Undoubtedly in this way also are to be understood those passages of Scripture which command us to love our neighbor and even our enemy. For love as an inclination cannot be commanded; but beneficence from duty, when no inclination impels us and eve when a natural and unconquerable aversion opposes such beneficence, is practical, and not pathological, love. Such love resides in the will and not in the propensities of feeling, in principles of action and not in tender sympathy; and only this practical love can be commanded.Sometimes we understand love as a thing that happens to us, as something against which we are passive--"love-struck," for example, seems to say that love is the one doing the striking! On other occasions, we understand love to be something which we choose to do or not to do--and, I would argue, it is this love which is Kant's "practical love." This "beneficence" which Kant describes, it is showing love independently of feeling "love"--independently of the sensations which we associate with "being in love" with someone, or, in other areas of life besides romantic relationships, simply "loving" someone... I would argue that "love" when acted out could have its own word in our language, in order to differentiate it from "love" that is felt--that is, distinguishing the "active" love from the "passive" love, if you will.
p. 12
Even during a time in which we do not feel the emotions associated with "being loving," we are capable of performing actions that can be described as "loving" actions--taking care of someone who is ill and unable to take care of themselves, for example. But, if we do not perform those actions "lovingly," that is, in a loving manner--which is to say, with the qualities associated with being loving--then can those actions themselves still be called "loving"?
"Love" is not real if it is forced; that is to say, someone who forces themselves to say "I love you" to a disliked relative, for example, cannot be said to truly love that relative. Moreover, the feelings of love cannot simply be willed into existence... Because then, by that point, those feelings are a conscious choice, and even if the person wants to be/have those attributes, and so conjures them up and displays them with little resistance, that does not change the fact that, at one point, beginning to love a given individual, thing, etc., was something that the person decided to do.
So, there is being in love, or loving, of the sort which is out of one's control, and there is being loving, which is, ultimately, a conscious choice... At least, that is the statement which I am tempted to make, but in all honestly, I am still struggling to figure out exactly how to word this entire idea/set of ideas in order to convey effectively what I am thinking of--in fact, I'm still in the process of figuring out what it is, exactly, that I am trying to say, what ultimate points I am trying to address via this discussion!
The excerpt you used means to me that love cannot be forced just because it sounds good or seems like the right thing to say to someone. It has to have action behind it. For example, in order for you to say you love your significant other you have to act upon it. This can be correlated to what Kant would say is duty. This could be being there when they are going through a tough time or supporting them at their events. You cannot just say you love someone without in a sense proving this love. This action has to be authentic also. You cannot just buy someone flowers or a new car so they can love you. It has to be sincere and coming from good intentions. Also it cannot be because of pity or sympathy. That goes against the sincerity of your action. When you are sympathizing for someone, that is the cause of why you try to show them you love them rather than showing them you love then because of who they are. This I think happens in a lot of families when someone gets sick. Everyone knows of those family members that only comes around when something bad or good is happening and any other time in between that they are never around. This to me is not love. It is conditional which in my opinion is not real love.
ReplyDeleteI feel the last statement, “Such love resides in the will and not in the propensities of feeling, in principles of action and not in tender sympathy; and only this practical love can be commanded.” (Kant 12), emphasizes the notion of love being an action verb and must be proven. As mentioned in class, a will is what motivates our actions. As has already been stated, love is more than just claiming to do so but must be proven through one’s action. Kant seems to insinuate that only practical love—one that is done according to our will—can be commanded. In relation to the scripture advising us to love our neighbors and enemies, I can see how this can be a practical love because believers are motivated by Jesus’s teachings to act and treat neighbors and enemies with love and kindness. Moreover, Kant begins by stating that love as an inclination cannot be commanded, and I believe love as an inclination is love derived from one’s natural tendency or urge to feel a certain way. Therefore, if it is natural, it can’t be commanded or helped because one will feel that way no matter what. An example of love as an inclination is possibly a mother’s love for her child. After carrying a child for months, in some cases, a mother will likely feel compelled to love her child in a nurturing way by taking care of her child and spending time with him or her.
ReplyDeleteYour idea to believe that the action aspect of love deserves it's own definition is understandable, but I believe that everyone already knows the difference between showing love and feeling love. I do agree with you however that forced loved isn't real love, but also just cause you have to force yourself to tell your sibling your mad at you love them doesn't mean you don't truly love them. As a Christian I was taught that love was something we should do to be more like Christ who loves unconditionally, so that is where I believe we sometimes feel as if we have to make ourselves love someone or show love to them. Yet we also fall in love with people everyday off of actions that we feel they do to show us love. So in all I understand your idea, but I feel as if we as human race as we grow older we already learn to differentiate between the two.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very good post on a tricky subject! Being loving can be seen every single day though nurses that help the sick or elderly and teachers helping their students. However, the idea of being in love is completely different in my opinion. Making a choice to do something loving towards someone isn't necessarily being in love. However, when you are in love, I believe in your heart you are going to do loving things not as a choice, but because it comes naturally. Love is a tricky subject, but being in love and doing something that is considered loving are two different things.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite quotes is 'All is fair in Love and War.' So I might he biasing or co struing everything comparing love to war. Anyway I enjoyed the post, but can't help but think of there might also be a distinction between love and attraction. In the context of being in love I think that might be a combination of both attraction and an intentional effort by the individual to accept the flaws in another individual. No one's perfect, but at least we can all try our best.
ReplyDelete