2. Principle 2: Love

The next principle I’d like to discuss is love. What is love?

Sorry about that, I couldn’t help it. Anyway…

Let’s define love: (as always, all definitions are taken from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11^th edition)

Love: 1a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties (2): attraction based on sexual desire: affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence or common interests (4) a: unselfish, loyal or benevolent concern for the good of another (5): a god or a personification of love (6): an amorous episode (7): the sexual embrace (8): a score of zero (as in tennis)

One of the most common refrains today is, “It’s all about love”, and its attendant derivative statements. Why, is it all about “love”? Why is “love” such a sought-after virtue? Everyone wants to be desired and have a sense of belonging. They want to know how and where they fit in. Most importantly they want to know they do in fact, fit in.

Too often today, “love” is code for highly emotional sentimentalism. “Love” is also a shield to prevent oneself from being challenged in an area they don’t want to address. “We just need to be ‘loving’.” Translation-I just want you to affirm and validate me no matter what I’m expressing. “You’re NOT ‘loving’.” Translation-you’re pointing out my hypocrisy or thinking in a way which is not in alignment with the popular narrative or those attempting to manufacture an artificial consensus. These lines of thought will ultimately devolve into an incoherent mess. Look at society at large today. It will become exponentially worse because those with this mindset will (mistakenly) think of themselves as being the prime example of “love”. Self-delusion is extremely dangerous.

“Love”, is also the battle cry of the feminist regime. If only people were more “loving”! Translation-if only things were more feminized/ effeminate, everything would be fine. All the problems with the world are a result of the toxically masculine patriarchy, blah, blah, blah. This is apparently true because the sinless sex is above reproach. Apparently, when God (actually “Mother Gaia”) created mankind, he intended for the feminine to be dominant and to allow her to tolerate the masculine. Of course, this is on the condition the masculine promises to emasculate himself and become more effeminate because the feminine is the highest realization of God’s good design. This is simply one of the many lies told by feminists, both female and male.

So…what is love?

I want to focus on definitions 1-4 from above. Definition (5): a god or a personification of love, doesn’t really apply here. I don’t have the desire to delve into mysticism or any literary references. If I do, it’ll be in the future. Definitions (6): an amorous episode; and (7): the sexual embrace, both discuss the physical aspects of love. I don’t want to have that discussion at this point, maybe in the future. Physical acts may involve “love” but also may not. It’s a discussion in and of itself.

Let’s begin with definition 1; strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties. If one were to have a kinship with someone or a personal tie, does that tend to develop a strong affection between them? Is this a good thing? If one didn’t have a sense of kinship or a personal tie with someone, would they develop a strong sense of affection? Would this be a good thing? If one didn’t have a strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties, would they be more likely to develop a strong sense of disdain for someone? Which of these scenarios will help create a healthy society? Which of these will help individuals discover a sense of belonging or place?

Let’s examine definition (2): attraction based on sexual desire: affection and tenderness felt by lovers. This does overlap slightly with definitions (6) & (7). I don’t want to venture too far off my focus here, but a slight deviation is appropriate. If there were no attraction or desire for each other (male and female) what would be the result? The reason you’re reading this right now is because of that desire. If those who have that desire for each other also have affection and tenderness, what does that do to that relationship? Does it help it or hinder it? Does it make it healthy or unhealthy? If a couple were not attracted to each other, but were instead repulsed by each other, what would that relationship be like? Would they be more or less likely to have affection and tenderness for each other? What would that relationship be like? Is it better for society to be made up of units (male and female) that have a genuine desire for each other with affection and tenderness? Or is it better for society to be made up of units (male and female) that have no desire for each other and thus no chance of affection and tenderness? It should be obvious which is better.

Let’s consider definition (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence or common interests. For those relationships which are not romantic but are centered in commonalities such as workplace, etc., how should they operate? Would it be healthy/ beneficial for them to operate with an affection based on admiration, benevolence or common interests? If those things weren’t present, how would that organization operate? How long would it last? Would it be a healthy place to be? Here again, the answer is obvious.

Lastly, let’s consider definition (4): unselfish, loyal or benevolent concern for the good of another. I shouldn’t have to go through it at this point. Nonetheless, here we go. If society at large were to operate based on being unselfish, while promoting loyalty and a benevolent concern for the good of others, what would the result be? What about the reverse? If society at large was operating from a place of selfishness while promoting disloyalty and dismissing or acting against a benevolent concern for the good of others, what would the result be? Maybe you should stick your head outside and see for yourself.

I doubt there’s anyone who can offer a legitimate argument against “love” being an intrinsic principle on which life is founded. But…why is that? From where did it come? How did it become an intrinsic part of life? Does it mean something more than what has been discussed above?