Yesterday was a veg-out day for me. I never made it out of my pajamas. I watched a silly made-for-TV movie on ABC Family called My Future Boyfriend. The overall concept had promise, but the writers added story elements that weren't needed and the ending was absolutely terrible!
The premise, though, had to do with a future society in which love is no longer part of the human experience. Many futuristic stories have broached this sort of possibility before. In the Star Trek series, the half-human, half-Vulcan Mr. Spock was a being who made decisions based on logic and the crew members on the USS Enterprise were always trying to get him to feel, understand and express his human side.
The assumption of most people I know is that future life without love either would be less meaningful than it is today or completely meaningless. Personally, I don't necessarily agree. If our species evolved beyond emotions like love, jealousy or loyalty, the norm would be an existence of something else and I have no way to judge if such an existence would be better or worse than where we stand now.
I do know that contemporary society often unfairly judges past civilizations by modern standards. We apply knowledge and mores that didn't exist during a previous period and make judgments on whether or not our ancestors behaved rightly or wrongly.
To my way of thinking, these very same limitations apply to theorizing about future human society. We act as if what we think, feel and experience now is universal and will span the spectrum of time. But like the well-frog in the story by Chuang Tzu, our vision is confined by what we are able to see in the well of this life. While we may live in a well, future society may inhabit a large pond or the ocean!
So, while I can't imagine living my life in my time without love, this in no way means that it will always be this way for the human species. We once believed that the earth was flat and few people believe that anymore. We currently believe that love is the highest human attribute, but we may or may not believe that centuries from now.
The premise, though, had to do with a future society in which love is no longer part of the human experience. Many futuristic stories have broached this sort of possibility before. In the Star Trek series, the half-human, half-Vulcan Mr. Spock was a being who made decisions based on logic and the crew members on the USS Enterprise were always trying to get him to feel, understand and express his human side.
The assumption of most people I know is that future life without love either would be less meaningful than it is today or completely meaningless. Personally, I don't necessarily agree. If our species evolved beyond emotions like love, jealousy or loyalty, the norm would be an existence of something else and I have no way to judge if such an existence would be better or worse than where we stand now.
I do know that contemporary society often unfairly judges past civilizations by modern standards. We apply knowledge and mores that didn't exist during a previous period and make judgments on whether or not our ancestors behaved rightly or wrongly.
To my way of thinking, these very same limitations apply to theorizing about future human society. We act as if what we think, feel and experience now is universal and will span the spectrum of time. But like the well-frog in the story by Chuang Tzu, our vision is confined by what we are able to see in the well of this life. While we may live in a well, future society may inhabit a large pond or the ocean!
So, while I can't imagine living my life in my time without love, this in no way means that it will always be this way for the human species. We once believed that the earth was flat and few people believe that anymore. We currently believe that love is the highest human attribute, but we may or may not believe that centuries from now.
And love has more than one definition or dimension...in Greek terms, there is eros, agape, philia and storge. We get these all mixed up sometimes, and I think Confucius was trying to give them some order.
ReplyDelete(Incidentally, I barely made it out of bed yesterday. It was just that kind of day maybe.)
"I do know that contemporary society often unfairly judges past civilizations by modern standards."
ReplyDeleteWould you write a post about this idea? (Or give me a link to any previous posts on this topic?)
I'm curious about it.
The problem with relativism is, where do you draw the line? At some point you have to take a stand, saying, no, that's wrong... otherwise every serial killer is just doing what he thinks is right, or what happened in Rwanda in the 90s was just there own cultural mores.
ReplyDeleteI know you weren't going there with this post, just thought I'd mention it. It's one of those grey areas, of course.
I do disagree that love could be something we could evolve out of. I believe love is fundamental to the universe, even unto the atoms and the stars. But of course that's just a belief; you might be right in the end for all I know. Which is very little.
I agree with Brandon. Though it doesn't matter if it's just a belief, because beliefs have the power to shape reality. If TRT WERE right, what would be the implications of that?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, of course I feel the need to give my unsolicited two cents on the matter. Sorry if it's a bit long, but I feel the need to say it.
