Love/WhoDoYouLoveMore

On a related note, here's a thought experiment. Assume you have two daughters, 13 and 15. The elder is a gymnast: the younger excellent at drawing. One day they both come up to you and ask, "Which of us do you love more?"

Because, personally, my answer would have to be "I have to choose?" YMMV, of course. - ElliottBelser

: Society has an answer for you, and as usual has taught us all that anyone who doesn't give that answer is a Bad Person. It is Received Wisdom that anyone who doesn't love their children equally (or, at the very least, lead them to believe that they do) is doing it wrong on a very fundamental level. Assuming I gave that answer, where would you take this argument? --Requiem

: Ah, but that's the thing. My answer isn't "I love you both," it's "I have to choose one or the other to love?" I emphatically do not love my theoretical daughters "equally" (well, okay, "that my love for them is equivalent," technically), it's that I love both of them for vastly different reasons. ElliottBelser =! Sabastian Belser, and my parents may love us both a great deal, but they aren't about to show me thier love by taking me to a football (gridiron) game, nor by taking Sab to see a G&S show. Or, to use the example from Fans, Rumi =! Allie. Therefore your love for Rumi and Allie cannot be equal because the reasons and ways that you express that love needs to be totally different. This, correct me if I'm wrong, is NOT the standard "You HAVE to love them both" answer. -ElliottBelser.

I suspect that's probably not what the kid asking the question wants to hear. - MoonShadow

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Elliott. The children are not saying that you must tell them which of them you love; they are asking you to quantify your affection for them, so as to understand whether your love for them is a constant of the world they live in or a way of keeping score in the endless battle in which all siblings are engaged. I love my wife; I express this in one fashion (for the purpose of argument, I cook her dinner). She loves me; she expresses this in another fashion (mostly because if both of us cook the other dinner we have *two* dinners, but also because she's a lousy cook). Do we love one another differently much because we express our love in a different fashion? Alternatively - in your above example - I love both my daughters, but I express it differently, complimenting the one on her gymnastics and having the other's drawing mounted and framed. Could I love either of them more dearly? No. Therefore, do I love one more than the other? No. That is what they want to hear, and what (as a responsible father) I should lead them to believe. It's probably the way I feel, too, but I act no differently if it isn't, for to do so is a betrayal of my love for both children - both of them should learn the lesson that a good father plays no favourites with his children, and the one I love less (if that's even a concept) should be spared the pain of knowing that her father loves her sister more than her. But that is a different discussion. --Requiem

: At which point we forked the discussion (so to speak).

Some points Requiem extracted from the above:

Is the lie in the above situation morally / ethically right?

: I would hold that it is. Lying to one's children sets a bad example, and teaches them (should they find out) that 'my parents occasionally lie to me'. On the other hand, the harm that the truth would do to both children would seem to outweigh that. On the other hand, my moral code says that lying is among the top ten things you aren't supposed to do. I'm not a fan of explicit calculations in such cases; I go with my initial impulse. --Requiem

: If it was a lie, I feel it to be a needed one too. -ElliottBelser

Is it possible meaningfully to compare love for two people whom you love, and have a similar relationship with?

: I don't know. The only people I love, I have extremely different relationships with; one would hope so, as I'm married to one of them and the others are my immediate family! The thought experiment requires data I don't have in order to evaluate it. I can compare my love for my mother and my love for my wife - if my wife asked me to break off my relationship with my mother I'd do it, whereas if the reverse was true I wouldn't, so I love my wife more than my mother - but it's not really very meaningful. It is certainly possible to quantify love to some extent - there are people I love and people I do not love. --Requiem

: In my experience, it works this way with eros and agape felt for different people as well as with the storge / nakama and philia that, well, everyone feels for different people (one hopes). I have had crushes (eros) on more than one person at once on multiple occasions, though this has only panned out once. That being said, I have never attempted agape for more than one person at once, though one of my friends (who I am nicknaming Marylin for the purposes of this discussion) has, with rather sweet results. There is an imbalance involved: One of Marylin's loves is on the East Coast, the other with her in California, but there is no question in any of the triad's mind that what they feel is agape love. - Elliott Belser.

: See 'on agape'' ' below. By the by, I still have to stop myself from reading 'agape' "one of the Greek words for love" as 'agape' "widely spread, as in a pair of jaws". And now you will have to too. Muhaha. --Requiem

The question that Elliott appeared to be asking with the thought-experiment: Is it possible to love two people?

