Thomas Jay Oord - Free Will is an Experiential Nonnegotiable

9 Reasons to Affirm Free Will

Free Will is an Experiential Nonnegotiable

post link here

by Thomas Oord

March 22nd, 2020

There are strong reasons to believe humans have genuine but limited free will. I believe this, in part, because I experience freedom every day.

In a previous post (click here), I listed 9 reasons it makes sense to affirm that humans have genuine but limited free will. In this post, I address perhaps the most powerful reason: freedom as an experiential nonnegotiable.

Our Freedom is Always Limited

Some people think “freedom” means “the ability to do anything.” So they reject the view. Few if any scholars who affirm free will believe this, however.

Human freedom is always limited. It’s constrained, conditioned, or framed by many sources, both internal and external to the actor. But all humans act as if they are free, even if some deny this verbally.

To be free is to choose, in a particular moment, among a limited number of relevant options. We freely choose as a source or cause of our actions. Free creatures could have chosen something other than what they chose; they could have done otherwise.[1]

I don’t know with certainty that all humans have limited but genuine free will. Absolute certainty about such matters is illusory. Certainty is rare!

But I’m more confident about my freedom than I am about descriptions of humans or even of existence. I’m confident about about free will, because I experience it personally. And I presuppose its veracity in the way I live my life.

We Should Start with the Data We Know Best

We often make mistakes and don’t know much if anything with certainty. So we should have some method in our attempts to make sense of life.

The philosopher Roderick Chisholm recommends what he calls “epistemological particularism.”[2] This method privileges experiences we know best when trying to makes sense of life. It begins with ideas that seem most obvious.

Amazon Link

Epistemological particularism doesn’t claim we can be certain descriptions of our experience are 100% accurate. But we can be more confident in first-person data — especially data inevitably expressed in our living — than data we know from a third-person perspective.

This method should lead us to affirm the reality of human freedom. Of course, some people interpret studies in neuroscience (and other sciences) as indicating humans are not free. For several reasons, I think such interpretations mistaken. But my first step in addressing claims about determinism is to argue we should feel more confident of the truthfulness of first-person data – our inescapable personal experiences – than the data of neuroscience. Scientists obtain neuroscience data through third-person perspectives.

I’m not rejecting neuroscience as a discipline. In my view, neuroscientists should pursue their research with passion. The discipline has generated helpful insights, and I have friends contributing in this field. But we must avoid conclusions the data does not and, I think, could not in principle support. For an accessible philosophical defense of freewill in light of neuroscience research, see Alfred Mele’s work.[3] 

Is Free Will Just Common Sense?

Some call those beliefs that are self-evidently true and inevitably expressed in our actions “common sense.” Philosophers such as Thomas Reid, GE Moore, and Alfred North Whitehead argued for commonsense ideas.[4] In terms of freedom, common sense says we all act freely — at least sometimes.

We use “common sense” to describe ideas that are not inevitably expressed in our lives, however. To some people, for instance, it’s common sense black men should not marry white women. Others think it’s common sense that the New England Patriots are the greatest football team. Some think common sense tells us God controls our lives. Because these ideas are not truly common nor expressed inevitably in our actions, the phrase “common sense” can be misleading and then dismissed as unhelpful or dangerous.

David Ray Griffin distinguishes between ideas some call common sense and what he calls “hard-core” and soft-core commonsense ideas.[5] We inevitably presuppose hard-core commonsense ideas in our practice. We don’t inevitably presuppose soft-core commonsense ideas. Soft-core commonsense ideas might include the (wrong) belief that black men and white women shouldn’t marry, the (debatable) belief that New England has the best football team, or the (arguably harmful) belief that God controls creation.

We can deny soft-core commonsense ideas and still live consistently. Hard-core commonsense ideas cannot consistently be denied in our practice.

Free Will is an Experiential Nonnegotiable

I’ve come to call the ideas that we inescapably live out “experiential nonnegotiables.” We must accept the truth of experiential nonnegotiables if we want to speak adequately about the way the world works.

We contradict ourselves if we say we act one way and then act differently. We commit what Jürgen Habermas calls “performative contradictions:” our performance in life contradicts our statements about what life is like.[6]

In terms of freedom, we contradict ourselves if we claim we are not free and then live as if we act freely. Our words don’t match our actions; we are experiential hypocrites. At least for most humans if not all, genuine but limited freedom is an experiential nonnegotiable.

