Phylicia Rashad, an award winning actress who is now a theater director, said in an interview, “Man yearns for the acceptance of love.” She made this observation based on her getting at the kernel of the motivation behind both characters she’s played and play wrights whose work she’s directed.
I’ve thought about this and have tried to come up with examples of philosophers, scientists, theologians–anyone respected for their work–that couldn’t be understood in this way–a yearning for the acceptance of love as their motivation. I can’t think of anyone.
Keep in mind, I’m talking about the acceptance of love and not about the feeling of love. The feeling of love varies from person to person and there are already forums about love as a feeling that come to nothing because it is so individual and subjective.
So what is the acceptance of love and could it be the basis for philosophy, science, etc.? I’m not really sure (which is why I started the thread,) but I think it starts with the acceptance of love of self. Again, I don’t mean egoism, narcissism, or anything that’s personally destructive. I mean more a sort of pleasure in knowing who and what you are and changing yourself if you need to. Does that make sense?
Is the yearning for the acceptance of love the motivation behind our basic morality?
What is it that would possibly change? Is it you? The real you? Or is it just something having to do with the knowledge you have of who and what you are?
“Man years for the acceptance of love” is one of those phrases that could mean any number of things. Is she saying that men want to accept the emotion of love, accept it in themselves instead of shying away from it or denying it? Is she saying that when a man loves someone else, he wants them to accept that he loves them? Is there an entirely different meaning than those two that she means?
That depends on what you think you are, doesn’t it, fm. If you think you are your memories, the way people think of you, or whether or not you even exist, that’s one thing. I think we’re our reaction to our memories, and our reaction can change. My sister, for example, spent years resenting me for having gotten the role in a play that she wanted. She finally told me. I told her she had a better voice than I–but I fit the costumes, which had already been made. Since then, she’s changed her reaction to her memory. Did that change her? I hope so–I hope she’s able, now, to think of reasons for things other than her own feeling reactions.
I also feel we’re our reactions to other people, since what we see in other people is a reflection of what we see in ourselves, imm. If you don’t like it in other people, how can you like it in yourself?
It takes a lot of introspective work to get to even a starting point in self-knowledge. But you’ll never reach the starting point, if you don’t try.
No, I think you may have misinterpreted both the quote and my OP. Is there a philosopher, scientist, theologian who doesn’t first love himself and who then loves humanity as a result? Why would any philosopher try to teach if s/he wasn’t convinced that s/he had something to say that would open minds to thought? And why would they spend lifetimes writing their thoughts? The teacher yearns for the acceptance of the love s/he has shown, while the student yearns for that love.
Religions teach that God loves, no matter what. It’s a panacea for people. If God loves you, no matter what, the onus is off you. All you have to do is “love God.”
Nietschze, Einstein, Aquinas all loved humanity–that was the kernel of their motivation for doing.
Yes, fj, there’s an entirely different meaning. But you have to get outside yourself in order to understand other meanings–you have to see the universe and be with the universe–see your place in your reality if your reality goes beyond the ‘you.’
You’re a mundane person. You’re involved with, and interested in, secular things, rather than metaphysics in its broad sense–or even rational metaphysics. You may or may not understand. That’s you and that’s fine. And I hope we’re still friends.
I find this unsatisfyingly saccharine and truistic, to the point of outright banality. But I didn’t have a proper breakfast, so maybe I’m being overly critical.
I’d contend that this is overly optimistic vis-à-vis human nature. Having worked for many years on the fringes of academia, I have encountered plenty of academics who are motivated by less than altruistic means. Indeed, I have met professors of moral philosophy whose absorption in their subject has come at the expense of their treatment of their fellow human beings. Some seem to thirst for knowledge in a way that can only be described as introverted, nigh on Asperger’s. Others find in academia a palliative for their insecurities, or a pathway to status (which can amount to the same thing). I wouldn’t dispute that some might be motivated by love of their fellow human beings (though that in itself is a problematic concept). However, I find catch-all aphorisms to be more about self-promotion (intentional or otherwise) than ‘truth’, a ‘look at me, aren’t I wise?’
If one yearns, they do not possess. So you’re saying the major motivation for respected contributions to society, is the hope of being valued, or the right to be valued. Whilst I believe this does motivate many, it’s not the only possible motivation.
