Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The concept of universal love

frogwoman said:
you're such a fucking hippy :D


Seriously though. There's a difference between loving life, loving people, etc, and loving ALL life and ALL people. As much as you may think you do or want to, you don't do that mate :D
Click to expand...

Yes though surely its precisely not about loving in some sense of feeling full of love, i.e. the affect or emotion. But rather - as I said early - love as an attitude. An attitude that accepts the value in people beyond particularities of their lives and their actions. Its more of an orientation towards or with the world, and it refuses to see other people in a instrumental object-like fashion. This form of love is a way of being, something a person is actively engaged in. Certainly its not the form of love in which I identify an other or some part of another person that I want to take as mine, to have.
 
Fair enough. Different words for the same concept I suppose, but I wouldn't called it "love", more respect tbh and treating others how you would like to be treated.
 
frogwoman said:
Fair enough. Different words for the same concept I suppose, but I wouldn't called it "love", more respect tbh and treating others how you would like to be treated.
Click to expand...

I don't even think its respect for particular people, as in "I respect you and you and you" bla bla bla. Its certainly not about this the way I try - and mostly fail - to apply it. In fact there many people I have absolutely no respect for or people I could feel hatred for. Perhaps its more about accepting that people have value as people beyond the facts of their lives. I think it opens up the tragic nature of life or existence, because there are terrible people we have to stand up against or confront or 'fight', it's just about doing this whilst not totally objectifying the other.

e2a: I think I'm agreed that the way you see universal love is a load of nonsense, as in I agree with your sentiments about the common usage / implications of the term. But I'm also - along with a few others it seems - defending something else that might look or sound a little like the same thing just applied in a very different way. I do really think that little eric fromm book is a great place to start if you want to look at it this way.
 
frogwoman said:
Oh yeah ... totally. :) I think there is a way to do it without objectifying though.
Click to expand...

:)

Its bloody difficult though. I suppose I'd also add - related to this point - that its more just a valuable ideal to aim for. I'm not sure we ever get there.
 
CJohn said:
I don't even think its respect for particular people, as in "I respect you and you and you" bla bla bla. Its certainly not about this the way I try - and mostly fail - to apply it. In fact there many people I have absolutely no respect for or people I could feel hatred for. Perhaps its more about accepting that people have value as people beyond the facts of their lives. I think it opens up the tragic nature of life or existence, because there are terrible people we have to stand up against or confront or 'fight', it's just about doing this whilst not totally objectifying the other.

e2a: I think I'm agreed that the way you see universal love is a load of nonsense, as in I agree with your sentiments about the common usage / implications of the term. But I'm also - along with a few others it seems - defending something else that might look or sound a little like the same thing just applied in a very different way. I do really think that little eric fromm book is a great place to start if you want to look at it this way.
Click to expand...

I'll look out for that Fromm book :)
 
Everybody should start with a clean slate but thier actions or inaction should detrmine how much you love them. Otherwise there is no real consequence to life and then really whats the fucking point.


dave
 
kained&able said:
Everybody should start with a clean slate but thier actions or inaction should detrmine how much you love them. Otherwise there is no real consequence to life and then really whats the fucking point.


dave
Click to expand...

yep, that's more or less what i think ..
 
frogwoman said:
Sorry if this is a really daft thread but I'm hungover on a sunday afternoon :D
Click to expand...

Not at all, this the crux of very deep spiritual matters. It is not simple.

The simple answer is this. Yes, it is possible to love everyone and everything, you might experience this very simply by taking a tablet of ecstasy, and this is precisely why one might take a tablet of ecstasy (amongst perhaps another reason). With this it becomes very clear that love is the answer to pretty much all of our problems, that war and other such nonsense is just really silly.

So what about bad people? Well it is possible to love them but find their conduct quite unacceptable at the same time. There is no problem there. Indeed, how else are you going to cure them? You might scold a child for doing a bad thing, but you won't set them straight unless you also show them love. It is the same with adults.

So this is an ideal. What should you do if you aren't finding yourself able to love 'bad' people - even from a distance? Well, it's not a bad idea to work on yourself, but don't beat yourself up too much. But if you are continually experiencing anger and hatred, that is going to harm you, and others around you.

Let me know if you want the complex answer!

love jazzz :)
 
frogwoman said:
What fela fan actually seems to be doing is denying that these people are human and making some contortions in his mind to separate them from others - "dead people", an understandable reaction but a dangerous one, given that we all have the capacity for good and bad inside us all. It's not a criticism btw fela - i do similar stuff myself. we all do.
Click to expand...

yeah, but i don't think i'm doing that. I"m not denying anyone is human, i'm just looking at their actions. For me it's the actions, not those who carry out the actions. This is why i have no hatred in me. Love is for life. I have an absence of love for bush not because he's george bush, but because of his actions. They are not actions respectful of life. I think that love and life are bound together, and that hatred is outside of this.

