Does love exist?

Question

The above is a question I would like (love, if you will) an analytic answer to. My belief for the past few years has been, no, definitely not - but I am interested in the counter argument, or if you agree, what causes the illusion of "love" and is it worth pursuing.

Answer 1

I would say that it depends on the grounds and the context when we say that love does exist - depending on the grounds and the context, I would say that it is possible there is such thing as love that exists in the world, so that when we talk about it, there is something real in the world which corresponds with what we are talking about. However, this question does not necessarily sit within the boundaries of philosophical "argumentation", since the grounds and the context cannot necessarily be stipulated in terms acceptable to philosophical debate. So, even though, the question of love may relate to questions of ontology, any valid answer may necessarily express itself in terms necessarily "unfamiliar" to philosophical debate. For example, for me, I would see love in terms of "telling the truth" and being completely honest with other humans, regardless of what this may "cost" us in the world. This is how I could express what I think of as one of the valid expressions of love - this gives me a marker for when something does not count as love, to me. But the terms in which I express this, are not necessarily reducible to any other terms, since when we try and express what we think of as love, then we come right up against the problem of language, and meaning. So the problem of language, I think, needs to be left as is, in order that we can simply express what we think of as love - because insisting on the dubitable nature of "truth", as philosophers could insist on doing, would perhaps minimise what I am trying to say when I express what I think of as love, before even engaging directly in its context, or grounds. In summary, I believe that in order to express what we think of as love, and what it could be, we would need to place on hold certain questions which philosophers may tend to ask, by the nature of philosophy - though the question is related to areas in philosophy, like ontology (the question of "what is"), it is also a question which necessarily stands outside of philosophy - by its own very nature.

Answer 2

Since we can see love and hatred in this world, when you think that love exists, you should think that hatred also exists. (Not only love) Actually this world itself is an illusion (Maya). In some Indian traditions love is not given with great importance. You may have noticed, when love disappears hatred comes up in its place. So they give importance to 'shanti' (peace) (that transcends both love and hatred). In Buddhist and Hindu traditions they chant 'shanti' three times.

The reason for chanting ‘peace’ three times is because all obstacles, problems and sorrows originate from three sources:

Aadhidaivika : The unseen divine forces over which we have little or no control like earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions etc.

Aadhibhautika: The known factors around us like accidents, human contacts, pollution, crime etc.

Aadhyaatmika : We sincerely pray to the Lord that at least while we undertake special tasks or even in our daily lives.

Please note: Eventually Peace transcends Love. Then only the word 'liberation' gets the real meaning in all its aspects.