Again I Ask: Can One Readily Agree with This Analysis in Metaphysics by Immanuel Kant?  

6/21/2008 3:44 pm	Of Love To Men Love is a matter of feeling, not of will or volition, and I cannot love because I will to do so, still less because I ought (I cannot be necessitated to love); hence there is no such thing as a duty to love. Benevolence, however (amor benevolentiae), as a mode of action, may be subject to a law of duty. Disinterested benevolence is often called (though very improperly) love; even where the happiness of the other is not concerned, but the complete and free surrender of all one’s own ends to the ends of another (even a superhuman) being, love is spoken of as being also our duty. But all duty is necessitation or constraint, although it may be self-constraint according to a law. But what is done from constraint is not done from love. It is a duty to do good to other men according to our power, whether we love them or not, and this duty loses nothing of its weight, although we must make the sad remark that our species, alas! is not such as to be found particularly worthy of love when we know it more closely. Hatred of men, however, is always hateful: even though without any active hostility it consists only in complete aversion from mankind (the solitary misanthropy). For benevolence still remains a duty even towards the man-hater, whom one cannot love, but to whom we can show kindness. To hate vice in men is neither duty nor against duty, but a mere feeling of horror of vice, the will having no influence on the feeling nor the feeling on the will. Beneficence is a duty. He who often practises this, and sees his beneficent purpose succeed, comes at last really to love him whom he has benefited. When, therefore, it is said: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ” this does not mean, “Thou shalt first of all love, and by means of this love (in the next place) do him good”; but: “Do good to thy neighbour, and this beneficence will produce in thee the love of men (as a settled habit of inclination to eficence).” The love of complacency (amor complacentiae, ) would therefore alone be direct. This is a pleasure immediately connected with the idea of the existence of an object, and to have a duty to this, that is, to be necessitated to find pleasure in a thing, is a contradiction.' Immanuel Kant (1780) The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics ************ To be socially necessitated to find pleasure in a thing is a contradiction. Innately we are necessitated to find pleasure and avoid pain. ************ I seriously enjoyed Taechons input on the subject. For better enlightenment, his reply is herein ATTATCHED below. anyone else care to add input, please feel free to do so.: Taechons Exceptional Input: Kant is wrong in this regard and I too think he is a great philosopher. The simple fact of the matter is that entire cultures have been based on the idea that individuals have the ability to change their own minds. Make no mistake about it, the largest love organ in the body is the mind and not the heart. (Brain if you like.) One can choose to love. One can choose to remain committed. People,regardless of how romantic Kant's notion of free floating feelings of love are, he is in fact wrong. His division between "love" the emotion and "duty" is not distinct, though he would like it to be. There is not only one way to love as he supposes, but many, and each way with it's own level of duty, commitment, intensity, benevolance and the rest. The feeling of "love" can not be disected from the context in which it occurs. Without the context, love, all love, also vanishes. Here is a thought on "Love thy Neighbor as thy self." This is not a command. It is not a suggestion. It is not a guideline for moral development and it has nothing at all to do with how one goes about treating neighbors or themselves. It is not something one does, but rather, something we are. This is in fact a bit of esoteric knowledge. One can only love a neighbor as they love them self. There is, in fact, no other way to do it. Trust yourself and you will learn to trust others. Trust yourself to be who you really are. No denial. Tell yourself that you are a good person, and recognize the lie. You are in fact both good and bad. Live in delusion and your love of others will also live in delusion. Trust others to be who they are. Love yourself as you are, blinders off, and you will be able to find a way to love others the same. Love yourself with blinders on, you will only see those parts of others that are within your own vision. Knowledge does not rely on "faith." That which is "real" is there for all to see. All one needs is the willingness to open his or her eyes. Love thyself as thy neighbor. You have no choice. This is all any one of us is ever capable of doing. Those who seem to put the lives of others first are in fact the very same people who when in danger themselves somehow find the strength and will to love themselves enough to survive. The strength to love begins inside and is projected outside. We must have the strength before we can use it. Cheers "Only a few things are really important." -- Marie Dressler
HELIODORUS Ask me for a photo 184 posts  6/21/2008 7:06 pm	i will read it carefully and answer you Empa..is also a good answer to this theme...
Number5Lock 160 posts  6/27/2008 6:01 pm	Noni, I've been "away" from KFF for a short while and am wading into this one a little late, but here it goes. Love is a base human emotion. Supposedly we are the only animals that can feel and display it. Other emotions spring from it. For that reason I think a lot of people over the years (going back as far as history has been written) put a tremendous amount of complication into "love." However, it is a base emotion. I think it's from there that a lot of other feelings that we construe as love come from. For example, I give to charity, is that love of humanity, or simply me not wanting to throw away something that I no longer need, but think maybe someone else can use it? I raise my children, is that love of kin, or simply rote primeval instinct. I make love to the woman I'm with, is that love of mate, or simply sexual selfishness? We really complicate things. Mostly I think it's because with a few emotions, and love is at the top of the list, we get upset when people don't love us the same way, or as much as we love them. Accepting emotions as they are without judgment, without getting out a ruler or a scale, goes a long way in relationships. Finally, we aren't all created equal with regards to emotions (read... love). Men love different than women, individuals love more, stronger, longer, or less than each other. Take judgment out of the equation and love becomes much simpler.