Scott Williams

5 Comments

  1. Scott
    August 24, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

    @Dale. Regarding your question about a Father of 4 children, and a set of 2 don’t know about the other set of 2, and vice versa. Can this father perfectly love set 1, without there being love between sets 1 and 2.

    Here’s my guess. Richard would say that the Father would lack perfect love (at least) b/c the kids don’t know and don’t love one another. I think Richard is focused equally as much on the overall situation (overall story) and he is one x’s loving y. The love that I have is not the sum total of the love I direct at others, but my love-experience (should, on Richard’s view) include/be directed at others love-experiences. Suppose a mother loves her two children, but the kids hate one another. Although the mother loves both, her overall situation could be better if the kids loved one another. For she grieves at the lack of love between them. This bad situation can be dramatized if the kids try to murder one another. Sure, the mother loves her kids, but the lack of love contributes (negatively) to her happiness and love-experience. Perhaps Richard has a sort of extended mind notion the background?

  2. Scott
    August 11, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

    Yep. It isn’t valid; again, I’m just reporting the argument at this point.

    I suppose Richard thinks “to love another” requires that they act rightly by them. So, if I love my cat, but decide not to give her food, then Richard would infer that I don’t in fact love my cat. I suppose for Richard, love entails right action.

    Going back to the family analogy. Suppose two parents love their two children. But the children don’t love one another. Even though the parents love the kids, and the kids love the parents, if all of them went on a family vacation there’d be some general unhappiness b/c the kids don’t love one another (e.g., Johnny breaks Sally’s barbie doll and laughs). As it were, the parents grieve at the unrequited love btwn. the kids, and so the overall state of affairs–the over love-states are less perfect than they could be.

  3. Dale
    August 11, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

    Hey Scott,

    If that’s Richard’s argument, it looks really problematic to me. The def says that to enjoy perfect love is to (1) love and be loved by (exactly?) two equals, and (2) to want them to enjoy mutual and equal love. I don’t get it – why would having perfect love require those two things? Why couldn’t one perfectly love just one equal? And why would perfect love require that all (or 2 of?) one’s lovees also equally love each other? Suppose I had two kids, from two marriages, and these kids live on different continents and never meet each other. Why is my love for either one of them deficient?

    Another problem: “… if I love God, then my love is maxed-out”. That doesn’t seem right – can’t one tepidly love God? There are many characters is the Bible who love God, but who are very unfaithful to him. Again, I think of Jesus’s saying that whoever has been forgiven much, loves much. Maybe the Pharisee or other clean-living but self-righteous person etc. really does love God, but not to a very high degree.

    I think your premise (5) is false. If a being lacks perfect love, it doesn’t follow that either it is unwilling or unable to have perfect love. He could be both willing and able, but we waiting for one or more others to freely respond.

    On (5i) – why does there actually have to be perfect love in reality?

    In sum, I’m not sure the argument is valid. But what’s more important, it seems to me, is that the motivations for crucial parts of the argument are unclear.

  4. Scott
    August 3, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

    I’d suspect that inference is a category mistake….

  5. Villanueva
    August 3, 2009 @ 6:19 am

    Hmmm… does that mean that a menage à trois is more perfect than the love of just a couple? Interesting…