Love of Family

Here's something that I never understood, and still don't. Then again, I was an unusual child.

From what I've been told by several relatives, I was very quiet as an infant. If somebody tried to hug me, I'd raise my arms in protest (I remember doing this as a small child, too). If somebody tried to kiss me, I'd push them away. I didn't like being held, and, most of all, I hated being bothered. I was quietly and happily amuse myself with my toys or, when I was larger, our pets (I do remember, as a four year-old, hugging my beloved dog, Scruffy, before he ran away, which upset me to no end).

Growing up, nothing much changed with my family, which I no longer speak with, save a few members (for a few different reasons). I realized, long, long ago, that I didn't love my family members. I can't remember ever feeling anything even remotely postive towards them. Indeed, even among the few people I still speak with (such as my brother) in my family, I don't feel any sort of love for them. I enjoy speaking with them, but it doesn't go much beyond that. They're more like people between the stages of "acquaintance" and "friend."

Because of this, I've always been confused by the notion of family members naturally loving one another. I just don't understand it. I understand, in many families, the "family" is valued in and of itself...I can understand collectivization as such (indeed, I am guilty, in my pre-Randian days, of this, to some extent), but I can't wrap my head around the feeling of love for individuals within the family.

Is there anybody who can explain this phenomenon to me? I don't just mean a love of parents for their children...I also mean between siblings, uncles/aunts/nephews/nieces, cousins, etc.

Post 1

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 10:02am

What you've described sounds a tiny bit like autism in an extremely mild form. (I'm not saying it is by a long shot. That's just my first impression.)

Have you ever read Nobody Nowhere by autistic Donna Williams? It has a sequel, Somebody Somewhere. Both are powerfully moving, relating the experience of this disorder and the struggle to overcome it in the first person.

Reading these books, I have sometimes thought that autism may in part be an attempt to protect the integrity of one's self from the encroachments of others, interpreted by the sufferer as collectivistic pressures. But there is much evidence that it is physically based as well--would you believe that the author had a breakthrough by wearing a special kind of eyeglasses? That fact still boggles my mind.

[PS: I've just realized that I did not address your question, and implied it was you who needed to be justified. That is not my intention. Your question is a hard one and I lack time to think it over. I hope others here can be more helpful.]

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 7/02, 10:10am)

Post 2

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 6:12pm

Joe,

I would have to somewhat agree with Rodney's autism suggestion, but I also have others:

1) There is a condition called Asperger's, which is a higher-functioning form of autism.

2) Perhaps your parents were non-engaging people at an early age, and your interests diverted to solitary play. If you ever get the chance, try and get ahold of some tapes of the orphanages in Romania, during and after the reign of Ceaucesceu(sp?)... The infants were rarely if ever handled by nurses, and they developed a cold indifference to human presence, and developed a neurotic self-stimulation regime for themselves.

It was a slow, patient task for child psychologists to go in there and just be near the children within visual range without touching them. The children had become very skittish, and had to very slowly be desensitized to human presence at all... it took many hours of parallel play for the children to initiate even brief contact of any kind with the therapists.

This reminds me of a famous book by Barry Neal Kaufmann(sp?) called Son Rise, which is Mr. Kaufmann's story of how he completely defied all the autism "experts" (boneheads) at the time, and using nothing but the scientific process, how he and his wife designed a completely new autism rehabilitation therapy.

It was so successful, that his son made a complete recovery, a made-for-TV movie was produced and aired about the book, his son went on to major in Biomedial Ethics or something at Johns Hopkins, and the Kaufmanns went on to found the Autism Treatment Center of America, as well as The Option Institute.

Of course, the autism community doesn't even mention that the foundation exists, because they employ a non-party-line therapy philosophy and method, and even despite the fact that the ATCA has an autism rehabilitation rate that dwarfs anything the mainstream autism community is doing.

As I see it, it's either extreme boneheadedness or, as Ayn Rand would most likely say, "hatred of the good for being the good".

