Understanding Love
Love is a many splendored thing. Or is it? Depends on what your definition of "definition" is.
Love is one of the most sought, and most talked about, of the humans values. It is attributed to people and pizzas, ideas and sensations, and throughout history defined and redefined until many people have such an all-inclusive definition that they call it ineffable, or beyond mere words. As such it follows that their decisions about their loves are indistinct, the product of an inconsitent and often outright contrary set of beliefs about the very thing they want most from life. The opposite of this deluge of unchecked premises is a nice concise definition.
Love is: the highest possible evaluation. It is subjective. Love is the +1 on a scale, with the other end hate being -1, and indifference is the null middle zero. Hate<dislike<indifference<like<love. -1<dislike<0<like<+1.
Insomuch as it is measured solely as a comparative scalar in any one volition, it is objectively a conceptual absolute - there can by definition be no evaluation higher. That a yardstick can be said to be "objectively 36" long" is true, because anything called a yard divided into 36 units will conform to the definition of "36 inches long". That's how constructed abstractions (concepts about concepts) can be considered "objective". It doesn't matter whether the sticks are the right length, or that I lack depth perception and accidentally poke you with one - what matters is that a definition is a definition, A is A. We routinely say "gas is $5/gal". Some opine that means gas is objectively valued at $5. No, it only means that the yardstick you are using to measure is abstractly valid in definition. Whatever you think a dollar "is worth", two are "worth twice as much", by definition. By deriving from the axiomatic, we retain an unbroken chain of binary conceptual differentiations (B=!A), and thus derive an objective abstraction, because axiomatic concepts properly identified are not subjective. An abstract concept that, barring some new evidence that breaks the chain, conforms to reality 100%. Call it a "perfect" abstraction, if you want people to get really mad.
That's one of two aspects of "value" that can be called "objective": on the scale of like vs dislike, the two definitive extremes are love and hate. This definition is both rigorous and robust.
Love is: the highest possible evaluation. It is subjective. Understanding this gives us our second objective aspect of value: outcome. Causality is a natural law. Choices have consequences. Rand correctly deduce an objective standard of morality: Man's Life. Whose standard? Mine. And by what objective standard will you measure your intriniscally subjective interpretations? Reality. The Natural Law of Causality. That is: the objective standard of the "rightness" of a choice is the outcome in reality. That is: The only proper "love" is the one that is factually good for you. Outcomes that are negative, or more obviously fatal, intrinsically define the choice as "bad" by the standard of the organism's survival. Life is the engine of choice. Inanimate matter doesn't appear to possess volition. To die is to negate choice. Rand posited this is an axiomatic refutation of subjectivist ethics, and failed to wrap up some loose ends.
Rational objective love is the non-contradictory evaluation of the superlative outcomes of interacting with an existent in reality. Evaluation applies to all existents in reality with which you come in contact. It is automatic, but not infallible. The moral burden of correct evaluation - you must know what you love, and why you love it, before you can expect any prediction matrix to conform to real world outcomes.
Failure to do so is the cause of all evil in the world, as we shall see.
- NS
- Non_Serviam's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 37 reads
****