A friend reacted to my Pushing boundaries blog and wrote the comment above. The word “love” is, however, a generic term and can refer to any type of love (eg, divine, friends, parental, romantic, the self). That it why the ancient Greek had various words for love (eg, agape, eros, philautia, philia, storge, xenia).
Let’s suppose, for argument’s sake, that my friend refers to all types of love. Is her statement true?
Actually, I would not know how to live my life without love. The absence of romantic love (ie, eros) is a nuisance but it’s not vital. The absence of my love for power is meaningless to me. An absence of my love for knowledge would make my life empty and thus meaningless. Hence, her statement feels valid.
In my view, there’s also a love for Love (eg, song).
I suppose my triangle is unbreakable: either there’s a love for knowledge, or for power, or for love itself, or for all three. The only alternative is emptiness. Hence, Love is all around (see song below). Moreover, Knowledge and Power fear each other. Hence, the dualism concept versus my trialism concept.
I suppose my friend was right in her comments to me:
- “Without love there is no happiness.”
- “But without love, life has no meaning.”
- “If there is no love, there is nothing!”.
“The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life.”A quote by Bertrand Russell (1872-1979), “the Nobel-winning English polymath”.
I feel it in my fingers, I feel it in my toes
Well, love is all around me and so the feeling grows
It’s written on the wind, it’s everywhere I go
So if you really love me, come on and let it show
Note: all markings (bold, italic, underlining) by LO unless in quotes or stated otherwise.