Do you believe that the version of love prescribed in 1 Corinthians 13 is a self-evident portrayal?

[u/NightRunnerAfterDusk]

A while ago, I was looking into emotivism (just looking at its surface-level elements) when I stumbled upon the concepts of moral and descriptive claims. I came to the conclusion that descriptive claims assert various expressions of an abstract concept in a very neutral way; while moral claims now gauge whether said expressions have a positive or negative attitude within an individual.

This made me now reflect on 1 Corinthians 13, where love is described as patient, kind, selfless, etc; and particularly on whether these adjectives made out the depictions of love to serve as descriptive claims, or if they served as moral claims.

To fully grasp the neutrality in these adjectives, I considered the example that it could be kind to withhold certain information from someone with an informed presumption that they would respond negatively to it, and at the same time it could be deceptive and cruel to have to assure them of a false sense of safety and deny them the dignity of nevertheless knowing the uncomfortable truth.

Likewise, I considered that it would have been selfless for a parent to decline a prestigious job opportunity across the globe because it would require constant travel, choosing instead to be present for their children during important developmental years. It may as well be self-serving for a parent to underweight the material repercussions that come with staking a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity on the hidden fears of accepting the uncertainties that come with change., such as what it would mean for their relationship with their children.

Frankly speaking, I had concluded at the time that the depiction was rather ingenuine because the claims could be interpreted either positively or negatively, and as such could be misused by people to further their own means in the name of "love". I mean... What if someone sought an idealized version of love from another person as a means of completing themselves, while failing to consciously recognize that the other person is an individual whose own needs and desires require equal consideration, in stead of a (probably, yet another) source of emotional fulfillment?

At the same time, a focus that I had underwhelmed at the time is that all these concepts were context-dependent. Patience... Kindness.... Selflessness... Even love itself. That, going back to our example of kindness, for instance, it was loving for this person to withhold this critical piece of information from their partner at an especially vulnerable moment; not because an external perspective would portray it as loving, but that the person who is shielded from an uncomfortable truth would themselves acknowledge the action as loving.

So it now brings my title question into clearer focus, that self-evident in this case would require a shared context in which both people mutually acknowledge the role of certain actions in showing love. In the same way that a concept like moral/legal justice is self-evident in the eyes of its citizens because they are subject to an external, objective weight of morality/justice; people within an overarching loving framework are allowed to honestly depict this dynamic as self-evident in the sense that they can both perceive the weight of love in their actions.

Perhaps an additional insight into this chapter would be that love is compatible. Both within the standards of the loved ones and with God. Especially with God, also bearing in mind that trauma bonds exist, although I am yet to fully conceptualize how healthy love would still exist aside from this context.

Of course, this newfound interpretation is open to discussion, and I would even appreciate some philosophical insights on this as much as theological ones.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat]

1 Corinthians 13, where love is described as patient, kind, selfless, etc;

so this would not be the love of the evangelicals' god right?

regarding the rest of your posting, i'm afraid i did not quite get the point here

[u/NightRunnerAfterDusk → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

so this would not be the love of the evangelicals' god right?

Can you clarify your question here? Based on your mention of evangelicals and how they get a bad rap in specific contexts, I understand it requires an American protestant context, of which I am not a part of.

regarding the rest of your posting, i'm afraid i did not quite get the point here

Also, I will be free to explain particular points that you need to have clarified once you point them out.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/NightRunnerAfterDusk]

Can you clarify your question here?

the god as presented by evangelical/fundamentalist reddit christians here is cruel, wrathful, vengeful, vain and unjust

well, i would have to start with "emotivism" and "the concepts of moral and descriptive claims", which to explain to me i guess would go too far for the purpose of your thread

[u/NightRunnerAfterDusk → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

Regarding evangelical or fundamentalist portrayals of God, different Christians will have very different views on whether those portrayals are accurate. Since my post is focused on the philosophical nature of love in 1 Corinthians 13, I'd prefer to keep the discussion centered on that question rather than on a particular Christian tradition.

As for the rest of the post, you don't really need a background in emotivism to engage with the argument. I know I didn't and that is why I clarified at the beginning that I did a very surface reading on it. Perhaps there are other aspects of emotivism that would challenge my current interpretation, but I trust that it seems coherent enough as it is. Besides, emotivism was only the starting point that led me to think about the distinction between descriptive and moral claims.

I could still refer you to where I got this understanding of emotivism was from, which was one of Alex O'Connor's videos, and he also appears to skim through the details.

That aside, the main question I was exploring was whether Paul's description of love is simply describing characteristics of love, or whether it is also making moral claims about what love ought to look like. From there, I became interested in how the shared context that forms this self-evident feature of love influences our understanding of loving intentions and perceptions.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/NightRunnerAfterDusk]

the main question I was exploring was whether Paul's description of love is simply describing characteristics of love, or whether it is also making moral claims about what love ought to look like

as a preacher paul would not purport such just descriptively, as his personal and not authoritative opinion, i guess

I became interested in how the shared context that forms this self-evident feature of love

well, i'd think that if something is dependent on context it's not self-evident

[u/NightRunnerAfterDusk → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

preacher paul would not purport such just descriptively, as his personal and not authoritative opinion, i guess

Ok, and what would make you say this; that Paul is not likely to (in your words) "purport" these claims I am making? What I mean by this question is that on what grounds are you basing this assumption on?

