Defining Love

[ashleyisachild]

I'm currently attempting to come up with a definition of love. My main questions that I'm trying to answer and would like to hear others' input on are:

1. What is love?

2. How do you tell whether you're in love vs. when you're attracted to someone for less moral reasons?

What is the point of a romantic relationship?

3. Do romantic relationships necessarily involve codependence or symbiosis?

4. How does one go about having an in-depth romantic relationship without becoming codependent or symbiotic?

5. Since there's no such thing as "soulmates" or a "perfect match" or "missing piece", how does one deal with the flaws of their romantic partner while appreciating the partner's characteristics that they admire?

6. Would it be self-sacrifice to accept a partner that has such flaws?

7. If one decides on their personal values, and finds no one who matches/reflects those values, but one is still searching for a romantic partner, is it immoral to choose a partner who does not reflect all of those values?

8. Is it immoral to be afraid of never having another romantic relationship in one's life?

9. Can one decide to have romantic feelings towards someone they don't already have romantic feelings for?

10. If so, what should one base such a decision on?

11. Rand's idea of love is based on having shared values with a person. How does one identify such values in another person, aside from asking outright? (One may share many values with a potential partner, but the two have different definitions and speak slightly different languages, simply asking won't help one understand the other's values.)

I'm reluctant to accept (or maybe I just don't understand) Rand's definition of love as being a state in which one sees himself reflected in another person. I highly doubt that anyone exists in whom I will see myself completely reflected, and I highly doubt that any two intellectual, independent people exist who see themselves reflected in each other. So the problem arises of how to choose which of your values (or which aspects of yourself) must be shared by a romantic partner, and which of your chosen values can be lacking in a romantic partner.

Also, I disagree with Rand's view that love involves a need for another person. In the Playboy interview, she said "It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love". I don't believe that need is a part of love. It's true that engaging in a relationship with the proper person will improve your life, but you can still be happy without a relationship with that person. Does this need for the romantic partner have other implications for Rand's view of love and romance?

I'd love to hear any thoughts at all on these matters from anyone.

[JMeganSnow]

1. What is love?

Love is an emotional response to one's own virtues in the person of another.

2. How do you tell whether you're in love vs. when you're attracted to someone for less moral reasons?

What's an immoral reason to feel attraction? I'd have to say that it would be loving or being attracted, not to what is GOOD in someone, i.e. their virtues, but for their vices. That would be like being attracted to a man BECAUSE he beats people up and robs them. If you feel an attraction of that sort, you're not going to actually be able to love anyone, and your problem is probably psychological at that point, not simply moral.

Did you mean, perhaps, what's the difference between "liking" or "being attracted" to someone and love? The difference is a matter of degree, not an entirely different emotion. And there's no upper limit, either, no "true" or "perfect" love. So how do you tell when you love someone "enough". Well, then you need to ask, "enough for what?"

3. What is the point of a romantic relationship?

Sex.

Okay, so it isn't as simple as that. Sex and romance go hand in hand: a romantic relationship is one in which you experience both a profound emotional connection and enjoy intense physical enjoyment as well. A relationship that begins as and is intended to STAY platonic is NOT a romance.

So, the ANSWER to this question is really: what's the point of sex? What makes a sexual, i.e. a romantic, relationship important to one's life? Well, I'll refer you to Ayn Rand's writings, but essentially the intense personal joy is both spiritual nourishment and reward. Can't get better than that.

4. Do romantic relationships necessarily involve codependence or symbiosis? How does one go about having an in-depth romantic relationship without becoming codependent or symbiotic?

First off, both of these terms describe a biological relationship that is physically impossible to humans. Secondly, parasitism is not love. One cannot love unless one IS independant. So: it's not only unnecessary to be codependant or whatever, it's actually BAD.

5. Since there's no such thing as "soulmates" or a "perfect match" or "missing piece", how does one deal with the flaws of their romantic partner while appreciating the partner's characteristics that they admire?

By what evaluation do you make this statement? Just because a perfect relationship is vanishingly RARE doesn't mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE. However, neither does that mean that there IS a perfect potential relationship just waiting out there for everyone. "Dealing with" certain of one's parter's flaws simply takes honesty: you have to be honest about the severity of the flaw, how much it affects you, and you have to be honest with your partner about the fact that you don't like it, and, in some cases, that you aren't willing to make accomodation for it, only to not fight about it.

Any flaw that would force you to compromise on principle would be unacceptable.

6. Would it be self-sacrifice to accept a partner that has such flaws?

Only if having the relationship is honestly worse than NOT having it, or you're giving up another relationship that you would prefer.

7. If one decides on their personal values, and finds no one who matches/reflects those values, but one is still searching for a romantic partner, is it immoral to choose a partner who does not reflect all of those values?

That would be the same thing as choosing a partner that has SOME flaws. No, it's not immoral, because it CAN add greatly to your life to have a partner that isn't perfect (as opposed to having NO partner).

