Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

To what end do you love and show love, and the reasons you go down the acts. It is to persevere. What kind of love does not persevere? We have been shown that the thing that shows more strength and more push in anything in life is love. This all but sacred act that each one of us has the power to reach for. We have been given this ability and only can have it by freely choosing it. Any love that isn't freely chosen and fought for isn't love at all. Love is proven in our preservation of it, in our ability to push aside the faults as separate to the person.

Now this is not the same as ignoring the faults, only pushing them to the side and helping the person with the faults. The love factor only loves the person despite the faults at hand, and understands the needs for such flaws or faults to be removed. Where has this empty idea of love including faults come from? Obviously if a loved one has some sort of disease you wish to get rid of this disease not keep it as a part of them that you love along with the rest. We must not confuse faults and the person together, and understand more deeply what it means to be a person.

We cannot do so by accepting faults and loving them a long with the person. For acts are not the person. Many people do not realize within their acclimation of such a teaching they also accept murderers, rapists, thieves, and many others. We might only mean when we claim that "we ought to love the less sinful seeming of the vices" but we often times don't realize within the definition itself, unless you wish to be a hypocrite, that it includes the worse a long with it, if in fact actions are the person that we ought to love. This is where the secular idea of love fails, in that we ought to love the actions because they make the person, but hardly ever accept such actions as murder and rape. And if one did like G.K. Chesterton pointed out with Nietzsche they would only be to coward to claim they know morality, or the difference between right and wrong better than anyone. Better quoted "Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, "beyond good and evil," because he had not the courage to say, "more good than good and evil," or, "more evil than good and evil." " They would merely be claiming what they claim everyone else to be, and being wrong in doing so, making them a hypocrite in a very different manner than the earlier. A much worse hypocrite, a hypocrite who is knowingly a hypocrite in words and deeds, rather than just words.

The idea of 'loving as accepting actions as someone themselves' for example 'loving homosexuality because your friend does homosexual acts'. It is quite the confusion of ideals, and actualities rather than a better understanding of what it means to love. Now you could say "well I love a knife because it cuts well" but you could also very well say "I hate knives because they kill people." This is the difference between ability and the act the ability takes form in. In the first we know a good knife because of its ability to cut, but if the knife is used for killing than we would no longer think that knife any good in the moral sense. Like another quote from the same man as earlier "A man might be a good shot if he can shoot his grandmother from a hundred yards, but you couldn't call him a good man." We notice quite well that we love a thing but might hate its actions. Yet within the idea of loving a person we often forget that we shouldn't love an action if it is a wrong action, but that does not go to say that we do not love the person. We still love a sharp knife because it cuts fruits and vegetables well despite its ability to cut a human being, and our love of that knife does not go away just because it is used to kill someone, because it can still cut a good vegetable.

I notice a problem with my analogy that I cannot ignore. A knife by itself cannot kill a man, it is the man behind the knife that commits the action, even if it happens by accident the knife still does not make the conscience choice to kill the man. So obviously my analogy only goes as far as to show the difference between loving something for its ability and the purpose behind its ability. But I believe this to be perfect for the point I am going to make next. That is essentially mans purpose. We will notice with a knife when it is being used for the purpose we intend it for we love the knife when it is sharp, but once it steps outside of the purpose, and say while we are cutting vegetables it, on accident, cut our fingers. For that second you would have a displeasure with that knife for cutting you, but would go on using it and loving it for the purpose intended.

(Unfinished)