I could list other experiential nonnegotiables (e.g., there is a world external to myself). Myy point for this essay is the inevitable experience of freedom in our lives provides strong justification to think humans have genuine but limited freedom.

We contradict ourselves if we claim we're not free and then live as if we act freely. We are experiential hypocrites.

NOTES:

[1] For similar understandings of freedom, see Laura W. Ekstrom, “Free Will is Not a Mystery,” in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed., Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 366-380; William Hasker, “Divine Knowledge and Human Freedom,” The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed., Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 40-56; Timothy, O’Connor, “Agent-Causal Theories of Freedom,” in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed., Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 309-328 and “The Agent as Cause” Free Will, Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002); Kevin Timpe, Free Will: Sourcehood and its Alternatives, 2nd ed. (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013).

[2] Roderick M. Chisholm, The Problem of the Criterion (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1973).

[3] Alfred Mele, Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will (Oxford University Press, 2014).

[4] For a brief overview of commonsense philosophy, see “Philosophy of Common Sense,” New World Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Philosophy_of_Common_Sense

[5] David Ray Griffin, Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998), 34, 210.

[6] Jürgen Habermas, “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification,” in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. C. Lenhardt and S.W. Nicholsen (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990).

Thomas Jay Oord - Many biblical scholars and theologians fail to affirm the priority of love

amazon link

Obstacles to Putting Love First

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord

April 13th, 2022

Many biblical scholars and theologians

fail to affirm the priority of love.

In this essay, I focus on the final of five reasons why many fail to make love a priority. I’ll simply list the first four before addressing the fifth. Get a copy of Pluriform Love to read the explanations I give to the first four:

1. Love is sometimes equated with sex/romance, self-indulgence, sentimentality, or extreme tolerance.

2. Biblical writers are sometimes unclear about love’s meaning.

3. Biblical writers sometimes portray God as unloving.

4. The Bible has no precise definition of love.

We Need a Definition of Love

The final reason many theologians and biblical scholars fail to affirm the priority of love arises from confusion over what we mean by love. This confusion emerges from a failure to clarify terms. I put it this way…

5. Theologians often fail to define love well.

Most theologians do not define love. Even those who focus on love rarely clarify what they mean. This practice is especially odd, because most theologians know love has diverse and often confusing meanings. There’s a dearth of explicit definitions.

The few theologians who do define love often fail to use their definitions consistently. They’ll say we ought to love the world, for instance, which sounds like we should treat creation well. In the next breath, they’ll say we shouldn’t love the world but should love God instead. Others say God causes or permits evil but also claim God loves everyone. The harmed and hurting doubt this. Theologians will say suffering is a necessary part of love, but they’ll claim heaven is a loving place without suffering. Others say God loves everyone, but God does not love the wicked. Some say God loves us like a friend and then say friendship with God is impossible. Or theologians will say love isn’t about feelings, but then urge us to feel compassion for the needy. Some claim humans are incapable of love but criticize them for being unloving.

Theological claims about love often make no sense!

So… theologians need to define love well. And then employ their definitions consistently. Of course, definitions cannot capture everything that’s true. Just as we will probably never grasp the full meaning of God, we will never grasp the full meaning of love. Words cannot provide all-encompassing explanations.

Despite imprecision and failure to be comprehensive, however, words are meaningful. They can partially describe reality. Words also move us to act, feel, think, and live in particular ways. We often need them to, as the Apostle Peter put it, “make a defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in [us]” (1 Pet. 3:15). If we thought words useless, we would stop using them altogether. And yet we persist.[1]

Because I think theologies of love should offer clear definitions of love, I devote a whole chapter to defining love and explaining what I mean.

I define love as acting intentionally, in relational response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.

Later chapters in Pluriform Love explore the details and implications of my definition in light of key theologians, doctrines, and intuitions. I aim to put love first in my theology, because I think it’s first in scripture and should come first in everyday living.