1. Comparing love to the belief in a flat earth is completely illogical, because love is not a theoretical belief that can be proven wrong.
2. There are already people alive today who do not think that love is the highest human attribute - their called psychopaths.
3. Love is the basis of compassion, mercy, and altruism. Without love there would be no logical reason for charities or social welfare programs to exist. Something you've previously indicated supporting. In fact in a world without love, the disabled, the sickly, the elderly, the mentally ill, anyone who is unable to support themselves without help, most likely would be euthenized, as they would serve no logical purpose to society...being essentially "useless eaters".
4. In other words, without love we would be entirely motivated by self-interest. And all relationships would be of a purely utilitarian nature. People wouldn't help anyone or care about anyone unless they can get something out of it in return. It would be a "dog eat dog world" taken to the extreme.
5. There is no way of knowing what the world will be like 100 years from now. But if you want to speculate, why only focus on the possiblity of a world without love, how about a world without hate, or a world without logic, or a world where everybody is blind or deaf. These speculations could go anywhere, but they are not productive unless you can apply it to reality here and now in this present world.
6. What is and is not love? What are the different dimensions of love? What are the causes and effects of love? What would our world be like today without love?
7. Love is not merely an emotion, it is a specific field of energy existing in actual space (Buddhism), and a frequency of consciousness that we may tune into, a perspective of seeing and being in the world. Buddhist philosophy has a lot to say about it. Heart chakra. You ought to look it up it. In fact every single spiritual tradition in the world speaks highly of love being one of the most exalted states, a higher level of consciousness, closer to God, angelic, sublime.
8. In fact I would say that seeing the world through the lens of love is the portal to enlightenment. Love is intrinsically connected to the concept of the psyche and soul, therefore if you take away love you would become like a souless machine, spiritually deaf dumb and blind. Logic without love is spiritual blindness. Of course if you are an atheist that probably means nothing to you. In fact, I think a loveless world would be more likely to manifest from an atheistic (materialist) perspective more than any other.
9. As far as I can see anyone who would actually entertain the possibility of a future world without love as a potentially good thing, has a severely diminished conception of what love really is. So if I were you I'd listen to the baroness, and investigate the matter further, particularly looking into the different dimensions of love, from both an intellectual and experiential perspective, and especially look at the Buddhist literature available on the subject as well.
Correction: regarding point number 1, I see now that you were comparing the belief in love as the "highest attribute" of humanity, to the belief in a flat earth, not love itself. Which obviously is debatable. Anything anyone claims as being the highest or lowest, is always debatable. Therefore my response on that point was mistaken.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless I found the comparison to be quite odd, as if you're implying the belief in love as a higher attribute as potentially being as narrow minded as the belief in a flat earth...and that's silly. Like I said before, I would speculate such a viewpoint could only arise from someone having a rather diminished conception of what love really is.
I'm not attacking you. I just find the whole thing extremely mind boggling and rather unsettling that you would think that way...that anyone would think that way.
Cym,
ReplyDeleteGood. I like to boggle minds from time to time. It helps them stretch.
The Dalai Lama on Love:
ReplyDelete"LOVE
The definition of love in Buddhism is: wanting others to be happy.
This love is unconditional and it requires a lot of courage and acceptance (including self-acceptance).
The "near enemy" of love, or a quality which appears similar, but is more an opposite is: conditional love (selfish love... ).
The opposite is wanting others to be unhappy: anger, hatred.
A result which one needs to avoid is: attachment.
This definition means that 'love' in Buddhism refers to something quite different from the ordinary term of love which is usually about attachment, more or less successful relationships and sex; all of which are rarely without self-interest.
Instead, in Buddhism it refers to de-tachment and the unselfish interest in others' welfare."
He also says:
Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive.
Dalai Lama
He may well be correct...or he may not. Who really knows.
ReplyDeleteLydia,
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking.