I want to continue my thoughts in my last post. In my last post, I spent some time talking about “true love”. But now, I want to go back to rethink the subject of “love” first, and be prepared to be shocked!
First, I want to question whether there is such a thing called “love”. What I meant is, if we define “love” as one type of emotions, whether the characteristics that we contribute to the word “love” makes any sense. This may seems shocking, but I think I have thought about this question for quite sometimes. But it seems that I never understand the full meanings of this question before.
Let me explain further. I will start with a question of whether “true love” equals “everlasting love”. Or, I will ask the question in a different way, which is whether “love” is all it takes for people to be together forever, and what exactly is this kind of “love”.
To answer this question, I will continue with another question, which is whether people staying together because of “everlasting love”. Or ask the question in a different way, whether “everlasting love” is the only reason people staying together. Further, there is another question, which is “everlasting love” is always a “good thing”.
Strictly speaking, my answer to all these questions is “no”. I don’t think “true love” equals “everlasting love”, and “love” is not all it takes for people to be together, and people may be staying together for reasons other than “love”, and even if people are staying together because of “everlasting love”, it might not be a good thing if the “everlasting love” is not “true love”.
I think the problem that “love” is so complicated is because it has been burdened with all the complicities in life, and confused with all the functions that it supposed to have due to all kinds of reasons. And, as I just said in the beginning of this post, the word “love” may not be necessarily referring to one thing that we will commonly define as an emotion. I hope clarifying the concept of “love” will help people to find “true love”, and not to be too obsessed with “everlasting love”.
I don’t think I can accomplish these tasks in this post alone, but it will be a start, and I can continue with this task in my later posts. But first, I want to say that when I say that Love and Reason should be the basic principle of everything, the “Love” I am talking about is different from “love” (meaning “intimate love”).
What is “Love” then? As I think about it, the broadest explanation about “Love” should be like this: it is the type of emotions that generates “good will” (so, “Love” might not be one type of emotions as well). Now, it seems that I have gone back completely in a circle, as I have found the relationships among “Love”, “Reason”, and “good will”. “Love” is important because it could help one makes better choices (especially in circumstances like we are facing right now). As I said earlier, “Reason” can only lead people to make “reasonable choices under the circumstances”. But if the circumstances are not very “reasonable”, then the “reasonable choices under the circumstances” might not be the best choices or even good choices. This is why “Reason” alone should not be the basic principle of everything, as “Love” can help us to look beyond the “circumstances” (assumptions) until the results are “good”.
But as I have explained earlier in analyzing “Emma” (for example, in “About Emma (III)” & “(VIII)”), “good will” may not lead to good results either. But as in “Emma”, the problems may not be in “good will”, but the circumstances that are unreasonable (again). For example, in “Emma”, the cultural protocols about women are very “messed up”.
But is it possible that “good will” may be the problem? I think it is possible, thus the importance of “true love”. If the “Love” is not “true” (for example, if the “Love” is towards something that is not so “good”), then it could lead to “good will” that may not be too “good”. So, “true love” is very important.
I have not posted for sometimes. The primary reason is because I find it very difficult to explain my thoughts clearly (perhaps I have not formed thoughts that are necessary to fully explain this subject). But I decided to continue, at least in small steps.
Before I go further with analysis, I want to point out the importance of these thoughts. If we agree that Love and Reason are the most fundamental principles in the world, then we need to first have clear understanding about the meaning of “Love” and “Reason”. As I just talked about earlier, the problem with Reason is, Reason has to be based on some assumptions (meaning accept something as “true” and “reasonable”, as I just described as “circumstances”). But these assumptions may not be correct. So, when to question these assumptions? When we cannot get good results. This is why “Love” is important, as “Love” will produce “good will” that could drive us to get good results. But if the “Love” is not true, meaning the “good will” is towards something is not “good”, we would still not get good results.
An obvious example is religion. As I have said numerus times in my previous posts, there is no reason for religion to exist, if people can follow the principles of Love and Reason. Things that are “good” and “reasonable” can stand on their own, only things that are bad and unreasonable that would need to be “supported” by religion (and tradition, duty, etc.) Am I against religion? I am against anything that is bad and unreasonable. Since religion often supports things that are bad and unreasonable, I am against religion in this sense.
I think the reason “love” is so complicated has a lot to do with religion. “Belief” is often supported by “devoted everlasting love” (in other words, “blind love”). I think the concept of “Belief” is the most confusing concept. One should only believe something when facts and reasons will lead to it. [There is certain complication about facts as well here, as what we accepted as facts might not be true facts, and “social facts” based on the so called “belief systems” should not really be considered as facts at all if we want to get good results.]
I kept bringing out the subject of “conspiracy theory” (the type of “conspiracy” I am talking about) because as I thought about how things are operating in this world (in the society), it is just too convenient for there not to be a conspiracy (the same cannot be said about the nature world). For example, basically all religions target women and suppress women, but in the end women are the “backbone” of all religions, most notably related to the concept of “love”, the “everlasting love”. Women are in such a vulnerable position in the society (because of the social structure supported by religions), that the only “hope” for them is the “everlasting love” of the husbands. But this “hope” can rarely be materialized (as men and women are so differently situated in the society, they can rarely understand each other. How can they have “true love”? Without “true love”, “everlasting love” does not have any real support. More about this point in my later posts), so this “hope” of “everlasting love” initiates, generates and transfixes into the “everlasting love” (“hopeless blind love”) for “God”, etc. Hence completed the “perfect trap” for women.
The same can be said about other social disadvantaged groups. For example, the “poor”. As people are forced into such a vulnerable position, they would only hope for “miracles” (as said to be produced by “God”. But if one really think about it, true “miracles” would not come from “God”, if “God” is almighty and loving, because whatever the “good deeds” should come as rules, not exceptions) or rewards in “afterlife” (escape of current miseries.)
Since I am already at this point, I also want to say something about “culture differences”. I do think there are “advanced cultures” and “less advanced cultures”, although the lines between them are not clearly drawn, as there are various elements in each culture and how they are playing out in history are often complicated. But it is obvious that when people turned to anything other than Love and Reason, relying on religions, traditions, duties, etc., the results are often devastating.
I will continue my thoughts in next post.
May 15, 2018