- TJO

[1] For accessible accounts of the primacy of love, see Jim Burklo, Tenderly Calling (Haworth, N.J.: St. Johann, 2021); Jared Byas, Love Matters More (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2020); Jason Clark, Prone to Love (Shippensburg, Penn.: Destiny Image, 2014); Jonathan Foster, Reconstructionist (Glen Oak, Ca.: Quoir, 2021); Daniel K. Held, Love’s Resurrection (Springfield, Oh.: Higher Ground, 2013); Jacqui Lewis, Fierce Love (London: Harmony, 2021); Andrew Lightbown and Nick Fane, ReDiscovering Charity (Buckingham: UBP, 2009); Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2010); Chuck Queen, A Faith Worth Living (Eugene, Or.: Wipf and Stock, 2011); Niq Ruud, Only Love (Glen Oak, Ca.: Quoir, 2021).

Carl Glen Henshaw - Simple Acts of Kindness

Simple Acts of Kindness

by Carl Glen Henshaw

The worst college class I ever took was a literature class on short stories. One notable memory from that class was a story we read about a group of kids who conspire to destroy the house of an old man. They befriended the man so they could get into the house, and while there slowly cut through the beams holding the walls up. They did this for weeks and weeks; when they were done, they ran a cable around the house, got the man into the yard, and pulled it down with him watching.

The instructor asked us to write a piece on the story with the topic of “creative destruction”.

At the time, this struck me as deeply wrong, and I refused to write the report the way the instructor wanted and got marked down as a result, which is representative of my entire undergraduate experience. But I didn’t have the wisdom or skill to really say *why* it was wrong.

Now I do.

Shortly after 9/11, Stephen Jay Gould wrote a column about the day drawing on his background as a biologist who studied complex systems. Complex systems tend to be interconnected and somewhat fragile. In order for a complex system to function, nearly all of the parts have to do their jobs. If the system suffers a significant injury, all of its parts have to work in unison to knit it back together.

Society, Gould said, is a complex system, and had just suffered a significant injury. Offsetting this injury took the collective efforts of many. Gould wrote:

“Good and kind people outnumber all others by thousands to one. The tragedy of human history lies in the enormous potential for destruction in rare acts of evil, not in the high frequency of evil people. Complex systems can only be built step by step, whereas destruction requires but an instant. Thus, in what I like to call the Great Asymmetry, every spectacular incident of evil will be balanced by 10,000 acts of kindness, too often unnoted and invisible as the ''ordinary'' efforts of a vast majority. We have a duty, almost a holy responsibility, to record and honor the victorious weight of these innumerable little kindnesses, when an unprecedented act of evil so threatens to distort our perception of ordinary human behavior...

I will cite but one tiny story, among so many, to add to the count that will overwhelm the power of any terrorist's act. And by such tales, multiplied many millionfold, let those few depraved people finally understand why their vision of inspired fear cannot prevail over ordinary decency. As we left a local restaurant to make a delivery to ground zero late one evening, the cook gave us a shopping bag and said: ''Here's a dozen apple brown bettys, our best dessert, still warm. Please give them to the rescue workers.'' How lovely, I thought, but how meaningless, except as an act of solidarity, connecting the cook to the cleanup. Still, we promised that we would make the distribution, and we put the bag of 12 apple brown bettys atop several thousand face masks and shoe pads.

Twelve apple brown bettys into the breach. Twelve apple brown bettys for thousands of workers. And then I learned something important that I should never have forgotten -- and the joke turned on me. Those 12 apple brown bettys went like literal hot cakes. These trivial symbols in my initial judgment turned into little drops of gold within a rainstorm of similar offerings for the stomach and soul, from children's postcards to cheers by the roadside. We gave the last one to a firefighter, an older man in a young crowd, sitting alone in utter exhaustion as he inserted one of our shoe pads. And he said, with a twinkle and a smile restored to his face: ''Thank you. This is the most lovely thing I've seen in four days -- and still warm!''”

---

I also study complex systems. Unlike Gould, my systems aren’t natural; they’re engineered. But my experience mirrors Gould’s. Engineered systems are even more fragile than natural ones. Every piece has a part to play.

Gould’s point, and mine, is that we do not counteract immense acts of evil through immense acts of good. We counter them through hundreds, thousands, millions of small acts. Bringing someone grieving a hot dinner. Comforting a child. Helping someone change a flat. Planting a garden and giving away the produce.

