Mere Orthodoxy

has been moved to new address

http://www.mereorthodoxy.com

Sorry for inconvenience...

Mere-Orthodoxy: Adding to the momentum - A post on loves

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Adding to the momentum - A post on loves

Matt, I commend your valience and I will put my hand to the plow, as well, attempting to make Mere Orthodoxy an interesting place to read. I have several streams of thought I would like to use to start conversations with you and those who read this site. I would like to hear your thoughts and nurture my own. As I believe conversation is infinitely more interesting than "one man ranting," I will be stubbornly inviting response. First topic: Preference and Identity Given the following three premises... 1. All humans love. There are some objects of love in common to all, some in common to a majority, some in common to a few, and some that are unique to individuals. I am wondering how much one's identity is composed of their "loves". By loves here I mean something like "preference." The objects to which you find yourself consistently drawn are those you prefer. I like a certain style of rock music, characterized a certain distortion modifying the sound of a guitar, drums, bass, and often keyboard or synthesizer. Why do I like this style as opposed to "soft rock," which has smoother sounding guitars and, electronic drums? I do not know. The rock I like I just like. I am drawn to it. 2. Our loves seem to define us. Some of our preferences, or our taste, are extremely unique, and seem specific only to us. I met a man who collects African art. Authentic, tribal, African masterpieces. He said he has three criteria: they have to authentic (he hires lackies to hike into jungle villages to make purchases), they have to be old (most of his pieces are over 100 years old, some are up to 400), and they have to be the best (many of his pieces are the masterpieces of that tribe or village, and nothing he has is less than upper echelon). He is the only collector of his kind in the world. He owns 20 million dollars of art, all throughout his home, as well as piled up in his garage like you and I might have Christmas decorations or family memorabilia. No one else in the world does art like he does. He loves a certain kind of African art, and it defines him. 3. We can change our preferences. We can "acquire a taste." I didn't used to like strawberries (crazy, I know), but I decided to acquire the taste for them. I ate them over and over (all the while dramatically complaining about the experience) until they became pleasant to me. Now I love strawberries. ...I have four Questions: 1. Do our loves define us? 2. How is it possible that a man can change his preference? 3. Where did the preference or love come from in the first place that it is so easily malleable? 4. If we change our loves (preferences, taste), does that change our identity?

4 Comments:

At 10/21/2004 03:59:00 PM, Blogger Jonathan said...

It is easy to let oneself be defined by one's loves. The model airplane builder, the Star Wars nerd, the street racer, who spends all his time and money on one thing and enjoys being associated with his hobby, is common because monomania is easy.

But is it possible not to let your identity be defined by your loves at all? If it is possible, is it only possible by having no loves? Or only by having so many diverse loves that none is dominant?

 
At 10/22/2004 08:37:00 AM, Blogger Matthew Anderson said...

Why should I allow myself to be "defined" at all?

 
At 10/22/2004 11:51:00 PM, Blogger Keith said...

You're both going about it the wrong way. Olson is squirming at the thought of being defined by loves, and Matt is outright resisting it. I say don't fight it, (unless of course you want to). I cherish definition. It's not being defined that irks me, its falling under the wrong definition. I will squirm too, if someone says I'm "deep" or "a philosophy type person" or "a nerd." Because I think those definitions are grossly inadequate. If I am going to be boxed and categorized, on the other hand, as a lover of wisdom, or truly a good man, or full of arete, then sign me up. Slap a label on me and stick me in. Yay conformity. So, J.O. are you feeling me on that or no? Matt, O ornery one?

 
At 10/23/2004 06:58:00 PM, Blogger Jonathan said...

KB, I'm not squirming at the thought of being defined by one's "loves" as much as I'm thinking, Could my identity be defined by less temporal things?

I guess your example of the art collector threw me off. That, and the "hobbyist" examples I mentioned in passing, are particular "loves" which are accessible only at certain historical times.

But the "loves" you just mentioned in your comment are abstract ones, possible to have at any time and place. So that right there seems a step closer to "pure" identity than what you were discussing in your original post.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home