment of every day.
So selfless love is okay only as long as the object is unlikely to harm you?
That doesn't sound entirely selfless.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hobbesian psychological egoism is not disprovable, and thus doesn't satisfy as a way of explaining human behavior.
I love you so much that I would selflessly bear your children.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
LIAR!
You're right. I must have a very subtle but salient personal emotional reason to bear your children, therefore my love is not truly selfless.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.