RE: Is “love” significant?
July 12, 2014 at 11:09 am
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2014 at 11:14 am by bennyboy.)
(July 12, 2014 at 9:59 am)XK9_Knight Wrote: For Benny’s sake, I would define ‘significant’ as having lasting meaning or value (worthy for it’s own sake).
Then no. Since emotions are temporary states, they do not have lasting meaning or value.
I think you could define love in other ways. For example, if something about someone inspires in you feelings of altruism, you could call that love, and that would be significant in that it has affected the lover's world view. In some cases, love can mean a complete abandonment of the sense of importance of the self in favor of the other. I've argued that Christianity has this advantage-- that it places something other than pleasure at the center of a person's world view. And when multiple people are defining their center around the same idea-- myth or not-- that establishes a special community. Atheism doesn't do this, though certainly there are many altruistic atheists, or those who share common goals.
Personally, I'd keep maybe half a dozen Christian values, and right at the top would be "love your neighbor as you love yourself." The goofy history, wrong science and fearmongering, I'd cut.