MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (09/14/86)
Actually, my favorite definition was written by Robert Heinlein.
Paraphrased: Love is the condition when the happiness of another
person is essential to your own.
-------
---------------------------
James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE FOR RENT |
The Pennsylvania State University | Call 555-2317 |
---------------------------
Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL
UUCP : :akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4:!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq
"I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become
greater than the sum of both of us."
-- Surak of Vulcan
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (09/16/86)
> Actually, my favorite definition was written by Robert Heinlein. > Paraphrased: Love is the condition when the happiness of another > person is essential to your own. And I thought Spinoza's definition was wide of the mark! This one looks as if a robot had thought it up. "Work faster or I'll kill you." "I guess that means I love you." *BANG* __ "since feeling is first whoever pays attention to the syntax of things will never wholly kiss you" --E. E. Cummings -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@sunyabvc
belmonte@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Matthew Belmonte) (09/22/86)
In article <930@sunybcs.UUCP>, colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: > > Actually, my favorite definition was written by Robert Heinlein. > > Paraphrased: Love is the condition when the happiness of another > > person is essential to your own. > > And I thought Spinoza's definition was wide of the mark! This one > looks as if a robot had thought it up. > > "Work faster or I'll kill you." > "I guess that means I love you." How is it that that means the worker loves the threatener? It seems that you are trying to say that the threatener's happiness is essential to the worker's happiness. It looks like the worker thinks that the worker's life is essential to his happiness. (He may or may not be correct in thinking this, but that's another subject. In any case, he's acting according to his view that his life is essential to his happiness.) Now, if the worker's life is essential to his happiness, and, coincidentally, the worker's life (and, more importantly, his rate of production) is essential to the threatener's happiness, how does it follow that the threatener's happiness is essential to the worker's own happiness? The worker's happiness may be necessary but not sufficient for the threatener's happiness. It's a big universe. There are lots of things Out There capable of getting the threatener riled. So, conceivably, the threatener could spare the worker & still be made unhappy by some other influence. In such a case, the threatener would be unhappy and the worker would be happy (assuming the case of a simple-minded worker who requires nothing but life for happiness). It seems that we have a counterexample. One could hypothesize about a threatener who existed only to make this worker work. In such circumstances, the worker might love the threatener, going on Heinlein's definition of love. But such a case is absurd. -- Matthew Belmonte ARPA: <belmonte@rocky.cs.cornell.edu> <belmonte@svax.cs.cornell.edu> BITNET: <d25y@cornella> <d25y@crnlvax5> UUCP: ..!decvax!duke!duknbsr!mkb