Is Love a prerequisite for Understanding

[exchemist]

Yes, I thought of this too, but I'm still conflicted.

The desire and willingness that you describe above? Isn't that a form of love ( compassion & empathy ).

The problem I have with this thread is that it seems to assume that the only objects of understanding are people.

What about understanding nature, or abstract ideas, or music? Is it suggested these things require love to be understood? If so, then I think @Quintessence's query about what one means by love is apposite.

 

[bharti]

Is Love a prerequisite for understanding?

Maybe it's a silly question? But I wonder, can someone really understand another person's point of view without cultivating love in the form of compassion and empathy?

Conversely, can hatred lead to understanding?

Thank you,

It will depend on what you mean by love. I think preference of positive or negative kinds both may cloud understanding.

 

[osgart]

How can you love without attempting to understand. I think love is the fruition of other virtues at work. Certainly understanding is a virtue that requires the intention of empathy.

The end result of things may become love, or it may not.

Is the intention to love going to produce love?

How do you love the unlovable? Perhaps there is a love that cares for the soul of other even when that soul is unlovable.

I would think it easy to love those whom are loveable. But reality ain't perfect.

The contrary thing to cruel judgment is to seek to understand.

To seek to understand is an investment of time and energy. I think the virtue of understanding avoids much grief and woe.

 

[Quintessence]

Compassion and Empathy, a desire to nurture and connect.

Per that understanding of love, I wouldn't say it is required for understanding in most (though not all) contexts. Certainly, factual understanding or practical applications require none of those things listed. Emotionality isn't necessary. But in cases where "understanding" really means "identifying with" (aka, sympathy and empathy) it would be?

 

[dybmh]

The problem I have with this thread is that it seems to assume that the only objects of understanding are people.

It's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. I was, indeed, focusing human beliefs and interpersonal dynamics.

What about understanding nature, or abstract ideas, or music?

These are much less complex and easier to understand, than an individual's POV and beliefs?

If so, then I think @Quintessence's query about what one means by love is apposite.

Agreed.

Perhaps I can ask the question a little differently? True understanding, real complete understanding, is impossible, IMO. No one can learn every aspect, every detail, of someone ( or something ) 100%. The best anyone can do, is approach understanding. How does this happen? What is the cause, the inspiration, the motivation behind the impulse to learn about someone ( or something ) that is external the the individual? It could even be self discovery... It's curiosity? sure. But if it's only curiosity, then the inspiration/motivation/impulse to learn is shallow and brief? If so, then curiosity alone doesn't approach understanding in a significant way. It's only scratching the surface.

So what brings a person to a deeper understanding? In every example that I can think of, compassion and empathy are at least involved. How much are they involved, and whether they are required is the question I was trying to ask in the OP.

 

[dybmh]

Per that understanding of love, I wouldn't say it is required for understanding in most (though not all) contexts. Certainly, factual understanding or practical applications require none of those things listed. Emotionality isn't necessary. But in cases where "understanding" really means "identifying with" (aka, sympathy and empathy) it would be?

Right. This is why I focused on understanding a person's point of view. IMHO, a factual practical understanding of a person's point view is ( depending on the topic ) superficial. People are complicated.

Politics is an easy example, maybe? Imagine two people with diametrically opposing views on socialism. One person has compassion and empathy for the other. Conversely, this other person is either indifferent or has contempt for the first person. Comparing these two people, who would approach the deeper understanding of the other's view ( assuming the contempt is in equal magnitude as the compassion )?

For me, it's a difficult question to answer. @bharti brings up a good point, because neutrality may be the most accurate... I hadn't thought of that. but... neutrality wouldn't inspire a person towards understanding at all ( I think ).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is Love a prerequisite for understanding?

Maybe it's a silly question? But I wonder, can someone really understand another person's point of view without cultivating love in the form of compassion and empathy?

Conversely, can hatred lead to understanding?

Thank you,

I am not sure which comes first. It would seem to me that in order to love or hate something, you would have to understand it very, very well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is Love a prerequisite for understanding?

Maybe it's a silly question? But I wonder, can someone really understand another person's point of view without cultivating love in the form of compassion and empathy?

Conversely, can hatred lead to understanding?

Thank you,

Hatred does not seem to require much understanding and can thrive on misunderstanding.

Emotional responses say as much about ourselves as that which is being responded to.

I know that I can love a person and hate what they stand for or their actions. And that love does not mean I condone or follow their beliefs and actions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Is Love a prerequisite for understanding?

Maybe it's a silly question? But I wonder, can someone really understand another person's point of view without cultivating love in the form of compassion and empathy?

Conversely, can hatred lead to understanding?

Thank you,

Funny, Just posted in another thread that Love is the Light and virtues are the rainbow.

So I would say yes, Love feeds our virtue, our own self is prone to lack that virtue in the struggles of life.

In this life I see the opposites are required so we can get the choice to Love. I see just because we choose to Love, that hatred is not still there in this world, it is not there only when we choose to personally subdue it.

It is oh so easy for the darkness to shut out the light. In the Baha'i Writings it says we are created on the edge of darkness and the beginning of Light, I see that means the light is our potential, only when we choose to love and spread the rainbow of virtues that result there from.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Maybe it's a silly question? But I wonder, can someone really understand another person's point of view without cultivating love in the form of compassion and empathy?

I only offer this as there was a person born in this world that was gifted to show us how to love, that person took the name of Abdul'baha. So much so that we were asked to look at Him, Follow Him in virtue and be as He was.

When you read the stories of His life, one can see what you asked is true. Love is the only way to release the virtues.

RegardsTony

 

[PureX]

Yes, I thought of this too, but I'm still conflicted.

The desire and willingness that you describe above? Isn't that a form of love ( compassion & empathy ).

Actually, I think it's the CHOICE to pursue love. Which is very important. People often think and say that love is not a matter of choice, but some sort of self-propelled phenomenon; and I disagree. I think it begins exactly with our making the choice to pursue love, and then love, itself, being the follow-through on that choice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I only offer this as there was a person born in this world that was gifted to show us how to love, .. Follow Him in virtue and be as He was.

This is proselyting. There have been millions of people in the world who advocated 'love'. Jesus, Gandhi, MLKing and many more, Chaitanya, Nanak, Kabir, Baba Farid. Follow any of them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is proselyting. There have been millions of people in the world who advocated 'love'. Jesus, Gandhi, MLKing and many more, Chaitanya, Nanak, Kabir, Baba Farid. Follow any of them.

In your opinion, in reality I speak naught but the Truth.

Another point is that it is the lifestyle and virtues being talked about, it was the example we were asked to live by.

@dybmh it appears you also mistook the intent also, oh well, such is life when the big proselyting word is thrown about.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I only offer this as there was a person born in this world that was gifted to show us how to love, that person took the name of Abdul'baha. So much so that we were asked to look at Him, Follow Him in virtue and be as He was.

When you read the stories of His life, one can see what you asked is true. Love is the only way to release the virtues.

RegardsTony

Thanks Tony, that person is indeed a great example of how to live one's life.

I know the intent was not proselyting, so pay no intention to those that just love to find a nasty thing, to add to such a good intent.



About time to throw in RF, I recon

Regards Your inner self.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Tony Bristow-Stagg thanking Tony Bristow-Stagg (himself). Amusing, first time that I encounter such a post.
Proselyting is written on all posts by Bahais in CAPITAL LETTERS.