: The thing here is, I think this particular straw man hasn't got enough straw in it. I love both of my parents; of course I do; but that's not the same emotion! I cannot conceive of feeling about another person the way I feel about my wife; part of that feeling is the fact that it is exclusive, too large to have more than one of, there is room in my heart for precisely one other. Were I not reliably informed that not everyone works this way, I would not believe it. The feelings I have for my parents and my brother - the only conceivable relationships I have had which I could imagine would compare to the feelings I would have for any child of mine, and therefore the only points I have from which to infer - are so different from my feelings for my wife that I hesitate to use the same word for them, and I certainly wouldn't take conclusions drawn in one system into the other. I do not doubt that it is possible for other people to feel identically strong about two or more people in a romantic fashion; I do, however, conclude that either they are not feeling what I am feeling or their minds work in a profoundly different way from mine. Interesting. I wonder how and why that is the case? What is it about some people that makes them (believe they are) monogamous by nature? --Requiem

Let's heap some more straw on the pile, then. Blantant references for the examples courtesy of RanmaHalf:

: For the purposes of this thought experiment, assume you are male.
: Acchan is a star athlete, having multiple black-belts in various forms of martial arts that you, no slouch in the ring, regularly spar her with to a standstill: you have never met her equal, and she is clearly attracted to you, even if she has difficulty saying so in such words, and years of practice haven't been bad to her appearance in the slightest, to say the very least.
: Ucchan is an extremely accomplished cook and a close childhood friends. You cannot and do not wish to keep any secrets from her. She one day dreams of starting a casual dining franchise with recipies she's tested on you until you, a skilled consumer of munchies, have deemed them perfect. She's not exactly a stunning vision, but she has the kind of beauty that's had time to slowly grow on you. And, yes, she is very affectionate towards you, calls you "Hon" and "Sugar," and has said that she "likes you a lot" on more than one occasion: your standard response at this point is "Thank you."
: Acchan and Ucchan know each other, and are good friends, but their feelings for you are beginning to put a strain in their friendship with each other.
: Let's for the sake of argument that you haven't attempted to feel agape (honestly, the only way I can grapple with the concept of agape is as a meditative / emotional state one tries to achieve) for either of them, but the thought has crossed your mind, and you would unequivocally sleep with either of them given a chance that wouldn't crush the other. Classic Type 2 Love Triangle ("Betty and Veronica chasing Archie:" Type 2 according to the Triang Relations entry on T. V. Tropes), in other words.
: They both come up to you one day and ask you to tell them if you love (and that's love "love") either of them. You do not even, for this experiment, assume that they ask you at the same time.

: Now, here's my question.

: Who here would feel that they must eventually pick one or the other?

: Who here feels that, if Acchan and Ucchan would be amenable to the arrangement, that saying some variant of "I love both of you for different reasons" is appropriate?

: I personally fall into the latter camp. This is not saying that if the situation would warrant it I would pick Ucchan over Acchan (or Acchan over Ucchan, but, really, the canonical Ukyo Kunoji is more my type anyway XD), but I wouldn't rule the possibilty of forming a triad out. Nor has saying I love you both, but for different reasons (over)offended anyone who was amenable to PolyAmory in the first place.

: YMMV VWP and ATOJ, of course, but this is how I and a great deal of my friends feel about the situation. - ElliottBelser.

I'm of the opinion that if you want a romantic and/or sexual relationship with either of them, you have to pick one. That's not the same as categorically saying "you MUST pick one" - if you're content to stay friends with both, and so are they, then that's fine, and it's fine to say "I love both of you for different reasons" if that's phileo. I haven't seen the anime (is it anime?) in question, but from your description I don't see much indication that the guy's particularly romantically attracted to either of them, so everyone staying friends seems like a good situation all round. --Rachael

: Assume you're attracted to both of them. Also, if I felt that friendship was the best option, you cannot convince me that not saying so is ever a good idea... -ElliottBelser

Also, you seem to be using "agape" differently from how I would. From here and other pages, you seem to mean something a bit like eros but stronger and more exclusive. Whereas I use it the way I've been taught to as a Christian: the kind of love God has for us and which we should theoretically have for everybody all the time, but in practice perhaps have for our partner most of the time, our friends about half the time and other people occasionally. --Rachael

: ...no, my understanding of the word seems to be exactly the same as yours. Interesting... -ElliottBelser

For your first point: One or the other or neither, yes. I genuinely don't believe I am set up to be able to feel romantic love for more than one person at once. I have never been in a situation where I had a crush on more than one person at once. I'd make a snap decision and live the rest of my life by it - maybe occasionally I'd wonder how life would have turned out if I'd made the other decision, but I'd never act on it. (I note in passing that 'I'd happily sleep with her if she asked' is the default assumption for a relationship between a teenage male and an attractive teenage girl.) --Requiem

: ...for a given value of attractive. I'm barely out of my teens and there are many attractive people I didn't feel attracted to, if you know what I mean. Or should this be prefaced with PropellerHeadsAreGo? -ElliottBelser.

What a shock.

: Thought it might be a thoughtless pedant moment...

For your second: It might be appropriate for someone who isn't me and doesn't think like I do. I can only say that it is not appropriate for someone who thinks like I do. --Requiem

: Never said that it should be, just that such people exist, and are quite happy having more than one True Love. More to the point, so are thier True Loves. -ElliottBelser

On agape: What I think you mean by agape is 'an unselfish state of love requiring an intellectual decision and active effort to reach, characterised by a tender regard and genuine desire to see the object or objects of this love as happy as they can be'. I can agree with that definition. But for me it has no romantic association at all - in fact, agape to me has very strong religious overtones, and if I were told to define it in two words I would say "Christian love". It helped me to understand Christianity when I realised that one of the two principal religous duties of a Christian is that they must attempt to feel this way towards all mankind. That's not to say that it doesn't have a place in a loving relationship - of course it does, see under 'all mankind' - and because you are closer to them it's easier to feel. But it's pretty separate from my notion of romantic love. --Requiem

I agree that I think the concept of "agape" is getting in the way of the question this page was meant to discuss. I understand agape pretty similarly, as the truest, most self-sacrificial kind of compassionate love that simply wants good things for the loved, and which certainly isn't restricted to only people one might be romantically involved with. --AC

The thing is, I'm unsure that that isn't what ElliottBelser means by the word. This really intrigues me. --Requiem

: Now who said that it isn't possible to be in agape love - defined as "the truest, most self-sacrificial kind of compassionate love that simply wants good things for the loved" - with someone you aren't romantically involved with? As I understand it, however, given the presence of eros and philia, it's much harder (NOT easier, but harder!) to do with a romantic partner, especially when feelings of Jealousy get involved. More to the point, I feel that True Love is impossible without agape, and part of my position is that you can have more than one True Love... and, indeed, more than one True Love cocurrently. Assuming you're wired for PolyAmory, at any rate; as always, YMMV... -ElliottBelser.

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,

Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love:

The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,

That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;

The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,

The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice --ChiarkPerson

Dangerous nationalist nonsense. (In my opinion.) --Rachael

That song is about patriotism rather than love, no? --Requiem

No. No, it isn't. People think it is, but that's because people are either too stupid to know there's another verse, or too lazy to read it. It's a met-a-phor. It's no more about patriotism than 'The Lord's my Shepherd' is about livestock farming. --ChiarkPerson

Actually, there are three verses. Also, please do try to keep things civil. - MoonShadow

Three? Then I (no-reverse/ChiarkPerson?) am the stupid one. What's the third?

It starts "I heard my country calling...". - MoonShadow

: [Wikipedia] has the full lyrics. I note that the second verse is omitted in modern usage as being unsuitable for a hymn. --Requiem

I just EditConflicted with n-r - I was going to write:

: How is it not? (I know the second verse is about heaven and stuff, but we're talking about the first verse.) I don't see how it can be taken any other way. --Rachael (Is this worth splitting off onto a new page?)

It's so not a metaphor. You don't use X as a metaphor for Y and then explicitly contrast it with Y. It's like saying, I dunno, "I love the sweet and passionate music of the bedroom ... but I love sex more." There's almost no better way to communicate "Aha, you may have thought I was talking about sex in the first half, but I wasn't, I was talking about literal music." It's also like those jokes which go "What's the difference between A and B? One is {stuff which is superficially about A, but can be reinterpreted to be about B} and the other is {stuff that's very clearly about A, so as to force that reinterpretation}. You'd have more chance arguing it was a metaphor if verse 2 didn't exist. --Rachael

