 |
 |
Unconditional love is one of the most challenging and dangerous concepts ever circulated. In many respects it is a basic argument for innocence, at least on it's lower rungs. At the end of the day, it requires an existential leap of faith; perhaps of a Camusian nature. Certainly it demands a love of nature and all that unfolds from our most fundamental compositions. Having been raised on this principle, it has caused me damage and pain [not physical, nothing like domestic abuse]. On the other hand, practising this as a mother with my children has brought about levels of personal freedom, truthfulness and trust which I wouldn't have imagined. Which suggests to me that paradoxically, unconditional love is a premise which requires boundaries and context. I'd say to hell with rationalizing loving others. For myself, I'm content with humanism, however out of fashion. Empathy provides the capacity for dialogue and dialectic. Life without transformations which touch us personally seems dry and unworthwhile. Susanna Chandler Brookfield, VT Cambridge, MA on 3/20/03 5:28 AM, Gary MacLennan at [log in to unmask] wrote: > I had not intended to burden this list with more reflections of a political > and philosophical nature. The thread on death is probably more apposite in > any case. But after I spoke at the large anti-war rally in the Brisbane > this afternoon I was bailed up by a philosophy student from the University > of Qld. He wanted to debate the philosophical orientation of the > rally. For him it was largely Kantian while he advocated a John Stuart > Mills approach. > > I am self taught in philosophy but generally understood that he thought > that the war should be judged on its consequences and not on some general > abstract good versus evil principle. He thought that it was arguable that > the war might have good consequences. I said that I was more of a > Levinasian and that I thought the crucial thing was that we commit > ourselves to unconditional love. > > He then pounced and accused me of confusing the philosophical issues by > being emotional. I thought it interesting, (but did not say so) that > someone like me, an old softie from the Sixties, should be lectured on the > inappropriateness of emotions by an earnest young scholar from the 21st > century. > > But I have drawn considerable comfort of late from Roy Bhaskar's current > attempt to break through the usual taboos and to restore an emotional > element to philosophy and to once more make us think out the relevance of > unconditional love at this time. > > I also believe that if we think of how film works in many ways at the level > of the emotions, then it becomes appropriate to consider how emotions are > mobilised by the image makers loyal to the powerful. Be it Black Hawk Down > or Air Force One or Three Kings those who seek to enlist us in their bid to > dominate have no scruples in playing upon our emotions. So I think that > contra my young Brisbane philosopher we should also discuss the role of > emotions in the philosophy of film. > > regards > > Gary