[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Happy Birthday, Portland!

[gepr at tempusdictum.com]

Russell Senior writes:
 > >>>>> "gepr" == gepr  <gepr at tempusdictum.com> writes:
 > 
 > gepr> No, not at all.  I don't love people I don't know.  (And I posit
 > gepr> that anyone who says they love people they don't know,
 > gepr> especially those they haven't even met, is either confused or
 > gepr> lying.)
 > 
 > Define "love".

This one will do:

1.  A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude
    toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of
    attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. 
2.  A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with
    whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and
    romance. 
3   a. Sexual passion. 
    b. Sexual intercourse. 
    c. A love affair.
4.  An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured
    object. 
5.  A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or
    attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment. 
6.  An expression of one's affection: Send him my love. 
7   a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language. 
    b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest
    love. 
8.  Love Mythology Eros or Cupid. 
9.  often Love Christianity Charity. 
10. Sports A zero score in tennis.

All of these except (8) (including the sports score ;-) seem to
require some level of interaction between the subject and the object.
"Loving" someone you don't know doesn't seem to satisfy the
definition.  To prevent someone from requiring me to define "know",
how about I say, it doesn't satisfy the definition of "love" if 
the subject and object have never met.

Now, one might be able to say:  "I love my concept of a person."
And then pretty much any person that matches the subject's 
concept (to some unstated degree of accuracy) might be considered
loved indirectly.  Equivalently, one might say "I love the class
of objects often called 'people.'"

But, I reject that, personally.  I don't think "class" or "concept"
satisfy all the predicates required for them to be the object of
love.  Rocks and trees, sure.  But, not concepts and classes.  

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com