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 7/02, 6:15pm)

Post 3

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 7:33pm

Joe,

First of all, my original response would have been this:

There is no reason to, "feel love," (an expression I find disturbing in itself) for anyone because of the accident of birth. Often, the most despicable people one is force to deal with in their lives are those of one's own family, and when one finally becomes an adult, able to choose whom they will love and befriend, in such cases there is no reason those loved and befriended ought to be family members. Even in cases where family members are not particularly obnoxious or threatening, but merely uninteresting or annoying, there is no reason to love them just because they are family.

I cannot tell you the number of people I know personally who suffered unnecessarily from guilt and feelings of unearned obligation and failure to meet responsibilities which were never theirs. One question I frequently ask those who suffer this way is, "if these people were not family members, would you feel obliged to keep their company, to give them gifts, to attend their functions, to like them, or in any other way submit to their desires or wishes? If the answer is no, there is no magic about unchosen family relationships that places any kind of obligation on you to treat people who are family any differently than you treat any other people.

There is nothing at all unusual about your childhood behavior, either. Many children find adult expressions of affection offensive and annoying, especially bright independent children. I was very fortunate to have a very intelligent mother who completely understood the differences in children. My sister was very receptive to affection, I was not, at least until I discovered girls, in about the second grade (which for me, completely changed my outlook on affection). Until then, I only received such affection as I obviously did not mind or appreciated. I suspect the adults whose affection you shunned had offensive traits that as a child you sensed, even though you could not explicitly identify them. Children are very sensitive to phoniness, for example.

Now I must add this. Everything that is wrong with the pseudo-science of psychology has been nicely demonstrated on this thread. The disgusting responses that suggest some psychological problem behind your question is beyond belief. There is nothing in what you have said to suggest any kind of problem, much less a psychological one. To attempt a diagnosis on the basis of a few words is worse than irrational, it is itself symptomatic, if not pathological.

Personally, I have a great deal of love for some members of my family, because they were marvelous people. I would have loved them no matter how I came to know them, not because they are family. The only part family had to do with it is that it happens to be how I came to know them.
There are many more family members I have no interest in at all, and have nothing to do with them, nor do I have any obligation to have anything to do with them, or to care one way or the other what they think about it.

Some people are born into families where there just aren't any members they are interested in. So what?

There are some good things about family, but usually the best way to obtain them is to make your own.

If, perchance, you entertained any doubts about it, all that you said indicates you are quite normal, and much more so than those crackpots who think they can diagnose psychological problems from a few words posted to a forum. (Of course I mean that generally and am not referring to any particular person. If anyone thinks they are the one being described by my words, it is just paranoia.)

Regi

Post 4

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 8:57pm

I still stand by what I said.

And Joe is a big boy; he can read our words and judge for himself.

Post 5

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 4:38am

Inn regards to autism, I have extreme doubts, for several reasons. For example, I've never been nonreceptive to affections from friends, and moreso from people I dated; I'm considered to be one of the most affectionate people I that most people meet. My parents are highly affectionate as well, but in my early memories, they simply annoyed me (this point never really changed).

Further, most of the other traits of autistic people are the exact opposite of me...common symptoms include: trouble communicating (which may be my strongest skill), difficulty in expressing needs (never had a problem with that), tantrums (in young children; my parents used to brag that they never had to experience one with me), lack of eye contact (a big No with me), difficulty in dealing with others (nope), nonresponsive to verbal communication (this occurred once when I was six; I was soon after diagnosed with 60% hearing loss. When that was fixed, the problem never came back)... Sure, I can think of one or two actual symptoms that I possess that are indicative of autism, but anybody who looks at a list of just about any mental problem could find one or two traits.

As for Orion, re: Asperger's, it's true that, early in life, somebody with Asperger's may be very nonresponsive to people. However, this wasn't true with me...it was only with my family. At least, when I started school (my first memories of dealing with a wide variety of people that I wasn't related to), I had no problems interacting with others. I never really have had any such problem. Another symptom is having trouble with abstract thought, but very good memory; my memory's fairly average, but my ability to think in abstractions is much more powerful than most people that I deal with, and has always been that way (it was, by a process of abstraction about the nature of marks and spacing on paper, that I taught myself how to read at the age of three).

