An interesting quote here from Karl Popper's The Defense of Rationalism published in 1945, in came up in the context of discussions about CBT and Government Happiness Centres (Julia's recent guest blog and my original posting).
... Loving a person means wishing to make him happy. (This by the way was Thomas Aquinas's definition of love.) But of all political ideals, that of making the people happy is perhaps the most dangerous one. It leads invariably to the attempt to impose our scale of 'higher' values upon others, In order to make them realise what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness; in order as it were, to save their soul. It leads to Utopianism and Romanticism. We all feel certain that everybody would be happy in the beautiful, the perfect community of our dreams. And no doubt, there would be heaven on earth if we could all love one another. But the attempt to make heaven on earth invariable produces hell. It leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars, and to the saving of souls through the Inquisition. And it is, I believe, based on a complete misunderstanding of our moral duties. It is our duty to help those who need our help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intention
Comments (3)
Hi - interesting thinking here. The Greek word 'agape' comes to mind... I just saw this elsewhere:
"In Greek, the original language of the Christian Scriptures, there are four words often translated “love.” The love we are concerned with now is not that of e′ros (a word not found in the Christian Greek Scriptures), which is based on sexual attraction; nor is it that of stor·ge′, a feeling based on blood relationship; nor is it phi·li′a, warm friendship love based on mutual esteem, dealt with in the preceding article. Rather, it is a·ga′pe—the love based on principle, which might be said to be synonymous with unselfishness, the love the apostle John referred to when he said: “God is love.”—1 John 4:8.
2 Concerning this love (a·ga′pe), Professor William Barclay in his New Testament Words says: “Agapē has to do with the mind: it is not simply an emotion which rises unbidden in our hearts [as may be the case with phi·li′a]; it is a principle by which we deliberately live. Agapē has supremely to do with the will. It is a conquest, a victory, and achievement. No one ever naturally loved his enemies. To love one’s enemies is a conquest of all our natural inclinations and emotions. This agapē . . . is in fact the power to love the unlovable, to love people whom we do not like.”
Posted by Carol | January 29, 2008 7:28 PM
Posted on January 29, 2008 19:28
If I remember back to the period when I studied the Summa Theologica, I think Aquinas uses love in the sense of charity. Technically he talked about natural love (that we do by nature of what we are), sentient love (We know about it, but we have no choice) and rational love (we want it, we know we want it and we have choice about whether we do it). With faith and hope charity is one of the three theological vitues
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 29, 2008 7:55 PM
Posted on January 29, 2008 19:55
I came across a line once (according to Google, it is a Hungarian proverb):
"The believer is happy; the doubter is wise."
If I believe that to be true, does that make me happy or wise, or both? :)
Posted by John Connell | January 30, 2008 12:38 AM
Posted on January 30, 2008 00:38