Those of us who try to follow Jesus of Nazareth should understand this, although too often we act like we don’t. Goodness doesn’t lie in enormous sacrifices (although those do occur). It lies in the small things, in how you live your everyday life.

Because this is not rare, it is often thought of as banal. But it isn’t. Destruction, evil, no matter how grand the scale, no matter how carefully planned, is not creative. It cannot be. Destruction is the ground state of the universe. Entropy gets everything in the end. No matter how it is carried out, it is evil that is banal. All evil does is speed up what the universe will do sooner or later anyway.

It is quiet acts of goodness and kindness that are transgressive, revolutionary. It is loving your neighbor as yourself, it is visiting the sick, tending to the injured, being a peacemaker, showing your love of God through seeing His image in the countenance of the guy in front of you in the grocery store, or the immigrant the next street over, or the screaming toddler kicking your seat on the airplane.

We often mark 9/11 by tipping our caps to the first responders, to the kids who signed up at the Marine recruiting office and went off to fight terrorism overseas, to the passengers who fought back. And this isn’t wrong, but it’s far from complete. We must also remember every kind act, every apple brown betty baked and given away, every hug, every phone call checking in on loved ones — and every one of the million, billion, trillion caring acts since. Because it is those acts that build and rebuild society, that fight against the dying of the light. So when you think about how to best commemorate the day, consider:

The act most alien to evil is kindness.

- Carl Glen Henshaw

* * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * *

“In the Resurrection, the power of Love overcomes all evil."
Easter Letter of the Minister General, 2017

The Power of Love Overcomes All Evil

https://ofm.org/blog/easter-letter-2017/

Posted at April 15, 2017 in

Featured, Letters, Letters & Homilies,

Minister General, News

“If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him” (Rom 6: 8-9)

My dear Brothers and friends,

Alleluia! In our Easter commemoration, we celebrate the events of the life, suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Like the faithful women who stood by Jesus in death and who were the first witnesses to the resurrection, we too recognize in these paschal events the dawning of a new hope for the life of the world, a world torn apart by divisions and conflicts, a world God has chosen to love unconditionally (Jn 3:16). In the resurrection, the power of love overcomes all evil.

We stand as believers and followers of Jesus giving witness to an alternative vision of life, an alternative way of living in this world, guided by the Spirit of God. We recall that it is this same Spirit of God who is present at the moment of the creation of the world. This same Spirit is present in the events of the annunciation of the birth of the Messiah to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. It is the Spirit who accompanies Jesus throughout his life on earth, inspiring his preaching and teaching, his simple acts of kindness and love. It is the Spirit who accompanies Jesus along the road to Golgotha, witnessing Jesus’ suffering and humiliating death on the cross. It is the Spirit of God who remains with Jesus through death and burial, demonstrating unwavering love for the only beloved Son who gives his live in love in order that the world might be reconciled to itself and to God. And it is the Spirit who raises the Son to life anew (Rom 8:11).

This Holy Spirit who was present in every moment in the life of Jesus, from life to death and to new life, is also present in our world today. The resurrection is the definitive sign of God’s fidelity to the Son, to each of us, and to all of creation. We have need of this message today more than ever: God loves us, is walking with us, healing our wounds, calling us to live reconciled lives with all people, called to be messengers of love, mercy, and peace.

The Spirit of God who raised Jesus from the dead continues to carry on the work of the Father and the Son, reminding us that divisions, violence, hatred, destruction, and death do not have the final word; they are not the victors. In the resurrection of Jesus, we receive the final confirmation that love and only love is the final victor, and the ultimate vocation to which we are called. I witnessed this in the lives of our brothers and sisters living in Damascus, Aleppo, and Latakia in Syria these past days. In the midst of death and destruction on a cataclysmic scale, the Christians of Syria who have lost loved ones, homes, and livelihood refuse to submit to the temptation of abandoning God, their faith, and their commitment to pursue a path towards reconciliation and reconstruction. They stand with Mary Magdalene before the empty tomb; they search for meaning in the total absence of all that might seem rational and human; they run to the community of faith where they share stories of discouragement and despair, hope and love, and where in the Eucharist they discover, as did the disciples of Emmaus, the presence of the risen Lord Jesus who never abandons them, never abandons those who have been called into relationship with Him.