So, I stand by my notion that I doubt I have any sort of mental problem here. And, I stand by the notion that I don't naturally love my family. There's no reason to assume the former because of the latter.

I appreciate the response, Mr. Firehammer.

But, I'm still trying to understand the phenomena. The only problem is that, even I ask people to explain it in RL, instead of over the Internet, they really can't explain it at all. They know that, perhaps, it's silly to love somebody by (as Firehammer adequately pointed out) an accident of birth, but they still, nevertheless, feel an inexplicable love. I just don't understand why or how.

Given that this natural love exists, it should have a reason for its existence even if I was autistic. I'd like to confine the discussion to that instead of having my mental state analyzed on the basis of a few facts.

Post 6

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 6:26am

I take the blame for leading this thread in the wrong direction. It�s just that the topic of autism fascinates me and I wanted to mention those books. However, please note that my speculation was worded very mildly and that I admitted in an immediate edit that I was off-topic.

Post 7

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 7:21am

Rodney,

I don't think you should "take the blame" for anything. You proposed a possible explanation; that's what a discussion forum is about. If it heads in the wrong direction, that's all just a proper part of the process of discovery... when you realize that your proposal was incorrect, you go back and re-weigh the evidence and propose a new explanation.

Harsh as his denouncement was, I'm not going to hold it against Regi. Even though Joe asked for outside thoughts on why he has a certain relationship with his family, and that does require a certain measure of analysis, the act of doing so can seem noxious and assaultive to many people, myself included, on occasion.

I appropriately attempted to give Joe what he was asking for. Although I regret that Regi strongly disliked the directions that I took things, I don't see what I did as an ethical transgression, but rather earnestly trying to meet a stated need, so I'm not going to admonish myself for trying to find a possible way to give Joe what he was asking for.

Joe,

Well, in light of what you said... I'm willing to say that autism is probably out.

Maybe with your level of natural intelligence, you just can't connect with them that thoroughly. Perhaps it was due to your hearing loss, but as you say, even after your hearing loss was corrected, the indifference still remained. Now, I will suggest that perhaps this distance was permanized because during the normal time that a child is most helpless and vulnerable and would most strongly build a profound trust and closeness bond to parents and family members, your early hearing loss prevented you from properly hearing their approach and attempts to communicate with you.

An unheard approach that suddenly becomes a touch on your shoulder might startle you and be interpreted as disturbing enough to perhaps fear those around you, when you would otherwise be forming profound bonds with them. Attempts by them to communicate with you when you cannot properly hear them, would logically result in your seeming to ignore or be unresponsive to them... at a time when parents need to bond to their children just as much as their children need to bond to them.

But aside from all of this, if the hearing loss really never was a problem, then I would say that perhaps your early intelligence as opposed to their average intelligence, created a affiliational distance between you and them. There may have been numerous subtle miscommunications and misinterpretations between you and your family, that created a distance, where little or no such distance existed between you and your friends, who you could relate to much more profoundly, due to the commonalities in communicative and analytical abilities.

At any rate, those are my next best guesses, based on what you have told us. If neither of these seems right to you, then I think I'm out of ideas.

Post 8

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 6:59am

Hey Joe,

Consider what psychologists call attachment. It's defined as a close emotional bond between the infant and caregiver. Psychologist Mary Ainsworth (1979) has researched attachment, classifying levels of infant attachment into four categories.

B-Type (secure): baby uses the caregiver as a secure base from which to explore the environment.
A-Type (avoidant): baby exhibits insecurity by avoiding the mother (for example, ignoring her, averting their gaze, and failing to seek proximity).
C-Type (amivalent-resistant): baby exhibits insecurity by resisting the mother (for example, clinging to her but at the same time fighting against the closeness, perhaps by kicking and pushing away).
D-Type (disorganized): babies are disorganized and disoriented. They may look dazed, show confusion, and be afraid.

