After and interesting discussion yesterday on the nature of love, I thought I'd seek more opinions...

We tend to gravitate towards dichotomies in the way we view the world. Typically one of these is Love and Hate. I have been thinking lately of looking at it slightly differently.

If we consider all life (or at least all human life, to simplify the debate) to be connected merely by existence, I would say that Love (some cross between the greek agape, or "Christian love" and philia or brotherly love) is the fundamental source or force of this connection. Simply stated, Love is that which fundamentally connects people and drives relationships on a basic level.

Again, assuming all humans are connected in this way, hate cannot be the opposite of love, because the opposite would be disconnected, which I'm saying doesn't exist. To resolve this, HATE would be the opposite of some extreme of LIKE (although in English we typically use the word love in this sense). What I mean by that is that hate would be the denial of the basic human connection of love, and like would be the acceptance of the connection. The discussion gets a little confusing, because in English we do a terrible job of differentiating "forms" of love.

I would say that many of the ways we use "love" are acutally responses (emotional, physical, rational, etc) to our acceptance of the "love connection" (sorry I couldn't help myself) we have with another human.

That's the basic result of the discussion I had... Thoughts?

I would agree on your statement on the differentiation between HATE and LOVE, HATE being a deprivation of that LOVE (kind of like the differentiation between hot and cold. Nothing is really cold as it is a lack of heat).

However, in English we do have what we call True Love. What would be your idea of True Love?

True Love to me, being very religious, means a brotherly love to every person on the planet irrespective of gender, race, creed, or religion.

True Romantic Love is what I consider the general consensus on True Love.

I would tend agree with both of those points. The distinction I would make though, is that I tend to believe that what I have called Love exists between every person on this planet, regardless of our outward response to it, that is without any human espression of Love. True Love, as I understand you to mean it, would require an outward showing or act of love.

I think there's a legitimate argument that could be made as to say that we are ultimately disconnected.

In "I Love Huckabees," there's an argument about this very thing. Dustin Hoffman says to Mark Wahlberg (I think it's Mark Wahlberg... whatever)... anyway he says, "We're all connected, between us there are tiny molecules that are connecting us." Mark Wahlberg replies, "Ahh, but in between those tiny molecules are tiny gaps that separate us." And Hoffman says, Ad "And in those gaps are even smaller atomic materials..." And Wahlberg says, "And even smaller gaps..."

The argument could go ad absurdum. My point is that love and hate can be dichotomies. After all, you merely attached love to another dichotomy (connectedness and disconnectedness).

I for one don't see a problem with the dichotomy. I think about my own isolation--about the reality that no one person will ever completely know me and that I will never fully know anyone else. That's disconnectedness. However, it is BECAUSE that I am disconnected that causes my desire to reach out, that fuels my efforts to be connected. The disconnectedness allows for the possibility of connectedness.

I think similarly, perhaps it is only with the possibility of hate that we are able to love in the first place...

As for the atoomic/gap debate, it's interesting, to the point that we must recognize that the gaps must be present to allow for atomic motion/change, and thereby, life. Philosophically it makes an interesting point, though.

I would argue that what you refer to is only partial disconnection...that is, you are not "fully connected" due to a different set of personal experience, but I would suggest that recognition of some connection, based solely on common human experience (or fundamental human connectedness) is what causes you to reach out....the desire to feel less disconnected, does do require that complete disconnection exists, in fact i'd suggest that it indicates a fundamental connection.

I am not arguing that disconnection is the starting point. I am disagreeing that we begin with a fundamental connection (that is "stronger" or more primal than the idea of disconnection).

Rather, I'm saying that the concept of connectedness only makes sense in tandem with disconnectedness. We cannot be connected if we are not separate. And I would say that separation is a form of disconnectedness (you may disagree with this, and that would be the source of our debate).

If we are truly one, than we would not say "you" or "I." In fact, we could not say that we are talking to each other, but that we are talking to ourselves. And even "talking to ourselves" assumes some disconnect between the we that is "talking" with the we that is "listening."

My arguement is not that separation does not exist, but that "complete disconnection" does not exist. What I am posing is that, at the most fundamental level, no matter how "separate" two people are, they share the connection of their humanity.

To mirror you're discussion, any conversation between two individual people is the unspoken acknowledgement of "I am human, you are human." While we are not, as you point out, talking to ourselves, we are also not talking to someone from whom we are completely disconnected. I would say that is fundamental connection, the acknowledgement that we share a common humanity is "Love" and serves as the basis for the biological responses that we associate with love.

(And you're right, I think our debate woud surround the ideas of separation and disconnectedness...my thought would be that connectedness implies commonality, not equality or unity, which seems to be the way you have interpretted it.)

Any other insights or thought on the relationship of love and hate?

I read a Sci-Fi book where one of the characters makes that point, no one will ever fully know him, not his wife, not his mother, no one, perhaps not even himself.

However, what we do know is the identity we co-create with other people, as he would put it me with you, you with me, you and me with person x. That is known.


My view of it is one of interconnectedness, y'all ever have the experience of that girl or guy you just HATED, couldn't stand. And the more you thought about it the more it consumed you... and eventually you fell in love with them? Psychologists look at these two emotions as a ring that goes in on itself where Love and Hate are actually right next to eachother. It takes very little energy to move from one to the other, the opposite would be complete apathy, it takes a lot more energy to get someone who is apathetic towards you to love you, or hate you for that matter. As such, hate can lead towards love, and vice versa.

I'm just saying that which connects us also separates us. "Love" and "hate" co-create each other.