8. Is it immoral to be afraid of never having another romantic relationship in one's life?

Is it immoral to be afraid of never getting another job? I think said anxiety is misplaced, but understandable; emotional responses aren't moral/immoral, they are automatic evaluations. If one has an improper/undesired emotional response, it's a psychological issue, not a moral one.

So, to figure out the MORAL implications of said fear, you need to ask: Is the fear misplaced, or based on reality? Am I acting all out of proportion to it? Have I acted to improve my chances of the fear not becoming reality? Those are the moral questions. Experiencing an emotion is not moral/immoral, what IS moral or immoral is what you DO about it.

9. Can one decide to have romantic feelings towards someone they don't already have romantic feelings for?

Um . . . the answer to this is both yes and no.

Emotions are automatic. However, they are also automatizations of evaluations you make by choice. So, if you change your fundamental evaluation, your emotion will necessarily change. However, if you DON'T change your fundamental evaluation, no power on earth will enable you to change the nature of your emotional response. So, you CAN choose what you will feel . . . but not directly . . . and changing some kinds of evaluations is self-destructive. I.e. changing your evaluation that someone torturing you for fun is bad in order to have a relationship with a sadist is not in your self-interest at all.

10. If so, what should one base such a decision on?

Reason.

11. Rand's idea of love is based on having shared values with a person. How does one identify such values in another person, aside from asking outright? (One may share many values with a potential partner, but the two have different definitions and speak slightly different languages, simply asking won't help one understand the other's values.)

You can generally observe people enacting their virtues and acting to gain values. So you just have to pay attention.

12. . . . So the problem arises of how to choose which of your values (or which aspects of yourself) must be shared by a romantic partner, and which of your chosen values can be lacking in a romantic partner.

By developing a rational hierarchy for your own values. Once you know what you value and to what degree, knowing what is most important to you in another is a snap.

13. "It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love". I don't believe that need is a part of love. It's true that engaging in a relationship with the proper person will improve your life, but you can still be happy without a relationship with that person. Does this need for the romantic partner have other implications for Rand's view of love and romance?

If you are as happy without a specific relationship as you are WITH it, then why on earth have that relationship? Relationships take work! You'd be putting out effort to get nothing, which is self-sacrificial.

You're ignoring the context in which she said "need". It is not, say, for your survival that you need your partner, it is for the happiness that they add to your life. "Need" includes "needed for what". Needing someone for a specific purpose (for the happiness that they bring you) is not the same as being a sucking parasite.

*A "perfect" love and a "perfect" relationship are two different things, before anyone says that I contradicted myself. A "perfect" relationship would be one without any conflicts . . . i.e. your partner matches what you want EXACTLY and you match what they want EXACTLY. A "perfect" love, on the other hand, would be the maximum possible love, and since I don't think there is a MAXIMUM, no such thing can exist.

[ashleyisachild]

Thanks for all your answers/input. They're very constructive. I have a few questions on stuff you said, though.

What's an immoral reason to feel attraction?

I meant being attracted to someone because of their looks, or because they're good in bed, or because other people love them, etc.

So how do you tell when you love someone "enough". Well, then you need to ask, "enough for what?"

What do you mean? My question now indeed is "how do you tell when you love someone enough...enough to get sexually involved with them?" This is what I'm not sure about.

First off, both of these terms [codependent, symbiotic] describe a biological relationship that is physically impossible to humans.

I know; I was using both in a metaphorical sense.

Secondly, parasitism is not love. One cannot love unless one IS independant. So: it's not only unnecessary to be codependant or whatever, it's actually BAD.

I know that's bad. My question was how to conduct an in-depth romantic relationship with someone without becoming dependent or reliant on the other person for various things. Many people lose self-control and independence when they're heavily involved in a relationship, and I have done this in the past, and I'm trying to figure out how to avoid that.

"Dealing with" certain of one's parter's flaws simply takes honesty: you have to be honest about the severity of the flaw, how much it affects you, and you have to be honest with your partner about the fact that you don't like it, and, in some cases, that you aren't willing to make accomodation for it, only to not fight about it.

Ah, this is indeed helpful.

My next question would be, what if my partner's flaws affect me too much? Or, how should I decide whether or not it's worth it to suck it up and deal with flaws or just break up with them?

Any flaw that would force you to compromise on principle would be unacceptable.

I'm not sure I understand. What sort of flaw do you mean?

Only if having the relationship is honestly worse than NOT having it, or you're giving up another relationship that you would prefer.

Good point.

[Prometheus98876]

1. What is love?

Love is an emotional response to one's own virtues in the person of another.

....

I agree with Jennifer here, and could hardly say it much better myself. However I would like to give a slightly reworded definition of love that I think is more comprehensive (although your definition is good too Jennifer).

Love is the emontional recoginition of the fact that you respect anothers identity and share a significant number of their values.

[FaSheezy]

What do you mean? My question now indeed is "how do you tell when you love someone enough...enough to get sexually involved with them?" This is what I'm not sure about.

