Do pause the expansion for a while- we shall deviate a little from our quest for goodness today to recap, tie up open conclusions, and introspect a little further into the natures of love. The theme of this post will be ‘what it means to say I love you’. We shall be using this theme, with psychologist Sternberg’s Triangular Model of Love as a conceptual framework (for this post only), and from there summarize and derive some important concepts essential to our next level of discussion.
According to Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, the parameters of passion, intimacy and commitment form the three bases (he calls them dimensions) of the ‘love triangle’. Any given relationship may consist of a single basis, a combination of two bases, or a permutation of all three bases in varying degrees and proportions. A basis of pure passion would be analogous to an infatuation. On the other hand, pure intimacy would be analogous to liking. And finally, Commitment alone can be called as ‘empty love’. Three other forms of love can be derived from the combination of any two parameters, namely: romantic love, companionate love, and fatuous love. Ultimately, a full permutation of all three bases forms consummate love.
A graphical representation of his triangular theory of love can be charted as follows:
On top of these parameters of love, many psychologists have postulated that loving appears to be a qualitative different feeling from liking, not simply strong liking. This postulation becomes obvious in light of the above model, since we can see liking as a subset of love. Naturally, the full nature of love transcends the concept parameters of liking, although the full nature of liking can be fully accounted for within the parameters of love.
Of course we can restrict ‘I love you’ to these three dimensions, but we know that love is far more than just that- after all the title itself is already a pun.
On deeper though, a question that may arise within some of us- What do these three bases have anything to do with the natures of interpersonal union (via truth) and meaningful conviction (via goodness) that we have been discussing? The triangular theory of love breaks down the concept of love (via logical analysis) in a very systematic manner, down to its partial concepts of passion, intimacy and commitment. On the other hand, we have been examining the natures of love in the dimensions of truth, goodness and beauty (I will touch on this only in the future). I do not mean to say that Sternberg’s model of love is incomplete or inaccurate, neither am I contradicting myself in my earlier posts. On the other hand, I do not want to crudely rehash either theory into the other model. Indeed, we can see from hindsight that commitment brings about conviction, and intimacy brings about union, but that explanation will not do justice to the True nature of love itself.
So how can so many differing perspectives of love be simplified into one simple theory? How ought we to truly love our girlfriends then, bearing in mind all of these above concepts, yet bearing in mind that we are merely laymen trying to live a better life?
Do recall from the earlier post ‘on love and work’- from the previous faculty of truth, we have defined love as: an ontological intuition that unifies two or more individuals (or subjects); when subjected to the individual perspective, love becomes an emotional experience that brings about a certain affection, and attachment. Love forms the basis of positive (unifying) interpersonal relationships, and indirectly affects one’s sense of social and personal identity. We observed then that this definition (the definition by truth) was incomplete, since it does not account the meaning of love within.
Insofar, we have been digging around the meaning of love- from the definition by truth we see love as a form of social unity- a continuity of union similar in essence beyond the united self; analogous to the electroweak and gravitational theories of physics. From there we also see that love has been venerated as a value that brings about qualia (quality) to our lives, bringing forth a potential meaning to life. It is from this meaning that ethics is formed- to that implied postulation of Goodness. Love then naturally becomes a source of conviction (the definition by meaning a.k.a the second nature of love) for the soul.
What has been stated in Sternberg’s Triangular Model of Love has little to do with our quest for meaning in love (the second definition). But nevertheless plays a very important key in understanding love as a social union similar in essence beyond the united self. As we recall the ingredients key to the formation of the individual, we see that four fundamental concepts that stem from the theory of truth: Epistemology, Ontology, Realism and Idealism; which in turn transcribes to logic, intuitive feelings, materialism and idealism in The Moderation Doctrine.
The moderation doctrine as we recall, is an analysis by truth into the constructs of being. Now do try to compare elements from the moderation doctrine to Sternberg’s Triangular Model of love, which we said previously to be a logical analysis (truthful analysis) of love. Immediately we see a greater correlation between the two theories, owing to their groundings in truth (only). Passion would correspond to ontological materialism, Commitment to epistemic materialism, and Intimacy to ontological idealism. As noted in ‘on love and work’, there is no counterpart for epistemic idealism, since love cannot be created by ideals alone; or technically because idealistic truth alone cannot convict the soul, especially when love is supposed to be ontological in nature. (Do note that love can still be created out of logical processes owing to the feedback from cognitive processes to emotive feelings. Do also note that Sternberg calls epistemic materialism Empty Love.)
So in this respect we conclude once more for clarity: Love has a definition of truth (we have came from), as a social union beyond the united self. From both the statement in ‘on love and work’, and now from the Sternberg’s Model of love, we confirm that epistemic idealism cannot create love- on the lack of basis of meaning, and hence we confirm that love is ontological in nature. We also confirm the second definition of love- as a conviction to the soul.
What does it mean to say ‘I love you’ then? To transcribe the above concepts into meaningful actions, technically this declaration of love means a couple of things:
Firstly, ‘I love you’ has a meaning congruent to ‘I want to be in union with you’, and ‘I want you to be in union with myself’. Coincidentally it takes two consensual declarations of union for love to manifest, and in this respect, this union can be what we call colloquially fifty-fifty. Secondly, it also has a meaning congruent to ‘You mean a lot to me’. This can build up from the first definition, or it can exist on its own; after all, we (our united selves) mean everything to our selves, and ‘you mean’ (social unity) is an essence similar to personal unity. We imply meaning with goodness earlier, so ‘I love you’, for now, also means a statement of affirmation ‘to me, you are good’. (We will see to the validity of this subsequently)
Also, we can take a leaf out of Sternberg’s analysis, and the moderation doctrine, to break down the ‘love’ in ‘I love you’ into coherent sections. True love implies that ‘our love is a union that encompasses the full theory of truth’, and in this respect we throw in all the findings of Sternberg (or the moderation doctrine) to try to consummate this love. Romantic Love, Companionate Love, Fatuous Love, Infatuation, Liking and Empty Love; where does the love that we make in our declarations ‘I love you’, exactly lie?
Project RN (T2), at this stage, is still not complete. But at least in the essence of truth and goodness, we have at least made a holistic address to what it means to say ‘I love you’. However, bear in mind that there is still a third nature of love- describing how beautiful love is, and how it in-turn affirms the individual to a better state of being. I am very sure that many of us would have heard of this nature of love before, but unfortunately we cannot discuss this today due to the limitations in scope of this project. This final nature of love may be explained through the theories of Beauty in project RN (T3), and we may then piece together the full picture of love.
Pulling ourselves back to our quest of meaning, other questions of love and ethics, goodness and meaning still remained unanswered. In the next post we will see a convergence between the love in ethics that we speak of, and the real-life relationships we forge with acquaintances (that we all can’t just love equally). We will use the moderation doctrine to a great extent to introspect the theories of Plato and Aristotle. Hopefully, as we finally integrate ethics and politics, we may see to a unified community, and hopefully a better and more meaningful life.
"What does it mean to say You love me?" asks your girlfriend as you propose to her. GG dude,you have just been killed 50 times over. This innocent question sparks off a monstrosity of implications we know can lead us to really deep shit if not properly addressed.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough, as we attempt to break down this question and answer them with the concepts acquired insofar, we see them permutating in the most (exotic?) way before some of them finally begins to make sense.
Three definitions to the nature of love, two of which we have discussed above (truth and goodness) implies that love entails union and meaning respectively. Break it down a little more and we may apply either the moderation doctrine or Sternberg's model of love to define love.
Of course along the way we imply that the meaning of love is goodness throughout.
Caution: don't try to use either this summarized footnote, or (even worse) the above lengthy explanation to answer your girlfriend... not unless she's a philo student or a bimbo. Above all the theories we discuss, you will still need your wits around you to get your own wife.
BOO!