The theory of attachment asserts that if early attachment (within the first year of life) is important, it should relate to a child's social behavior later in development. Psychologist Alan Sroufe (1985, 1996), documents this connection. B-Type babies were less frustrated than the other at 2 years of age. Anxiety problems in adolescence were linked to Type-C babies. And conduct disorder (aggression problems) were related to Type-A babies.

Levels of infant attachment correlate to styles of caregivers. Caregivers of B-Types are sensitive to their babies. (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Caregivers of A-Types are unavailable or rejecting. (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Caregivers of C-Types tend to be inconsistently available to their babies. (Cassidy & Berlin, 2000). And caregivers of D-Types often neglect or physically abuse their babies. (Barnett, Gniban, & Cicchetti, 199; Field, 1995).

Attachment is just a prominent indicator that you might find useful. It's not the only path to latter day competence, nor is it the only theory. Other psychologists (such as Jerome Kagan, 1987) argue hat "infants are high resilient and adaptive [] and are evolutionarily equipped to stay on a positive developmental course, even in the face of wide variations in parenting. Kagan and others stress that genetic and temperament characteristics play more important roles in a child's social competence than attachment theorists [] are willing to acknowledge." (Santrock, 2001). And other psychologists stress cultural factors. (Id).

*

To answer your question directly: Some people love their family because of their successful attachment with them at an early age. I would argue that the behaviors associated with attachment (e.g., the "natural loving" that you mention) become habitual. And so even if the reinforcers for these behaviors fade, the habit remains.

*

And if I may wax philosophical for a moment... Love is so often a recognition of the familiar. I'm more comfortable in my own culture; I care more for those who are like me; I get pangs of nostalgia when I think of the neighborhood I grew up in, my old house. Family are quite often the most familiar part of our lives. They're the first people who interact with us. And for those of us not adopted, they are the closest to us genetically.

Jordan

Post 9

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 8:31pm

As for my hearing loss, this was a sudden happening...I was tested at the age of 4 perfectly fine; testing at the age of 6 demonstrated this loss. I don't remember if I was tested at the age of 5.

Jordan, as for your analysis, it partly makes sense...it isn't love, but habits formed by how people "bonded" with their child. I do note a certain inconsistency in my case given what you said, but, perhaps, if I looked at the theory more closely, it would disappear.

Overall, though I haven't really been asking "Why don't I love my family?" I'm wondering how it is that "natural love" (a contradiction in terms, as far as I can tell) is a normal state. Just because I say that I have trouble understanding it does not mean that I think something is wrong with me. I think that, mentally, I'm fine.

Post 10

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 8:40am

I certainly never felt, nor do I now feel, love for my cousins, uncles, aunts, etc.--but I do definitely feel it in some form for my immediate family, though perhaps to different degrees. No time now to outline what I think are the reasons. But I have one question for Joe: Have you ever had a member of your immediate family die? (You don't mention it here, so I suppose not.) How do you think you would feel on the death of, say, your mother? Have you ever considered this? If not, think about it closely for a few days.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 7/04, 8:42am)

Post 11

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 11:25am

Parents, almost without exception love their children, some to the extent that they would literally and unhesitatingly die for them. Why?

I may get raked over the coals here, and I'm no expert, but it seems that humans, together with higher animals, have a natural bent (man, I'd be taking my life in my hands if I used the word, "instinct" here) to transmit his or her genes to future generations. In the case of children it's direct � in the case of more distant relations it's reduced commensurately.

Of course this doesn't explain the love for adopted children, but maybe it's just love by proxy that the predisposition didn't take account of and has gone awry.

Anyway, I think that that is one explanation as to why we're "supposed" to love family members.

Post 12

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 1:27pm

I think Rodney has a good idea about imagining the death of a relative. I'm not sure why he proposed the experiment, but for me, it really clarifies the feelings I have toward the relative, feelings that are normally dormant, if there.