Hatred, like all negative emotions is deblitating, and often it can be exhausting. Assuming we can avoid hatred, it seems a most useful thing to do, and one that gives great protection to one's health and life.
 
kained&able said:
Everybody should start with a clean slate but thier actions or inaction should detrmine how much you love them. Otherwise there is no real consequence to life and then really whats the fucking point.


dave
Click to expand...

Indeed. And that is the point, love. It's the only point of life. Aswad: 'you got to have love in your heart...'

And if love is the only point of life, then hatred is anti-life. If we love life, we have no hatred.

That's the aim. I think it's wrong to suggest it's an ideal, coz that gives the impression it's unattainable.
 
jazz

Good post mate, but i disagree about calling it an ideal.

It's not about bad people, and this is why hatred is unnecessary. It's about the actions they carry out. If such actions are anti-life, then they are the ones carrying the hatred. For me the trick is to divorce the actions from the doer. For the doer is only acting unconsciously. Conscious action in life is respectful of life.

Love, life, conscious awareness, all are interconnected, and beyond the reach of language and the manipulative human mind they are probably really just all the one concept.
 
I don't think you have to love everyone. Let's face it - there are some real assholes out there. But it's going too far to start throwing a lot of hate around.
 
fela fan said:
yeah, but i don't think i'm doing that. I"m not denying anyone is human, i'm just looking at their actions. For me it's the actions, not those who carry out the actions. This is why i have no hatred in me. Love is for life. I have an absence of love for bush not because he's george bush, but because of his actions. They are not actions respectful of life. I think that love and life are bound together, and that hatred is outside of this.

Hatred, like all negative emotions is deblitating, and often it can be exhausting. Assuming we can avoid hatred, it seems a most useful thing to do, and one that gives great protection to one's health and life.
Click to expand...
fair dos.
 
frogwoman said:
Fair enough. Different words for the same concept I suppose, but I wouldn't called it "love", more respect tbh and treating others how you would like to be treated.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that even the Xtians would call it 'love' in the same sense that you or I would. At some point 'charity' got substituted for 'love', but neither of those terms work nowadays. Brief wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_(virtue)

'Universal love' sounds a bit hippyish and unattainable. Loving-kindness sounds a bit more practical but as a general backstop position? Gets tested when sharper/harder emotions take over.
 
Johnny Canuck3 said:
No idea what will pass that threshold. You mentioned 'charity' as an alternative concept for the christian notion of universal love. I mentioned 'agape' as another concept.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention 'charity' as an alternative concept for 'the christian notion of universal love'. I challenged 'universal love' as a xtian concept; and observed that 'charity' had been replaced by 'love' at some point in Biblical translations. Neither 'love' nor 'charity' translate well nowadays to the underlying meaning as I understand it. 'Agape' though, how does that fit in?
 
cesare said:
I didn't mention 'charity' as an alternative concept for 'the christian notion of universal love'. I challenged 'universal love' as a xtian concept; and observed that 'charity' had been replaced by 'love' at some point in Biblical translations. Neither 'love' nor 'charity' translate well nowadays to the underlying meaning as I understand it. 'Agape' though, how does that fit in?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that even the Xtians would call it 'love' in the same sense that you or I would. At some point 'charity' got substituted for 'love', but neither of those terms work nowadays.
Click to expand...


I'm not seeing the challenge there.
 
I won't insist. I'm trying to edit photos and respond to you at the same time, meaning neither is receiving justice. All things being equal, I believe I'll continue editing the photos. :)
 
Johnny Canuck3 said:
I won't insist. I'm trying to edit photos and respond to you at the same time, meaning neither is receiving justice. All things being equal, I believe I'll continue editing the photos. :)
Click to expand...

In the spirit of caritas, you should carry on editing your photos because I'm not in need of any further attention and I might prefer seeing your photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Koknbul
love or fear
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
Koknbul
Koknbul
B
Of Grammatology - Jacques Derrida (Johns Hopkins University Press)
Replies
19
Views
1K
Beats & Pieces
B
D
The Holographic Universe
Replies
7
Views
603
joustmaster
J
sihhi
Is imperialism still a useful concept? Why and where?
Replies
2
Views
540
camouflage
camouflage
ska invita
Anarchism's conception of the State (and Switzerland)
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
9K
ska invita
ska invita
Back
Top Bottom