Love is unquestionably an invariably broad topic and it is absolutely difficult to define (from the Latin word “defenire” which means to set the limits or boundaries of). In this discussion of love and with the inputs from our Philosophy of the Human Person 2 class, we speak of love not in a phenomenological perspective and we don’t also define love the way literature does. We speak of love in this discussion in a functional notion and a medically-sound manner of looking at it.
Scott Peck, M.D., an American psychiatrist and the author of the book, The Road Less Travelled, defines love on page 82.
“Love is the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.”
There are so many ways how to define love but this one is a healthy definition of what it is for. This definition of love is in fact a teleological definition. Teleological is derived from a Greek word “telos” which means “the ultimate goal or end”. This definition therefore states what love is for not what it is. It states the ultimate purpose and the final cause of what love exists for.
The way Peck perceived and defined love is also a unitary definition as well. By this he meant that love functions in both ways. “Nurturing the other redounds to nurturing the self, and nurturing the self redounds to nurturing the other.”
Having the unitary and teleological definition of love, it establishes therefore a notion that love is completely different and not equal to falling-in-love albeit falling-in-love could be a process towards authentic love, but still these two concepts remain to have a major disparity.
What seems to be the difference between love and falling-in-love?
Falling-in-love is simply an erotic and a biological experience. Simply because, it is natural for people to get attracted with the opposite sex and as we grow and develop, this is simply a natural tendency for humans in response to continuous hormonal activity. Falling-in-love is invariably impermanent. As one falls in love, the person sees the one s/he is attracted to not as a person but as something else. When one falls in love, it turns him/her on, and when one falls out of love it turns him/her off. Lastly, falling-in-love is involuntary meaning it is something that is not chosen and therefore falling-in-love is simply a reaction, a response to an external stimulus.
This is the example used by Sir Rey in our discussion of falling-in-love. So many girls of our generation would usually go gaga with Taylor Lautner, the one who portrayed Jacob Black in the Twilight Saga, because of his abs rather than who he really is and who he is not. They see Lautner not as a human person and his flaws but rather they see him and his abs and his other noticeable characteristics.
When one falls in love, Scott Peck postulates that the ego boundaries momentarily collapse. Ego boundary is a term that refers to the mental ability to distinguish the “I” from the world.
Love on the other hand, is an act of Will. In Bikol Philosophy, we say “An pagkamoot iyo an pagdusay nin sadiri para sa iba na gikan sa boot.”While falling-in-love may just be a desire and an emotional inclination towards someone, love is a desire which is of sufficient intensity that is translated into action. Love is an ethical decision and is something that is sustainable because to love is to choose to love. It is something that is voluntary and therefore chosen. Love is primarily an action, and therefore we can presuppose that loving is backed up by a certain human capacity and that is freedom. Love only begins when we choose to begin it and it only stops when you choose to cease it. To love someone is something deliberative and internally motivated. Love is obviously only a human concern. Peck also concluded that Love is a decision.
Love isn’t the same as falling-in-love. All the same, true and authentic love could not have come from and begin from isolation, a certain amount of falling-in-love is necessary to get sufficiently close to be able to truly love. Indeed loving authentically could have come from falling-in-love first the gradually growing and going to the process of truly loving.
Once through the falling-in-love stage, the work of love begins. It is not a feeling or simply an emotional inclination towards someone. It consists of what actions you do for a certain person. As Peck says in his book, "Love is as love does." It is about giving the other person what they need to grow. It is about truly knowing and understanding them.
Love nurtures growth. It is in loving that we continually unfold and grow.
Try associating these given characteristics of love and falling-in-love with your own personal experiences of love and falling-in-love and it might just substantiate these psychiatric concepts of Scott Peck.
Love therefore is unequal to falling-in-love.
Try pondering on these points:
1. Is parental affection, authentic love or a process of falling-in-love?
2. “To truly love is to choose to love.”
3. If one has no choice or freedom at all, he is not capable of loving.
Just post ur replies to these points on the comment box. :)
Javier Leonardo Vitug Rugeria
II Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy
Foreign Service and International Relations
Ateneo de Naga University
Sources and References:
Morgan Scott Peck MD, The Road Less Travelled
Prof. Rey Francis M. Hernandez, Philosophy Department
Fr. Wilmer Joseph Tria, Ph.D., Ako asin an Kapwa Ko
Prof. Ronald Turiano, Philosophy Department