If someone loves another, or a group, they will want to contribute to them. They would want to contribute, regardless of whether they themselves were accepting of love. They do this not as means to tend to their shortfalls or deficits, but because they value giving to another, in and of itself. That’s what love is.
In a nutshell: If one was at peace within, they wouldn’t discontinue contributing to those they value.
That’s how you respond when someone is trying to figure out what something means? Instead of saying what it means, you tell people they’re too mundane to understand? What’s so hard about just saying what it means? Why choose the route of condescension instead of just saying what you think she means by it? That doesn’t seem very friendly to me. You seem to not be denying the fact that there are multiple possible interpretations of the quote, but you also seem to be quite sure of your own interpretation, so…what is it? Don’t give me shit about how mundane you think I am, just say what you think it means. Trying to add clarity to the conversation is no sin.
You ask questions sometimes about scientific matters, I don’t tell you “You’re a mystical person, not interested in secular things. You probably won’t understand and that’s okay.” So don’t do that shit to me.
See Joe’s post above, 2nd sentence, as an example of taking a vague sentence that has many possible meanings and saying more specifically what you think it means. I’m sure clarity and specificity seem ‘mundane’ to you, but it’s pretty important for communication. It’s how we know what the other person is talking about.
The underlined portions are pretty similar, if you look closely. I said that one possible interpretation was a man loving someone else, and yearning for them to accept that love. You interpreted it in I dare say a pretty damn similar way, given your example of a man showing love to someone else and yearning for them to accept that love.
I don’t think your idea of how I think is really accurate. I think you have this idea that if someone is interested in science and has a reductionistic approach to thought, they can’t talk about or understand ideas about emotions. You’re mistaken.
I think you read my post, referred to your mistaken categorization of emotions as fundamentally non-scientific and non-reductionistic, and just rejected my post outright without thinking about it. But in fact one of my proposed interpretations is pretty similar to your own, so…maybe you’re a bit too hasty in your generalizations about how other people think.
So, next time I make a post trying to clarify what something means, slow down and don’t condescend. Instead of being condescending and judgmental, try to just say what it means. That’s how people normally communicate with each other. There’s nothing wrong with saying what something means, with being specific, with reducing vagueness. No, not even in the context of emotions.
Okay so we are reactions to experiences. And those reactions are judged by us. And further, those reactions can control or limit the next action. Isn’t the desire to want to be accepted also a judgment that wants to manipulate reactions into what is being told to you is ‘love’?
How exactly is this thing called ’love’ captured by a person so as to become a permanent experience and through its constant production become solid knowledge?
I’ll try to answer everyone without taking the space to copy their posts. I believe I’ve answered a lot of what you’ve brought up in my earlier posts; for example, the idea of self-love which is very different from love of self. It is, to me, examining yourself, changing what you can, and accepting what you cannot. There’s a lot of strife in the process, but there’s also inner peace as a result.
Yearning for something is thinking you don’t have it and wanting it–earnestly. You may already have it, but not recognize it because you haven’t recognized it in yourself. That’s why I said you have to love yourself in order to recognize and accept the love being given you–no matter where it comes from. Most of us, myself included, are concerned with the every day and with the secular. We live from day to day. Our lives are filled with the day to day ‘problems’ life hands us. We are, in that sense, mundane. There’s nothing either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ with being concerned with our day to day lives. What else could we be?
Some of us see trees; some of us see forests. We all see trees and forests and we all know forests are comprised of trees. Some of us need to reduce the forest down to the individual tree; some of us don’t. We already ‘see’ a tree as a system within itself. We could further reduce the system of a tree, but why? We know it’s there, we know it’s much more than ‘simply’ a tree. So we accept it for what it is–for us.
That’s why I’m tremendously interested in science even though I may be tremendously bad at it. I’ve said many times that I need to be able to visualize and understand the ‘whole’ of something. I’m not a scientist, but if I think I understand the goal–the idea–behind the science, I’m perfectly willing to accept the steps that led to that idea. But I’ll leave the steps up to the scientist.
So! Any more questions?
PS–I’m not ‘attacking’ anyone, nor do I ever expect anyone to attack me. I’m a lousy tennis player–I don’t expect a backhand attack.
