Meaningful Love
Permalink Posted on 06-23-2006 at 02:53:21 pm by Justin, 583 words, 1848 views  

I have previously defined meaningful statements: they are assertions that are either true by definition, known as tautologies, or they derive their meaning by way of testability. “A triangle has three sides” is a tautology. “I can fly” is a statement that be proved true or false.

"Love" must be one of the most commonly used but poorly understood words in the English language. What is love? What does it mean to love? When we say, "I love you", do we know what we’re saying?

Many have tried to explain love. There are songs aplenty about the subject. What is love? Baby, don’t hurt me. All you need is love. I will always love you. Love of my life. One revered Biblical passage oft cited that speaks to love is 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

It sounds beautiful, but does it make any sense? We are inundated with references to love, but where is the meaning?

I posit that love is quite simply an expression of value. "I love you” means that I value you.

My definition of love fails to be eloquent or poetic – indeed, it is downright utilitarian - but its strength and beauty is in this rugged simplicity. Love as value elucidates a concept abused to the brink of meaninglessness and obfuscated by media, culture and peers.

We express value through action. Loving someone means acting in their benefit. Loving something requires similar beneficial action. Not coincidentally, the act of love is selfish: it benefits you. The selfishness of love intuitively follows from understanding "love" as action on property: we wish to increase the value of that which is ours. Through interacting with other people or things we become stakeholders in those things, even if only briefly and relatively powerlessly so. In fact, if you stripped the selfishness away from love, loving others would be absurd; you could only love those if such interactions of love did not benefit you. Love is necessarily selfish.

As your stake in people or things increases, so also does your ability and incentive to love. With individuals like your spouse, parents or children, your stake grows exponentially. As a result, you would bear increasingly greater burdens to provide benefits to those you love. You would sacrifice your life for a spouse or child, but you wouldn’t for a random guy on the street. The difference between the two is love (As a sidenote, Patri Friedman just posted an interesting discussion on Love and Intrapersonal Utility Comparison over at Catallarchy).

If you understand love to mean value, common statements about love begin to fall into place. When someone tells you, “I love you,” they are simply expressing in three words something [that should be] evidenced by a wealth of action. A history of beneficial action by the lover is a prerequisite for “I love you” to have meaning: love without action is meaningless.

Armed with this understanding of love as value, I want to tackle two important questions. What does “Jesus/God loves you” really mean? And does love really make the world go ‘round.

Feel free to opine below: my proposed answers will be posted soon.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Aaron [Visitor]
Aren't you supposed to be working at 2:51pm on a Friday afternoon? :)

By the way, I value you.
PermalinkPermalink 06-23-2006 @ 15:35
Comment from: Justin [Member]
Ha - I wrote this on a plane and then posted it. So bleh!

I v U, too.
PermalinkPermalink 06-23-2006 @ 17:07
Comment from: Brad Warbiany [Visitor] · http://unrepentantindividual.com/
That's a very Randian way to explain it, Neal...
PermalinkPermalink 06-23-2006 @ 20:44
Comment from: carlos [Member] Email
"That's a very Randian way to explain it"

oh, you mean his first love, er, value.
PermalinkPermalink 06-24-2006 @ 00:43
Comment from: Justin [Member]
I can't argue with its Randian roots. However, does that make it wrong? I don't see love as some objective truth, but I've yet to find an application where "value" doesn't work as a substitute for "love." In other words, substitution of value for love provides a means to process statements about love - make sense of them (or show that they are nonsense).
PermalinkPermalink 06-24-2006 @ 08:08
Comment from: Brad Warbiany [Visitor] · http://unrepentantindividual.com/
Don't get me wrong, Neal... I agree with the sentiment. The idea of love as value is probably the best description I've seen. I'm just saying, give credit where credit is due :-)
PermalinkPermalink 06-24-2006 @ 22:55
Comment from: Thomas [Visitor]
We, as a culture, are still extremely reliant on the word and its diversity. When you use the word "value" (in place of love), it somehow degrades the meaning. That being said, I can give no better explanation of the meaning of 'love' than you.
PermalinkPermalink 06-25-2006 @ 10:55
Comment from: Justin [Member]
It certainly takes a lot of the mystery out of the word. I wouldn't say it degrades the meaning so much as simplifies it.

However, love can clearly be stronger for some things over others. Value, more value, and highest value don't sound poetic and you'd sound like a major dork if you used them instead of love in a sentence. That's ok, though, in my opinion - that's why we have the word love instead of only the word "value."
PermalinkPermalink 06-25-2006 @ 11:04
Comment from: Justin [Member]
"That's a very Randian way to explain it"

oh, you mean his first love, er, value.
I didn't even understand what you were saying here until just now. Harsh, Los, very harsh. I wouldn't consider myself a Randian or an Objectivist just to make that clear. The Fountainhead was an excellent book - Rand had a gift for expressing ideas that were stewing in my subconcious but had no way to come out - just like any great writer. So I'll give her that.
PermalinkPermalink 06-25-2006 @ 14:52
Comment from: carlos [Member] Email
i was just giving you a hard time.
PermalinkPermalink 06-25-2006 @ 17:00
Comment from: halve [Visitor]
interesting... hadn't thought about that before. I have always thought of love as being as unselfish as humanly possible which would be the opposite of fear.

I'll have to think over this more, interesting concept.
PermalinkPermalink 06-26-2006 @ 09:34
Comment from: Wulf [Visitor] · http://atlasblogged.com
When I was a child, my grandfather told me that if you love somebody, then you place their well-being above your own. This makes sense to me - it explains even little behaviors in a relationship, like giving all of the black jelly beans to your grandson when they are your favorite and his. (Thanks, G)

It explains patriotic love, filial love, and the reasons that romantic love can turn sour with time or betrayal. It even explains why Cameron in Ferris Beuller's Day Off thinks that his father loves the car more than he loves Cameron.

Does that return any of poetry to the concept? I don't know, but it has helped me to understand relationships over the years.
PermalinkPermalink 06-27-2006 @ 20:16

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Neal's Workshop
Misc
Search
Blog Stats
  • This blog has 229 posts and 1116 comments spanning a range from 02-08-2006 to 07-10-2008
Who's Online?
  • Guest Users: 19

powered by
b2evolution

Support these bloggers: