Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If a person loves his wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, this does not mean that everyone gets less love than if he loved only his wife. Love is not a food that gets less the more eaters there are.
I liked the answer: “If parents love all their children, then they don't love any children?” In this case, Oscar Wilde was clearly in no state to think straight).
Such a question can be born out of a lack of understanding of what love is. We usually understand this term as our sympathies for someone or something. This is the fallacy. Love is a state of the human soul characterized by the desire for the good of everyone and everything. Being in this state, a person cannot love selectively, selectively, that is, he cannot wish good to some people and hate others. For this reason, if a person tells someone about love, and does nasty things to another, then he does not love anyone. No one but myself. Well, if a person loves, then he loves everyone. Well, what kind of love he loves whom – romantic, friendly or universal-is another question.
crooked logic of the question. To love one's neighbors is to treat them as one's own self, which is why Christ put this very statement in a different form:�
Parents love all their children and therefore don't love any of them?) Somehow it turns out that even people know what hurts someone, when to call someone, etc. And Jesus is God.
The question itself is not quite correct. This is a matter of existence, not logic. Jesus, like all people before and after him, could not love all people, simply because to do this, at least you need to be personally acquainted with every person on Earth. But existentially, he has reached a state of consciousness of “all-encompassing love” – a state in which your” empirical self ” (personality) dissolves, merging with a very strong religious-metaphysical feeling of love for everything that exists, for all matter. Moreover, he has not just reached this state, he has learned to hold it and even transmit (train)it this is for his disciples; in other words, he has become a Master.
Apparently, by the phrase “love all” the author of the question understands love not for specific people, but for the whole of humanity, for a certain concept. In this case, he is right, it is impossible to love some abstract humanity. How can you love someone you've never seen, never heard of, and only theoretically guess at their existence? Must not. If I say that I love Polynesians or Eskimos – I have never encountered any of them in my life-I will simply be lying.
But Christ is another matter. For him, “everything”, “humanity” is not an abstraction, as for us, but concrete living people, with each of whom He has a connection, each of whom He knows, sees, with each of whom He has a special tone of relations. Yes, He loves everyone – but that means exactly what He loves everyone. Imagine a father in a large family-he loves each of his children, and his children are not an abstract “children” for him, but concrete Tanya, Vanya, Manya, Sanya… So is Christ. His love is directed not at the abstraction called “humanity”, but at the author of the question, at me, at you reading my answer…
1). God (the son of God) loves everyone.
2). To love everyone is to love no one.
These are axioms of two different logics. Christian teaching and a later (if I'm not mistaken) philosophical point of view… That's right. The search engine names the author of the second dictum, Oscar Wilde.
Such theses or axioms often contradict each other. And here it can be seen even from the context.