Sam, evolutionary biologists would be quick to agree with you.

Joe, I'm wondering what you think the inconsistency in your case is.

Jordan

Post 13

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 2:17pm

Jordan, yes, that was the idea.

Post 14

Sunday, July 4, 2004 - 4:07pm

Rodney:

No close relatives have died, no. However, I cut off relations with all but a couple of members of my family entirely a while ago. The idea of any of them dying isn't particularly
upsetting, as I don't see myself losing anybody/anything of value.

I have lost close friends before, so I've experienced the emotions involved in losing somebody close. But the thought of my family members dying doesn't move me at all.

Jordan:

Just that I'm in an unusual situation, in that I don't, and, as far as I can tell, never have, loved any member of my family in virtue of the people being members of my family. I have a hard time understanding how it is that the rest of the world seems to do so.

Post 15

Monday, July 5, 2004 - 5:32am

Hi Joe,

This has become a very interesting and revealing thread. I really do not like to take the time to address this, but I see so many wrong things here, I feel compelled to at least attempt to address some of them.

I have been very surprised by three things that seem to be asserted unquestionably by various posters:

The first is that "love" for family members is in some sense automatic and based on nothing more than the fact that they are family members.

The second is that there is something "abnormal" about not loving family members, especially close family members, barring unusual circumstances.

The third is the tacit assumption, not stated, but implied throughout, that "love" is some kind of feeling.

I begin with the last.

Feelings

Love is not a feeling. You, yourself, Joe, seem to imply that in your own statements, "I don't feel any sort of love for them," and this, "They know that, perhaps, it's silly to love somebody by (as Firehammer adequately pointed out) an accident of birth, but they still, nevertheless, feel an inexplicable love."

The feelings we feel as a result of love, and sometimes refer to as love, are not the love itself, but, like all feelings and emotions, are our response to our own thoughts, values, and principles. Love, like all our other evaluations produces profound feelings, but the feelings themselves are not the love.

This is a long quote from Ayn Rand, and it addresses another issue altogether, the true nature of the integration of reason and emotion, but how the principle that applies to love will be obvious:

An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions�provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows�or makes it a point to discover�the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow�then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction�his own and that of others. [Ayn Rand, "Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand," pamphlet, page 6.]

Ayn Rand frequently used the expression, "To love is to value." [For example, see The Virtue of Selfishness, Page 32] But here is a better example:

"To love is to value. ... When it comes to love ... you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if you're incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; you are not so careful to protect the meaning , the nature and the dignity of love. ... Love is the expression of one's values...."

Isn't love for family members, just because they are family members, no matter what kind of people they are, no matter if the are of any value to you or not, "causeless love?" Isn't love for someone for which one cannot explain the reason beyond, "well, she's my sister," or "he's my brother," or "she's my mom," or, "he's my dad," the very kind of inexplicable, "feeling," that ought to be considered pathological?

Normal

This brings me to the second false assertion, "there is something "abnormal" about not loving family members."

This idea is entirely the product of two sides of the same coin, religion on one side, psychology on the other; the coins name is credulity. Religion demands belief in its teachings on the basis of "faith" and "revelation." Psychology demands belief in its teachings on the basis of "science" and "authority." It is obvious what is wrong with "faith" and "revelation," and even "authority," but what is wrong with "science?" If psychology were legitimate science, nothing would be wrong with it, but psychology is not science at all; psychology is possibly the biggest fraud every perpetrated, couching logical absurdities in the language of science. It is the ultimate quackery.

The whole purpose of psychology, as it is actually practiced, both clinically and academically, is to identify anything that is the least bit unusual in behavior as a psychological disease. Whatever is not, "normal," which in psychological terms means whatever most people do or what is currently accepted (either by society at large or political expediency) is a "disease of the mind," requiring, naturally, the services of a professional, "disease of the mind" doctor (which in former times were called "witch doctors").

