Some may hold that love is physical, i.e., that love is nothing but a physical response to another whom the agent feels physically attracted
to. Accordingly, the action of loving encompasses a broad range of behaviour including caring, listening, attending to, preferring to others, and so on. (This would be proposed by behaviourists). Others (physicalists, geneticists) reduce all examinations of love to the physical motivation of the sexual impulse-the simple sexual instinct that is shared with all complex living entities, which may, in humans, be directed consciously, sub-consciously or pre-rationally toward a potential mate or object of sexual gratification.
Physical determinists, those who believe the world to entirely physical and that every event has a prior (physical cause), consider love to be an extension of the chemical-biological constituents of the human creature and be explicable according to such processes. In this vein, geneticists may invoke the theory that the genes (an individual's DNA) form the determining criteria in any sexual or putative romantic choice, especially in choosing a mate. However, a problem for those who claim that love is reducible to the physical attractiveness of a potential mate, or to the blood ties of family and kin which forge bonds of filial love, is that it does not capture the affections between those who cannot or wish not to reproduce-that is,
physicalism or determinism ignores the possibility of romantic, ideational love-it may explain eros, but not philia or agape.
Behaviourism, which stems from the theory of the mind and asserts a rejection of Cartesian dualism between mind and body, entails that love is a series of actions and preferences which is thereby observable to oneself and others. The behaviourist theory that love is observable (according to the recognisable behavioural constraints corresponding to acts of love) suggests also that it is theoretically quantifiable: that A acts in a certain way (actions X,Y,Z) around B, more so than he does around C, suggests that he 'loves' B more than C. The problem with the behaviourist vision of love is that it is susceptible to the poignant criticism that a person's actions need not express their inner state or emotions-A may be a very good actor. Radical behaviourists, such as B F Skinner, claim that observable and unobservable behaviour such as mental states can be examined from the behaviourist framework, in terms of the laws of conditioning. On this view, that one falls in love may go unrecognised by the casual observer, but the act of being in love can be examined by what events or conditions led to the agent's believing she was in love: this may include the theory that being in love is an overtly strong reaction to a set of highly positive conditions in the behaviour or presence of another.
Expressionist love is similar to behaviourism in that love is considered an expression of a state of affairs towards a beloved, which may be communicated through language (words, poetry, music) or behaviour (bringing flowers, giving up a kidney, diving into the proverbial burning building), but which is a reflection of an internal, emotional state, rather than an exhibition of physical responses to stimuli. Others in this vein may claim love to be a spiritual response, the recognition of a soul that completes one's own soul, or complements or augments it. The spiritualist vision of love incorporates mystical as well as traditional romantic notions of love, but rejects the behaviorist or physicalist explanations.
Those who consider love to be an aesthetic response would hold that love is knowable through the emotional and conscious feeling it provokes yet which cannot perhaps be captured in rational or descriptive language: it is instead to be captured, as far as that is possible, by metaphor or by music.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Nature of Love: Physical, emotional, spiritual
Democracy in Democracy of Deliberative
Idea of Habermas about this deliberative democracy in fact will be abysmal of concept democratize in classic body politic. In democracy very emphasized by citizen participation, even that way constitution and state have to be imminent, for the sake of preventing the happening of mass tyranny. But, access communications opened and control to the government run. Communicative power of civil society runs to through mass media, responsive other and organization LSM to wild diskursus in society. Hence deliberative democracy is not a direct democracy, but a discursive control to the government.
According to Habermas "... in body politic understood by discourses form democracy shall no longer in citizen gathering able to identify visually. Democracy withdraws into cycling communications which impressing without subject from bodies and forum....." In this citation happened proceduralitation to the democracy. Its meaning that passing democracy discourses mechanism there is and form in course of communications.
When sovereign people? Deliberating theory mention moment happened public communications. Here communications forum have to become bigly. Democracy there is not only when people gather but also when mass media side public; also when there is discussion between citizens which care. Democracy is not a substance but as a national process, or is international, peripatetic continue to pass communications anonym stream. Conceived by this democracy proceduralitation. In its relation with state, sovereign people if state, namely institute legislative institute, executive, and yudikatif, continued by discursive with process forming of opinion and aspiration in public room.
Biography
Jurgen Habermas was born on 18 June 1229 in Rheinland-Westfalen Germany West, and become big in Gummersbach, a middle-weight town. Contrast among family atmosphere which is borjois-Protestan with society environment which is Roman makes sensitive Habermas to stress in society. From such atmosphere of Habermas produce fruit so much idea of sociologies.
Habermas starting from critical theory of Marx Horkheimer society and Theodor W. Adorno, he will "develop idea a triggered by society theory for the purpose of is practical". Although in the end he refuses some aspect from their theory especially about cultural pessimism of And Adorno Horkheimer. Critical Idea about society bring Habermas at one particular typical idea, namely he develop its idea in continuous discourses by is immeasurable of expert like Marx, Adorno, Hokheimer, and other social thinker.
From discourses about critical theory of society, Habermas come up with thinking of Democracy. One of Habermas masterpiece which paring many about deliberative democracy is Faktizitas Geltung und, which is translated in English: Between Facts Norms and: Contribution to Discourse Theory Law Democracy Book and of a have come to Habermas commitment evidence to democratic body politic. Und Geltung Faktizitas born from Habermas assumption that body politic cannot be obtained and also defended without radical democracy. In deliberative democracy, state shall no longer determine other political policies and law in room closed balmy ( isolation splendid), but civil society through organization and media which is vowel play very influence of significant in course of forming punish and that political policy. Public field become arena where invitation drawn up and instructed by discursive.
Posts