That is more of a specifically personal question. You have to decide that for yourself. When you love someone you will naturally want to express that love physically. Depending on how much you love them will determine in what ways you choose to physically represent this.

I know that's bad. My question was how to conduct an in-depth romantic relationship with someone without becoming dependent or reliant on the other person for various things. Many people lose self-control and independence when they're heavily involved in a relationship, and I have done this in the past, and I'm trying to figure out how to avoid that.

The only way not to lose self-control is to control yourself. I don't really understand your question. If you mean dependant like, I depend on my boyfriend to take out the trash on Friday, that doesn't make me co-dependent. If I depend on my boyfriend to pay my bills and give me inspiration for my work, then I am. Don't drop context.

My next question would be, what if my partner's flaws affect me too much? Or, how should I decide whether or not it's worth it to suck it up and deal with flaws or just break up with them?

This is also a specifically personal question. First you must define the thing which bothers you and then tell if it is something they do because of a moral breach, or just an idiosyncrasy. People are different, and you need to know what you will put up with. Usually, if something about a person bothers you to such an extent that you can't enjoy their virtues, I would say that's grounds for a break-up, but you better be sure why something bothers you if it does.

I'm not sure I understand. What sort of flaw do you mean?

A flaw that would lead to a moral compromise.... hmmm.....

Say you are in a relationship with a guy who is very defensive. He listens to your constructive criticisms but often he becomes too guarded and chooses to rationalize away your opinion. It goes to such a point where whenever you disagree with any action he takes it begins a huge fight, and the only way to stop it is to withhold your moral judgement and say you agree. --Moral compromise--

[BurgessLau]

I'm currently attempting to come up with a definition of love. [...]

1. What is love? [...]

Ashley, I have a number of preliminary questions. First, what resources have you examined when considering Ayn Rand's concept of love? Have you examined the four pages of excerpts under "Love" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon?

11. Rand's idea of love is based on having shared values with a person. [...]

That is my understanding, that is, if you are speaking of romantic love.

When you speak of "values," are you referring to philosophical values or the personal values peculiar to a particular person? Or both?

I'm reluctant to accept (or maybe I just don't understand) Rand's definition of love as being a state in which one sees himself reflected in another person. [...]

Where did Ayn Rand define love as being a state (of mind, presumably)? Can you cite a source for that? (Just to be sure: Do you understand the difference between a definition and a description?)

Also, I disagree with Rand's view that love involves a need for another person. In the Playboy interview, she said "It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love". I don't believe that need is a part of love. [...]

I suggest you have misinterpreted what Ayn Rand says there. She is not defining or even merely characterizing love as a need. She is saying that if one wants A, and if B is a means to A, then one needs B. The "need" here is instrumental. For example, if I want to be happy, then I need health. That doesn't mean I am "needy" or dependent. It means the one is a means to the other. As another example, I need the work that is the central purpose of my life in order to be happy. That does not mean I am psychologically dependent.

A side issue is this: Can one be happy without romantic love? My answer is: Yes! However, if the question is, can one be the happiest one can possibly be without having romantic love at some time in one's life, then I would say: No! There are degrees of happiness. The level of one's happiness depends on the degree to which one has achieved one's values. And one might not achieve all of one's values with the same superlative level of accomplishment.

My last point is compound. You say "love," but you seem to focus only on one form of love, romantic love. Are you sure you understand Ayn Rand's concept of love, first? Have you carefully studied her formal definition of love, in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 34-35, 214, and 228-229? She not only formally defines the concept, but shows how she formed it.

Edited October 5, 2005 by BurgessLau

[dondigitalia]

I meant being attracted to someone because of their looks, or because they're good in bed, or because other people love them, etc.

Why aren't these things good reasons to be attracted to someone?

I think two out of the three are perfectly valid reasons to be attracted to someone. In the case of being attracted because someone is good in bed, though, the attraction should really be an amplification of the attraction one already felt before sleeping with them.

[JMeganSnow]

Actually, Dave, I think all three are potentially good reasons, provided said others love this person for rational reasons.

[dondigitalia]

Actually, Dave, I think all three are potentially good reasons, provided said others love this person for rational reasons.

Touche, Dragon Lady.

[Saraswathi]

Actually, Dave, I think all three are potentially good reasons, provided said others love this person for rational reasons.

I think it is a valid reason to love someone because other rational people love them.

The fact that rational people apprectiate this person may draw our attention to him/her,but to actually love someone one must finally use one's own judgement.

[dondigitalia]

I see what you mean, but I think it's a little more accurate to say that you love (or are attracted to) a person for the same reasons as the rational individuals who also love them, rather than saying you love them because those other people love them.

[Saraswathi]

I see what you mean, but I think it's a little more accurate to say that you love (or are attracted to) a person for the same reasons as the rational individuals who also love them, rather than saying you love them because those other people love them.

Exactly