Natural

The idea that anyone who does not "feel" familial love is abnormal is a baseless, immoral teaching propounded by the two great superstitions of our day, religion and psychology. If there is anyone with a "psychological problem," it is the person whose feelings are "inexplicable;" the person who just, "feels love for their family," because ..., well, just because they do, which is the first assertion being made on this thread. It's, natural, it's "normal," it's involuntary like a yawn or a burp, and just as valueless. Why do people have these inexplicable familial feelings? Religion explains it is the way God made you. Psychology explains it is the way biology made you.

Why

Joe said, Just that I'm in an unusual situation, in that I don't, and, as far as I can tell, never have, loved any member of my family in virtue of the people being members of my family. I have a hard time understanding how it is that the rest of the world seems to do so.

That is unusual, Joe. All virtues are unusual.

Individuals who think for themselves are unusual, most people think whatever they have been taught to think, by their family, peers, and whatever assorted authorities they have chosen to follow. People who are fully self-sufficient and self-supporting are unusual. People who are ruthlessly honest are unusual. People who do not go through life with inexplicable feelings, desires, passions, and whims are unusual.

Why does, "the rest of the world," seem to have these feelings of love that are foreign to you? It is just because they do have it backwards--instead of understanding their emotions are the automatic response to their values, they make their feelings the cause of their values. In stead of trying discover the cause and reason for their inexplicable reasons, they attempt to justify their feelings by adjusting their values to fit them. When they cannot do that, to seek the aid of their religion or psychologists.

The, "rest of the world," are whim-worshippers, which on another thread, Gordon Ellis got exactly right.

He says, quoting Rand,

"A 'whim' is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause." ... referring to people who blindly act on their desires, whatever those desires might be. Or perhaps more to the point, "whim-worshipping" is elevating your desires to be the standard of morality (i.e. "It is right because I desire it").

Regi

Post 16

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 5:18am

Regi,
   I highly disagree with your understanding of love and all of its implications in the post. In the sense in which love is a very ~deep~ value, it would be severe intellectualizing and reifying a value from your relationship to it in putting it in the simple form of reasoned value. We have to ~feel~ love, and the ~feeling~ is what tells us the most about our state of love. There is nothing wrong with that, because love deals with a great many subconscious levels of value when it develops increasing complexity, and our bodies would 'know' that more than our minds.  In the specific case of our family relationships, there is a very deep subconscious connection, because of its context in our childhood. As an aside, the Objectivist outlook you describe may very well be one of the essential elements of impossible Objectivist romantic relationships.

In terms of love of family, the majority of the love is based on the complicated context built on while being brought up by or with the family, and in establishing many values with family members in the context of a very deep relationship that lasts for the entire childhood and hopefully further. It makes no sense to me to say that not loving one's family is only abnormal because it implies virtue---I think it implies either something wrong with the family relationship itself (and of course that means Joe too still has played a role with it) or something wrong with Joe's ability to feel for others that one would thing normal for him to value. These relationships are intimate and definitely have a deep love that comes even with mediocre and moderately bad family relationships. There is so much in this context that is essential for a developing human being that you cannot consider love to be such a separate, conscious state.

Now Joe,
I think the best indication of how bad this is may be in the nature of your romantic relationships and deep friendships. I would think that it would make more sense that you do have problems with loving in both cases, but if ~generally~ not, perhaps the dynamics of your childhood family relationships (and therefore the people involved---mainly your parents) is the main problem. I am not going to tell you this or that is what is wrong, but I do think that something is abnormal with it, and I only hope that it is not something that really bothers you to ~not~ feel, and that it doesn't extend too far into other relationships.  But hey, it seems Objectivism in some contexts supports this way of being, and Regi is a great example. ;) Seriously though, I do wish you the best with it.

In my personal case, I have a great deal of trouble showing affection for family members, in my parents and brother. I do love them, but I cannot express it. I think it is related to the fact that I didn't receive adequate affection as a kid, and truly had strong jealousy for what my brother received from my mother, and anger and several other negative emotions toward them and myself as a result of consciously realizing that my mother was much more attached to him. It did get extended into an inability to feel affection after a long enough time with any other loved one (except for the beginning smothering I tended to have). Now, although I have not had much in romantic relationships in a long long time (except one earlier in the year that ended abruptly after I had just fell in love), I don't think it is much of an issue any longer, and I definitely feel as though I am connected with my affection for friends in a very healthy way. I honestly think that having pets has been the main cure my entire life, and it may be very difficult to not have my old cat when I move to Illinois in a few weeks---as lame as that may sound. However, I still am not adequately comfortable with affection with my family, and really have to continue to work on it.

Since our issues are still very different, consider this story as an aside, unless you think that there could be some reason that you would repress or disassociate yourself with your love until it seems to not exist at all (on the contrary, your explanation suggests that actually you just ~never~ had it as far as you remember).

-Dominic

Post 17

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 6:49am

Responding to Reg,

If you pick a guy out of a crowd and ask him if he loves some of his family, I'd guess that 9 guys out of 10 will say yes. I think those who don't love anyone in their family are not normal, which says nothing of whether those folks are healthy. And many psychologists have moved away from helping people be normal, and toward helping people be happy. I'll take the optimistic view here and claim that not all psychology is quackery.

I don't think the theory of attachment suggests causeless love (although Reg might not have been addressing that theory). Attachment is a response to a safe, predictable, and nurturing caregiver. I suspect many folks who had successful attachment at an early age might have trouble explaining why they love their family because the reasons are so ingrained, but the implicit premises are there nonetheless. It's tantamont to asking a music lover why they feel what they feel when they hear the 1812 Overture.

Sure, I know people who substitute their familial emotions as causes, but I think most familial relationships aren't just the product of whim-worship. It's easy to love someone who makes you safe, who nurtures you, who gives you a predictable environment. In addition, it's easy to love someone who puts so much effort into your success and happiness, like so many caregivers do.

So again, I will take the optimistic view and say that most folks do legitimately love their family, and with good reason. And at least in this regard, the world isn't so bleak and filled with whim-worshippers.

Jordan

Post 18

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 7:37am

Quite a bit to respond to from over the holiday weekend...but here goes:

First off, Regi:

I agree...very revealing. I don't agree that all psychology is quackery [much of it is, and the biological stuff (which I classify under physiology anyway) is incomplete]. You are correct, in that psychology (from the research & work I've done) starts with the concept of "What is abnormal?" without first asking "What is normal?" That's akin to asking "What is sickness?" without first measuring a healthy body...granted, psychology has a more difficult basis, but that's why more work is needed.

To immediately jump to a psychological explanation about me (as others have done, and you have not) is brushing with the mystics of the muscle. Indeed, I agree that, given what love is, the notion of "natural love" is a contradiction in terms. You cannot love somebody without taking into account their values.

Love isn't necessarily a feeling, per se. However, to say that you "feel love" is to say that you've formed the evaluation that led to certain emotions. I think the point I was making was fairly clear, even if the wording wasn't the best.

As for virtuous, I certainly see how it's virtuous in that I won't form a positive evaluation when I see something undeserving of it, true. In that context, it makes sense to say it's a virtue.

However, when I was much younger, was I able to actually see things in those terms? I tend to doubt that much, as I always give people the benefit of the doubt (it took me until recently to see how much trouble this caused me with my mother over time; even as a toddler, I should never have trusted her brain to do any thinking that affected me, even if she was half of my bread & butter). She always got the benefit of the doubt; I thought it was alright for her to make decisions that didn't make any logical sense to me, simply because she was the adult, and probably knew things that I didn't. And I was neither honest nor judicial there...so, perhaps it was right of me to split with most of my family (they got what they deserved), but it would be wrong to say that I was always being honest with myself.

(Edited by Joe Trusnik on 7/06, 8:25am)

Post 19

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 7:50am