I agree with Stewart, and am surprised to see you quoting him, partly because I have no problem with self-evident truths available as an essential aspect of truth for anyone hoping to be a completely actualized human being. You distinguish yourself as an exception to that in your robotic loyalty to the lab cloak clerics, at the exclusion of other types of evidence.
The dictionary and other sources have more than one definition, recognize overlapping issues, and note the need to qualify one definition as being applicable to certain circumstances but not others. Romantic love, familial love, social alliances, platonic, or religious love all have common denominators and all can be distinguished one from the others. Lust which also has some overlapping characteristics is generally seen as opposing love, or as a corrupting influence.
I characterize love as a profound sense of oneness associated with concerns for the well being of another which is as strong as concerns for well being of self. The term is often contrasted with lust which carries the overriding emotion of affection while being more focused on self satisfaction of desire than with mutual well being. Not only is love based on selfless giving but it requires a responsible connection to the well-being of another to be fulfilled as an individual.
I can imagine that animals are naturally inclined to playing a beneficent role in the big picture of nature’s harmony but not as a choice involving willfulness, which is the context we were discussing. |