It's a metaphor: whatever the 'other country' is, it's not a real country. So it's a metaphor. The first verse is there to set up the metaphor by expounding the features of love for real country that are to be used metaphorically in the second verse. If a hymn began with a first verse 'The shepherd takes good care of his sheep, he leads them to water and protects them form wolves' and the second verse was 'and there's a good shepherd...' then the hymn isn't about farming, it's a metaphor. --ChiarkPerson

But the first verse on its own sets up far too strong a claim on "love" for a nation to have. Vowing to one's eternal country one's love "all earthly things above" is fair enough, but vowing it to one's earthly nation is the "dangerous nationalist nonsense" Rachael was referring to above. The later verses' contrast fails if the first verse overstates things so much. --AlexChurchill

Yes, what Alex said. The second verse is indeed a metaphor, but it's the first verse I'm objecting to. In your hypothetical hymn, the statement 'The shepherd takes good care of his sheep, he leads them to water and protects them from wolves' is true and unobjectionable; but if it made dangerous claims about literal shepherds, before bringing in the metaphorical shepherd in verse 2, then I would have a similar problem with it. --Rachael

The hymn is still not about patriotism. You can quibble with the qualities assigned to the shepherd, but that doesn't make it a song about shepherds. --ChiarkPerson

I didn't say it was "about patriotism", I said it was "dangerous nationalist nonsense", which you can have in a hymn "about" something else. I'm not happy to sing an entire verse making such statements about my country. JOOI, would you be happy with a hymn whose first verse went "I love my money, I guard it night and day and won't let anyone have any, and I work at the expense of all earthly things to make more of it" and whose second verse went "And the same applies to my treasure in heaven"? --Rachael

I said it wasn't about patriotism. This went 'That song is about patriotism rather than love' and then 'No. No, it isn't.' You want to argue about the nature of the love expressed, I'll do it somewhere else. But as you agree with my initial point, that Requiem is wrong and the hymn isn't about patriotism, then I'll leave it here. --ChiarkPerson

OK, I want to disagree with you. Is the Battle-Hymn of the Republic merely a setting of a passage from Revelations to music? Is Jerusalem actually about converting England to Christianity? I class The Two Fatherlands in the same category - a stirring patriotic hymn, with just enough reference to religion to allow it to be included in a religious service. On no level do I believe it not to imply "You, the congregation member, are required to be not only the most zealous kind of Christian but the strongest sort of patriot". --Requiem

Yes, I agree (with Requiem). (Although I'm not sure what you mean about Jerusalem - I thought it was about converting England to Christianity.) It may be using the patriotic stuff to point towards the religious stuff, but in doing so it has to assume we all agree with the former, which we don't necessarily. --Rachael

: I think Jerusalem was about converting England to Christianity when it was written, but due to all the baggage it has picked up it's now mostly about supporting the English rugby team and waving the Cross of St. George. --Requiem

Well, yes, it assumes you have the kind of love for country that it talks about, or the metaphor doesn't work. But then metaphors about God being a father don't work if your father was abusive, and you'll miss a lot if you don't know about shepherding. That doesn't make the songs about patriotism, fathers or shepherds. And Jerusalem is just William Blake being weird & railing against... stuff. The original Rebel Without a Cause, was Blake.--ChiarkPerson

: I contend that the mere act of singing "The Two Fatherlands" in a church service is tantamount to officially saying 'you are Supposed to be the kind of person for whom the first verse is true', and use of it in a service about love rather than a service about patriotism or religious zeal is a subversion rather than use as intended. As far as I understand it, I said "This song isn't about love, it's about patriotism", and you replied "No, it's about religion" - did you post it as an explanation of agape? I agree that the last four lines of the first verse are that, which was what my comment said before the waters were muddied by the addition of the first two. --Requiem

Care to identify yourself and explain your comment? Because "people" might take offense, or mistake you for a Troll. Just pointing that out.

Also, to be fair, I didn't think that this verse was inherently about patriotism, though I realized how it could be used for such. Patriotism can be Agape too. My country, right or wrong (and more frequently than not wrong, if with good intentions.) - ElliottBelser, IN AMERICA!!!

: ... abridged series in a discussion about poetry. Something is insane here. --Vitenka

Even given that, "The love that asks no question" is the love that will be painfully betrayed. - ElliottBelser

: Cynic. :p But seriously - that doesn't make it any less valid. Were the world perfect, or even that particular relationship perfect, that love would not be betrayed, and if reciprocated you end up with the kind of love they write epics about. --Requiem

ElliottBelser/StrawmanSpecialWithCheese