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

gepr at tempusdictum.com gepr at tempusdictum.com
Tue Jan 27 02:48:49 UTC 2004


Jeme A Brelin writes:
 > > And when I say "I don't love people I don't know."  The sense in which
 > > I'm using the word "love" is _all_10_ of the above specific senses,
 > > which cluster to create the whole concept.
 > 
 > But the charitable, Christian love does not require any knowledge of the
 > other person at all.

Actually, I think it does.  It requires the object to satisfy _at_least_
the predicates that are associated with humanity.  So, if you say 
you love people, you typically don't include "dogs" in the set of 
people because dogs don't satisfy enough of the predicates for what
it means to be "a people."

Bear with me.  [grin]  I know this rhetoric will sound pathological.
But, it's not.

Another example might be "people in a vegetative state".  Person A may
say "I love people" and _include_ "people in a vegetative state" and
person B might say "I love people" and _exclude_ "people in a
vegetative state."  The same is true of any _one_ predicate (or subset
of predicates) you might come up with.  Another illustrative example
might be "dead people".  Person A might say "I love people" but
_exclude_ "dead people".

In essence, the definition of the word "love" requires some interaction
between the subject and the object.  You must have interacted (directly
or indirectly through others, perhaps) with the object of your love.

More about this below when we get to the concept of "charity."

 > I believe you brought this up to challenge MY use of the word.
[...]
 > No, the original sentence was MINE.  You challenged it by writing:

OK.  You got me there. [grin]  It was just a side-point, anyway.

 > Your definition of "love" was questioned at that point and it has been
 > shown that your definition does not include the concept of charity and
 > "goodwill to all" that was initially intended.

I'm not entirely sure that the "love" in "tough love" means "goodwill
to all".  But, that's just a distraction; so, I'll leave it.

And it HAS NOT been shown, in any way shape or form, that _my_
definition excludes the concept of charity.  If you think you've shown
that, then please do me a favor and go through that demonstration
again.  Plus, _my_ definition included (9), which is that of
"christian charity".  So, I'm wondering what type of sleight-of-hand
you're trying to pull, here. ... wait!  I know, you're doing what they
teach our soldiers to do, you're demonizing/objectifying me so that
you can then say anything you want without feeling like you've done
any violence to my person!!!  yeah, that's it... [grin] not very
charitable of you, I must say.

 > >  > > "To love people" means "to have an intense emotional attachment to
 > >  > > the concept of 'people'".  It's a generalization and a stereotype
 > >  > > just like any other.
 > >  >
 > >  > No, it doesn't.  It means, in this context, a charitable feeling
 > >  > toward all individual people.
 > >
 > > _Yes_ it does.  In this context, "to love people" means "to have an
 > > intense emotional attachment to the concept of 'people.'
 > 
 > It's not abstract like that.  When I say that I love people, I mean that I
 > love all people, not my abstract concept of people.  I feel the need to
 > support, give, and help all individual human beings.  There are practical
 > limitations to how I can express that love, but that doesn't invalidate
 > the feeling or intent.

The limitations are logical, not practical.  As pointed out above, you
must have some conception of "people" in order to love them.  If you
didn't, you would not use the word "people"; you'd use "things" as in
"I love all things."  Somehow you must _distinguish_, logically,
between people and other things/beings that you may not love.

The fact that there is a distinction means that you must know
something about the object of your love.  That's simple logic and is a
fundamental way in which we use our language.

(You might take this chance to revise your statement from something
like "I love people" to "I am charitable towards all things, many of 
which I am ignorant of" or something better like "I generally have a
positive attitude towards people when I meet them and after I've 
known them" or something more defensible like "People are autotelic.")

 > >  > > I've also seen it used in the sense of "a strong predilection for
 > >  > > _interacting_ with other people".
 > >  >
 > >  > Not here.  That's not what it means in this context.
 > >
 > > Actually, in this context, "love" also means "a strong predilection for
 > > _interacting_ with other people."  Basically, I'm using the word to mean
 > > (1-7) as listed in the dictionary.
 > 
 > Well, you're lacking one very important sense of the word and it is the
 > one people are using when they say they love people they do not know.
 > 
 > It's actually very clear that you don't understand charity, otherwise, you
 > wouldn't be making a blanket negative statement about people (that they
 > are "either confused or lying").  You'd be able to give them the benefit
 > of the doubt.

No.  You've mis-inferred.  If a person says "I love people", I believe
they're either confused or lying.  There's always the possibility that
they just aren't being precise in their use of the language.  This
imprecision is often a sign of confusion about what they really feel
or mean to say.  Hence, they might be confused.

Just because I don't give them the benefit of the doubt when they 
make these statements doesn't mean I don't understand what it means
to "feel charitable" to things and situations of which I'm ignorant
or things that I only have vague conceptions of.

However, I would _not_ say "I love people" for two reasons:

1) I cannot communicate what it means to belong to the set of people,
   and
2) I think "love" is an ambiguous word and doesn't achieve much in 
   conversations like this.

So, given that I cannot commit to "loving" this abstractly defined
set of things/beings, my statement will have to be that I do _not_
love them.  (Note that _not_ loving something does not necessarily
imply that I feel any other way about them.  I also cannot say that
I hate them or that I like them, etc.)

 > > I don't love people I don't know.  If you'd prefer, I can be less
 > > ambiguous and do a little phrase substitution to make it easier to
 > > understand.
 > 
 > That's because you don't understand one aspect of love.  Other people CAN
 > say they love people they don't know (without being confused or lying)
 > because they have a better conception of the word than you have.

No.  Again, I understand what it means to "feel charitable" and 
"give the benefit of the doubt" and "be open-minded" etc.  In fact,
I'm very charitable.  But, it is a part of my personality to push 
for clarity.  And "I love people" is unclear and is a confused 
communication.

 > >  > See, with these sorts of things you CAN just pick one of the meanings
 > >  > and leave the others.  That's how words work.
 > >
 > > Actually, these specific entries (1-10) do not stand in isolation. That
 > > is _NOT_ how words work.  Words are defined by their usage. And the
 > > particular word "love" is used in those 10 ways as well as many others.
 > > Words work based on the context of the sentence, lexicon, and ontology
 > > in which they sit.
 > 
 > If a word is defined by usage, then we have an even stronger argument that
 > folks who say they love people they haven't met are neither confused nor
 > lying.  They're using the word in a way that is understood and true to
 > them.

Sure.  But, what does that usage indicate?  Can someone who uses
"love" that way get along with the word "love" long enough to say the
same thing, except be more precise about it?

I would posit that "charity" is not an adequate substitute, as it also
seems to imply some sort of _inter-personal_ relationship.  It either
means the subject gives to the object, the subject refrains from
judging the object, etc.  Closer to a real substitute might be "grace"
or "mercy", which are both more states of mind than they are ways of
describing inter-personal relations.

So, again, in the same way that I do not give money to people I don't
interact with, I also do not love people I don't interact with.  I
_do_ however feel compassion for many that I don't interact with,
particularly in the case where they push the boundaries of what you
normal people call "human."

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





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list