tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post3299308711668171507..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Can an atheist love God?Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-4225095568884032762008-01-05T13:43:00.000-06:002008-01-05T13:43:00.000-06:00Note, too, the frequent use of "agapao" in the aor...<I> Note, too, the frequent use of "agapao" in the aorist in the New Testament, which doesn't fit well with the idea of love as an attitude</I><BR/><BR/>I guess I'm less sure. Attitudes can definitely be changed; it takes some cultivation and work. On the other hand, it seems hardly to count as fulfilling the commandment if all I do is will in a loving way. I might cherish a deep loathing as well.Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001511002085064198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-17147515388591908272008-01-05T10:39:00.000-06:002008-01-05T10:39:00.000-06:00I was presupposing an Aristotelian distinction bet...I was presupposing an Aristotelian distinction between the intellectual and the affective aspects of the soul, and I used "will" in a way that includes these affective aspects of the soul. That was a poor choice of words, since while "will" in the middle ages included that, it doesn't any more. I sometimes use terminology from past times even when the words have shifted. :-)<BR/><BR/>(I do actually think that love is a matter of will in the modern sense of will, but I don't think that is what I meant to say. Love has to be a matter of will if love is commanded. Note, too, the frequent use of "agapao" in the aorist in the New Testament, which doesn't fit well with the idea of love as an attitude.)<BR/><BR/>I think love has <EM>de re</EM> and <EM>de dicto</EM> aspects.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-21261200102073632252008-01-05T10:30:00.000-06:002008-01-05T10:30:00.000-06:00Even if it is possible to love someone whom one be...<I>Even if it is possible to love someone whom one believes not to exist, it is not clear that one can love someone who doesn't exist. Love is of a particular individual, and there is typically[note 1] no way to individuate totally non-existent beings.</I><BR/><BR/>I take it that love is an attitude, like belief, and not just a matter of will. The interesting question is whether the verb induces an opaque context. If it does, that is really important to your question. Suppose the verb 'love' does induce opacity. In that case "S love the F" does not entail (Ex) S loves x, since we cannot in general quantify into opaque contexts. But then the existence claim is false: the fact that S loves the F does not entail that there is something that S loves. But the context can also be read de re, where there is no problem with the existential generalization. But I wonder whether, in general, love is a de re attitude. I wonder whether theists love God de re, or whether it would be better if they did.Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001511002085064198noreply@blogger.com