Thursday, May 17, 2012

A Philosophical Investigation Into Love and Hate

The following essay was written in 1995 and originally released in "The Fall of New York".

By Der Kosmonaut

Love is a peculiar emotion. Complicated and nearly impossible to describe and comprehend. Modern science and psychology are clueless on the subject. Love is something both familiar and alien at the same time. Philosophy has attempted to solve the puzzling element that seems to dictate conscious beings. Philosophy has failed to define love universally. At best, philosophers have only come up with personal interpretations limited to individual perception.


One can arrive at individual reasons why they love the things they do. I am unable to define why I love into a lump definitive reason. The origins of love are unknown. Why we love remains a mystery.

Love and objectivity are incompatible. They cancel each other. This is why science has not solved the mystery of love. For science requires astute emotional detachment. While psychology examines emotions and their motivations, it faces the grand contradiction. How can one understand emotion while being removed from it? The questions are: Is there an equation for love and if so, what is it?

Love=?


Where ever science fails, one often turns toward religious or spiritual ideas for answers. Let us take a look into the Judaic-Christian notions presented in the Bible. While love is mentioned from the first book of Genesis to last book of Revelations, the key to unlocking the mystery still doesn’t open the door to understanding. It is believed that love is divine(it comes from God). Most theologians believe that God is love. It is believed that this solves the mystery of the origins of love. Unfortunately, a simple answer is not adequate enough for my inquest. Aside from the theologian question, if God is love, then where is God from: it still fails to explain the essence of love. If God is love, why is that so? A sophomoric question, perhaps. Maybe a better question is what is the motivation of love? For the theologian God=Love. This is unsatisfactory because it fails to account for the essence of both God and Love. In essence this equation is incomplete. The riddle of the equation follows as Love=God(?)

Or maybe better:

God divided by love equals?

In the Christian belief God is represented as a trine. My answer is that at least a third element is required if not more. To be mathematically accurate instead of a question mark let us write: (God)(Love)X.

It is nearly uniformly accepted that love is strictly a condition of the human spirit. In other words, without the human element love does not exist. Insects and plants are not perceived to be able to associate with love. A human may love plants and insects but these objects cannot reciprocate love. In essence love cannot be universal.

Hate is the opposite of love. The two are polarised. If that is the case, then love and hate cannot exist without the other. It is even understood in the bible that god has both qualities attributed to its essence. So if we want to investigate the origins of love, we are resigned to do the same for hate. An equally strong and powerful emotion.

That is the theoretical investigation into love. In practice it reveals a different picture. The prevalence of faux love is the leitmotiv. Treachery and deceit in the name of love. Is that what love is? Is this the essence or creation of love? If it is, then I am critically disillusioned by the notion. The conceivability that sanctified love is also corrupt sheds an unfortunate connotation of a so-called pure entity.

Love, it appears, has become a consumable commodity. In the marketplaces of love there are many choices. One love. Free love. Platonic love. Brotherly love. Sisterly love. Passionate love, etc. Wow! Many selections to chose from. If one is not satisfied then combination orders are allowed as well.

On the other hand, who am I to determine what is faux as opposed to genuine love. Maybe perhaps the reverse is true. The negativity of love is what makes it affirmative. Being a consumer commodity, one is free to take or dispense with what one wants or needs. Possibly both or neither. It is a choice. If none of the items suit your fancy, one should shop somewhere else for an alternative. Fair enough.

I wonder if Einstein took the element of love into his theory of relativity or if possibly the element of love was integrated after his theory was widely accepted in this schema of logic. That possibility is plausible.



Labels: , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home