Simon
I doubt a Valentine card printed with āI love you because you look good on my arm, have witty repartee, and wealthy parentsā would sell.
And yet most behave in this way.
As I consider even the contemporary rom-com, if this ethic is there it is as a sidebar, attendant to these qualities simply being popular in motion pictures.
The primary function of Hollywood is to invest capital into a project that will result in maximalized box office and streaming sales, and possibly merchandising opportunities down the line. This process is often conducted at the expense and treatment of the majority of its laborers, hence the current SAG and WGA strikes. This has always been the case with Hollywood since its inception. (I recently got my paws on Babylon.) The only time Hollywood serves as a moral compass or effects positive social change are the production of various documentaries, where that is maybe a secondary objective, if that.
Jilted man (possibly more cynical than me) chucks his former flame onto a plane never to see her again.
Woman wanted by the authorities vacillates between professing love for two different male characters when the first can help her escape the Germans in Paris, and the second can help her escape the Germans in Morocco.
Just because it is a widespread way of practicing āloveā does not make it love.
No true Scotsman fallacy. If we are discussing a theoretical form that is not practiced, is it really love either?
what would Aristotle say?
I would argue that the form of the thing that is actually practiced is more representative of the Aristoteliean formal cause which defines its categorization. Not a hypothetical alternative because you dislike it.
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Antony and Cleopatra. Albany and Goneril. Henry VIII and Katherine. Richard III and Anne. Possibly Arden and Alice.
Not a great track record.
While the man himself may have had an excellent admonition of how love should be, I cannot help but notice the level of corruption of his message regarding love in 100% of his followers I have ever encountered. (Again, no offense intended against forum members.) But they are at best clueless and empty pabble (I'm married to Christ!) or worse, malicious hypocrisy designed for self-enrichment or predation. Or at the very worst, militant calls to ethnically motivated violence. No, I think I've had several lifetimes worth of hearing about "Jesus's love." I'm good.
Mohammed? Buddha? Confucius?
I do not have as much background on these to comment on specifics. Hopefully I will get a chance to study the texts more thoroughly in the future.
The reason why Cartland and Cooper might be a little closer to ālove as transactionā is because it is not the āhuman conditionā but rather a tendency of human behaviour and emotional landscape in this iteration of human society, in which exchange is the central point.
All human interaction is fundamentally an expression of the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, who at present hold all of society's wealth and means of production.
among the tribes of the Amazon basin or the South Pacific before colonisation (whose economy was predicated by gift)
Their economies were predicated on basic survival. Primitive hunting/gathering and fishing is a brutal, difficult existence. It is characterized by food insecurity, disease, and the forces of nature besetting you. Your continued support by you family/tribal unit is dependent on your utility to that unit. If you think it is easy to get by in such conditions, try watching Alone sometime.
or in Oldowan when humans first emerged.
Oldowan has left us stone tools, but we have no human artwork dating to that period. It is wildly inappropriate to support assumptions about love or other expressions without any archeological evidence. There has recently been some fantastical claims about the funerary practices of Homo naledi that have entered popular culture and clickbait headlines, but academia has thoroughly denounced them as being completely unsupported.
what about in British feudal society, either among the peasant or lord class, or in the 18th century?
Possibly the height of transactionality. Land, livestock, title, issue, dowry. Women bought and sold as property and used to ensure a male lineage. Regarding the peasant classes (this class struggle sure ain't new, is it?) I haven't come across any texts describing the emotional motivations of common law marriages, but if anyone knows of any, please send them my way.
What is the transaction in a motherās love?
Biological imperative. You are the vehicle of genes, and those genes have been naturally selected to promote behaviors that will selectively benefit their replication and continuity. Any Richard Dawkins book can tell you that.
Nonetheless, I know that my love is not part of a transaction
I'm happy for you.
I see love everywhere that is not transactional
I see a dog eat dog world where everyone's flexing.
Socialists love people who they donāt even know and who they will never meet.
I'm tryin' my best over here, chief.
It is worth exploring the idea that if we do not choose an active practice of an authentic love, worthy of the name, we choose to deny ourselves love.
Deny ourselves? Probably. Hell, it can be more extreme than that. Some of us even hate ourselves most of all. Could possibly be unworthy of love. Now there's a deep hole to reflect into.
We only get one go round on this planet and Iām not prepared to abase myself like that.
The planet goes round whether we abase ourselves or not. I just choose to do it with both eyes open, unblinded by superstition or fairy tale. The forces of heaven and earth may conspire to silence my witness, but I remain compelled to share it regardless.