1
Introductory Chapter Learning Objectives
Upon reading this chapter, the student should be able to:
- Identify the need for analysis of the concept of love.
- Explain the initial criteria the author proposes for identifying love.
- Compare and contrast the differences between a rational approach and other common approaches to discussing love and its characteristics.
Watch this video or scan the QR code to see how others define love.
The main point of this book will be that two people can be said to love each other when they, to some fair extent (or, in general)
(1) have feelings of attraction toward each other,
(2) satisfy (or enjoy) each other, particularly in areas of psychological importance (or meaningfulness), and
(3) are good for each other.
Love is stronger when:
(1) the feelings of attraction are stronger and/or occur more frequently,
(2) the satisfactions (or enjoyments) are greater and/or more frequent, or
(3) the two people are better for each other, or
(4) any two or three of the above are true —all this without there being an equal or greater decline in one or more of the other categories.
The remainder of this book will explain these categories (feelings, enjoyments, and ethics) and their interrelationships more fully; it will explain why looking at love this way is a useful, accurate, and explanatory way of looking at loving, and other, relationships; and it will examine many of the past inaccurate, ignorant, and/ or harmful things that have been said about love and about other kinds of relationships, things which are still harming and confusing people today.
My approach to this subject is meant to be rational and logical, analytic and scrutinizing, not mystical, religious, poetic, or psychoanalytic. I will try to show clear and logical reasoning supporting my theories. Logic and emotions are not totally incompatible; though logic cannot be understood emotionally, emotions can be understood (in various degrees) and discussed logically.
Many clergymen, or fundamentally religious people, think people’s intellect is limited in some of the areas I will address and that people should stick to the work and will of God in those areas as explained, say, in the Bible. But apart from even getting into questions about the origin and/or truth of the Bible, let me state here that religious interpretations of the Bible are often simply rationalizations of the interpreter’s preconceived ideas anyway, often focusing on highly selective passages, or parts of passages, that give evidence for the interpreter’s point while ignoring their contexts or while ignoring those other passages which might contradict that point. This enterprise makes use (or misuse) of intellect anyway. If the Bible is clear, no interpretations or explanations of it would be necessary. If it is not so clear, then explanation of it will rely on people’s intellect every bit as much as logic and philosophy do. The fallibility of human intellect is not the sole province of secular