My dear brothers and friends, let us take to heart the words from the Sequence, Victim paschali laudes:

“Christians, to the Pascal Victim offer sacrifice and praise. The sheep are ransomed by the Lamb and Christ the undefiled, hath sinners to his Father reconciled. Death with life contended: combat strangely ended! Life’s own Champion, slain, yet lives to reign. Tell us Mary: say what thou didst see upon the way. The tomb the Living did enclose; I saw Christ’s glory as he rose! The angels there attesting; shroud with grave-clothes resting. Christ, my hope, has risen: he goes before you in Galilee. That Christ is truly risen from the dead we know. Victorious king, thy mercy show! Amen! Alleluia!”

He is truly risen! His love and mercy are victorious!

A blessed and joy-filled Easter to all!

Fraternally,

Bro. Michael A. Perry, OFM

Minister General and Servant

Rome, 15 April 2017

Vigil of Easter

Love and Time Explored Through Prose, Video, and Poem

Love in Pictures

Love pictures our lives placed like mirrors facing each other in timeless, or endless, reflection played as unending symphonies expressing being. A being that is innumerably, relentlessly, persistently expressed against all else which would undo its hold.

Love's melody plays in the background of our lives. It's tempo threads throughout our identity, relationships, existence. It confounds the human breast unsure its truth but driven by its madness.

Within its mystery comes the crescendos and decrecendos of our lives. It persists, can destroy, wreck, or ruin us till in weakness we turn to its destructive force to rebuild, restore, absolve, and become.

In our becoming, love lives best even as it rends all else apart until a balance is found restoring our lives back to the sublime symphonies we bear heard upon the winds of creation and within our very hearts beating its mystery.

In both the pauses, and the sustained chords, love finds recreation - as it must - until all comes to rest within the bosom of its melodious nocturne.

R.E. Slater

September 13, 2017

Spiegel im Spiegel (Mirror in the Mirror)

for Cello and Piano (Arvo Pärt)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZe3mXlnfNc&sns=em

Wikipedia

Spiegel im Spiegel ('Mirror in the Mirror') is a piece of music written by Arvo Pärt in 1978, just before his departure from Estonia. The piece is in the tintinnabular style of composition, wherein a melodic voice, operating over diatonic scales, and tintinnabular voice, operating within a triad on the tonic, accompany each other. It is about ten minutes long.

The piece was originally written for a single piano and violin – though the violin has often been replaced with either a cello or a viola. Versions also exist for double bass, clarinet, horn, flugelhorn, flute, bassoon, trombone, and percussion. The piece is an example of minimal music.

The piece is in F major in 6/4 time, with the piano playing rising crotchet triads and the second instrument playing slow F major scales, alternately rising and falling, of increasing length, which all end on the note A (the mediant of F). The piano's left hand also plays notes, synchronised with the violin (or other instrument).

"Spiegel im Spiegel" in German literally can mean both "mirror in the mirror" as well as "mirrors in the mirror", referring to an infinity mirror, which produces an infinity of images reflected by parallel plane mirrors: the tonic triads are endlessly repeated with small variations as if reflected back and forth. The structure of melody is made by couple of phrases characterized by the alternation between ascending and descending movement with the fulcrum on the note A. This, with also the overturning of the final intervals between adjacent phrases (for example, ascending sixth in the question - descending sixth in the answer), contribute to give the impression of a figure reflecting on a mirror and walking back and towards it.

In 2011, the piece was the focus of a half-hour BBC Radio 4 programme, Soul Music, which examined pieces of music "with a powerful emotional impact". Violinist Tasmin Little discussed her relationship to the piece.

* * * * * * * *

Love

by R.E. Slater

Love transcends the dialation of time.

It moves and morphs

    by that aspect we know as relationality,

    so entwined within the fabric of creative chaos,

    whose entropy destroys all we had,

    or have,

    or will.

And yet love, like gravity,

    binds all time,

    across its spaces,

    whatever the time slice,

    whatever the moment,

    whatever the distance.

Love's pain is bourne -

    in the losses we feel.

It's relevance -

    in the groundedness we experience.

It's possibility -

    in the willingness to lose oneself in another,

    that it might be held briefly as a living thing,

    before becoming mere memory,

    leaving only lingering trace winds,

    of feeling and memory.

Love is the binding metaphysical gravity

of all human chaos-recreation.

    It transcends,

    it brings near distant objects,

    moves to action the necessary,

    and refuses any kind of objectivity,

    it is an elemental mystery.

Though the mind dissects it the heart lives it.

    It lives unnoticed most of the time,

    but its force overturns our lives,

    at every stage of our being,

    both the bad and the good.

Its force, like gravity,

    is seemingly weak in daily transactions,

    but is exceedingly strong across large distances,

    unrealized until we take the backwards look

    of introspection to life's biography.

Love is always present,

    yet, like the beating heart,

    or, act of breathing,

    unnoticed, until displayed.

It exists because we exist.

    And we exist because it exists.

Love is the breath of life

    we most depend, need, want, and crave.

Its addiction can do phenomenal things

    in the lives of those willing its power.

Its what we call God's image

    which we image back,

    to the Divine mystery,

    through ferocity,

    passion,

    hope,

    longing,

    or, grief.

Love is,

    and its capture is what gives to us meaning.

Nothing else exists so pervasively,

    so powerfully,

    so beautifully,

   or, so independently.

Love just is.

Love is the why,

    the what,

    the sustenance,

    to all else.

Love transects all living

    past,

    present,

    or, future.

Love's process is unlike

    any other force we know,

    or will ever know,

    so complete is its knowledge,

    of both divine and human,

Love is us and we are it.

R.E. Slater

September 13, 2017

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved

Transcending Time | Interstellar's Hidden Meaning

Behind Love and Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6kqaip7WS4&sns=em

Arrival | Facing the Fear of Existence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZpPMuvoaok&t=0s

Thomas Jay Oord - Explaining Love to an Alien

Some scientific studies suggest that human beings are innately selfish and that Christian virtues

like self sacrifice are a delusion. In this intriguing volume, esteemed theologian Thomas Jay Oord

interprets the scientific research and responds from a theological and philosophical standpoint,

providing a state of the art overview of love and altruism studies. He offers a definition of love

that is scientifically, theologically, and philosophically adequate. As Oord helps readers arrive

at a clearer understanding of the definition, recipients, and forms of love, he mounts a case

for Christian agape and ultimately for a loving God. - Amazon blurb

Explaining Love to an Alien

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/explaining_love_to_an_alien/#.U7f33fldX9w

by Thomas Jay Oord

June 27, 2014

Suppose an alien from Planet X leaned over the counter at Starbucks and asked, “What is this ‘love’ I hear spoken of on your planet?”

If you’re a relatively young person, the first thoughts racing across your mind may be Haddaway’s music and lyrics, “What is love? (Baby don’t hurt me!)”

If you’re from a previous generation, Foreigner’s lyrics may come to mind, “I wanna know what love is. And I want you to show me.”

Unfortunately, of course, those lyrics don’t help much when it comes to defining love. They simply ask the question. Your alien inquirer needs something more if she’s to understand love. And let’s suppose she has plenty of coffee and time to listen to your answer.

Love is a Many SPLINTERED Thing

To begin, let’s admit that our language is unlikely to capture fully what we mean by love. Although useful, language has its limits.

But we rely upon language to communicate. And despite its limits, it seems at least somewhat helpful. So let’s talk with our alien inquirer.

One option for defining love is simply to describe what people may mean each time they use the word. Take these examples:

“I love the Seattle Mariners.”

“I love my puppy.”

“I love God.”

“I love a man in uniform.”

“I love peperoni pizza.”

Our alien inquirer will quickly see the problem with this approach. We use “love” to describe our responses to so many things. Listing all of the instances may take a lifetime!

Besides, we mean something different when we say, “I love my impoverished neighbor” and “I love that girl’s emerald-green eyes.” The “love is whatever it seems to mean, given the circumstances” approach fails to inform our alien inquirer.

A similar but more scholarly approach is to describe the history of how the word “love” has been used. Philosopher Irving Singer’s multi-volume work (3), The Nature of Love, is perhaps the most comprehensive in this approach.

Irving traces major philosophers, cultural shifts, understandings of romance and marriage, and more. Noticeably absent in Irving’s work, however, is much mention of love as a religious or theological category.

Irving’s work, although a fascinating work of descriptive analytic philosophy, will likely leave our alien inquirer unsatisfied. History can be interesting. But as we read how “love” has been used, we naturally wonder what might unite these diverse notions. Love may be a many splendored thing, but its meanings are splintered in various ways!

If love is more than arbitrary word, we owe it to our alien inquirer to do more than mention every instance in which humans have used the word “love.”

The Archetypes of Love

A more common approach to understanding love is to seek general love categories. Love takes many forms, and these forms seem to fall under several archetypes.

Philosopher Alan Soble specifies what he and most scholars consider the three primary love archetypes. Soble refers to the ancient Greek words: agape, eros, philia.

Nicholas Wolterstorff also identifies three forms of love, and they roughly correspond to the meaning of the three Greek words Soble mentions: love as benevolence, love as attraction, and love as attachment. 

Literary scholar C. S. works from these same categories, referring to “gift-love” (agape), “need-love” (eros), friendship love (philia). He adds a fourth: affection (storge).

The attempt to place love into several major categories is laudable. And our alien inquirer may start to gain clarity.

But the work to categorize love into archetypes suggests that something unites the archetypal categories. It may be that philosopher John Armstrong is right when he says, “love doesn’t have an essence we can uncover.” But just after claiming love has no essence, Armstrong says, “it has, rather, a set of themes that interact differently in different instances of love.”

So… how do we know when we encounter an “instance of love,” to use Armstrong’s phrase? Doesn’t this suggest we presuppose some uniting essence or core notion?

Toward A Normative Definition of Love

In my research, I’ve discovered four general ways of understanding love.

One way focuses on desire and intentionality. Let’s call it “the desire understanding of love.” This approach draws from Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, and the Neo-Platonic tradition.

The desire understanding of love thinks love is desire that motivates action. Thomas Aquinas puts it this way: “every agent, whatever it be, does every action from love of some kind.” This approach tends to talk about proper or improper loves. Or it talks about virtuous love or love deformed. The essence of love, from this perspective, is desire.

The second way focuses on relationality. Let’s call it “the relational understanding of love.” This approach is less common historically, but it is growing in popularity, as relational approaches to metaphysics seem to many more plausible.

The relational understanding of love says the reciprocity inherent in any relationship is itself love. [Process] Philosopher Charles Hartshorne uses the phrase “life sharing” to define love as mutuality. Hartshorne says, “love means realization in oneself of the desires and experiences of others, so that one who loves can in so far inflict suffering only by undergoing this suffering himself.” (Hartshorne uses the classic word, “suffering,” here in the way we’d use “relational” today.)

The third way to understand love focuses on feelings. This “feeling understanding of love” is common among psychologists. From the scholarly literature, however, it is difficult to ascertain what this feeling precisely entails. For this reason, the feeling understanding of love may simply describe the emotional content of the desires or relationships of the one loving.

The fourth way focuses on positive results. Or at least it says positive results are the intention of the one doing the loving. Let’s call this “the well-being understanding of love.”

In the well-being understanding, the lover is motivated to promote good. Gary Chartier defines love in the well-being sense when he says love is “a positive orientation on the other.” The essence of love, according to this understanding, is promoting the good.

My Definition of Love

For a number of reasons, I prefer the fourth understanding of love. But I think the other understandings provide necessary components to a normative definition of love. For this reason, I define love in this way:

“To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being.”

I use the phrase “to act intentionally” to take into account the desire aspect of love, which I think always accompanies those actions we rightly deem loving. I use the phrase “in sympathetic/empathetic response to others” to taking into account the relational/mutuality aspect of love, which I think is always present when we love.

The phrase “promote overall well-being” is the main object of the sentence, because in my mind the essence of love is promoting what is good. I’ve inserted “overall” into this statement on well-being, because I want to account for personal well-being, social well-being, ecological well-being, and more, [and one could mention divine well-being. - res]

Of course, I could and should say more about each aspect of my definition. I didn’t even explain why I’ve inserted the theological phrase, “(including God),” in my definition. I explain my definition further in my books, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement and The Nature of Love: A Theology.

So… back to our inquiring alien from Planet X. If asked at Starbucks what love is – and I didn’t have an hour to explain what I’ve written above – I might sing a (slightly altered) line from a Paul McCartney song: “my love does … good!”