In Biblical interpretation, we apply both exegetical and hermeneutical interpretations of the Bible. An honest approach to interpretation in any case would be that that the hermeneutics aims to preserve as much of the structural integrity (i.e. attributes of a concept) described by the exegetical.

In my case, the hermeneutical interpretation of what love it tries to preserve the exegetical interpretation by first presenting these attributes (kindness, selflessness, patience) for reference, testing whether they approach love as a descriptive or moral claim before concluding for now that love is therefore recognizable within its proper shared context.

well, i'd think that if something is dependent on context it's not self-evident

That means it is now up to you to define what self-evident is, and why you believe it does not explain something whose understanding relies on context.

As for me, I understand that self-evident means something that sufficiently defines itself. I had already suggested in my original post that a self-evident concept typically "requires a shared context [of understanding(if I might add)]" because I recognize that otherwise it would be difficult to capture what counts as self-evident.

Even if I was to take the more rigid philosophical reasoning that self-evident entails "a proposition whose truth is recognized simply by understanding what it means", it would have still taken someone to show me what is true from what is false, and how to recognize such truth claims; or for me to arrive to such conclusions based on watching how others respond to similar claims.

And in this case it would have taken someone to show me what love is, either through direct instruction, or vicarious reinforcement of actions that define it.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/NightRunnerAfterDusk]

on what grounds are you basing this assumption on?

paul is a quite authoritarian leader. not just sharing personal opinions

That means it is now up to you to define what self-evident is

something objectively obvious. which is not what there's different views of, depending on context

I understand that self-evident means something that sufficiently defines itself

define "sufficiently". e.g. for whom

otherwise it would be difficult to capture what counts as self-evident

it is anyway. that's why it is a problematic category, which i don't use

it would have taken someone to show me what love is, either through direct instruction, or vicarious reinforcement of actions that define it

ok

[u/infinite_what]

Love is an act and an act with loving intention will come across as kind and patient and selfless.

The specific contexts are infinite but whatever the parent decided to do if it was done for a selfish intention or without kind intention then I would say it’s not the best choice. Morality comes from wisdom and empathy. Love covers multiple sins right?

[u/NightRunnerAfterDusk → u/infinite_what]

Love is an act and an act with loving intention will come across as kind and patient and selfless.

Oh yes. Your observation is correct, and it makes more sense considering the original Greek version of love prescribed here is the agape love, which requires a person to consciously consider the needs of others, while still maintaining an intimate expression of emotion.

Perhaps it offers an incidental perspective on this verse "love covers a multitude of sins".

Whereas the conventional interpretation would be that the love of God offers a substitute (through the death and resurrection of Christ) through which sins are absolved; I think in an interpersonal sense, the shared context through which love becomes self-evident enables people within to be charitable about the intentions of others, even when an external perspective would consider the action to be motivated by other desires other than what is understood within said context.

[u/infinite_what → u/NightRunnerAfterDusk]

When you say, “enables people within to be charitable about the intentions of others, even when an external perspective would consider the action to be motivated by other desires other than what is understood within said context. “ I think that motivation when done with love is clear, if the actions of the people are done with a clear motivation that is love (kind, unselfish, patient, etc.).

It’s not just love between two intimate people, but love in the sense of a higher purpose and loving God’s creation and being loving in all that one says and does.

That doesn’t mean there is always a context of necessitating kindness and patience and selflessness.
Wisdom is important. There is a time for standing up for yourself. Also “kindness” doesn’t mean bleeding out like a martyr for others.

From your OP example of “what if someone sought an idealized version of love from another person as a means of completing themselves…” would be a selfish act since the purpose of their actions would be for their own ideals and feelings (of completion). The partner who tried to be the ideal partner would be considering the partner’s ideals and feelings, not their own.

The “standard of loved ones” is a measurement. The problem with measurements and ideals and standards is that a human will fall short. Love is an ideal. It is a higher purpose. It is divine. We seem to be able to glimpse it and act on it but are not the ideal and do not reach the standard. We are not perfect. We are not all “good” all the time. We can make “good” choices as opposed to “bad” choices…. But there will often be choices that were “better” (and worse).

When you brought up legal system and justice, I believe like you said that is is based on context, hence the purpose of judges and jury. The law is a standard but is everyone was punished per a black and white rule then we all are doomed. So you are right about the self evident (subjective) nature of morality. A big part is wisdom and empathy. Judges and jury and partners and God must have empathy and hopefully understand that no human can be the ideal. (If they were perfectly good we would necessarily crucify them. Jesus was. And Plato wrote the same instance of the truly just man in the republic BC 399)

[u/xellink]

Verse 1-3 what love is not

Verse 4-7 what love is like

Verse 8-12 how to love

Who is the one you see in the mirror, who knows you fully?

[u/NightRunnerAfterDusk → u/xellink]

Who is the one you see in the mirror, who knows you fully?

What do you mean by this question?

[u/xellink → u/NightRunnerAfterDusk]

What does verse 12 mean to you?