Truth from the Heart: feelings

What is Love?

6:00:00 AMJonah Soucy

Throughout the centuries, there have been various debates about what exactly love is. For fun, I googled“definition of love” to see what came up. Top result: “an intense feeling of deep affection”. This seems pretty basic. It seems to click in our minds.Centuries ago, however, St Thomas offered a different definition of love which has been passed down through generations. He wrote that love is primarily an act of the will, that to love is to “will the good of the other.”

This is the definition of love that I was familiar with growing up. And this is probably the definition that you, dear reader, are expecting me to defend today. However, after much reflection on the topic I no longer believe that we can define love as “willing the good of another.” (2) I have the utmost respect for the thought behind it, and I believe there is a deep truth that we can discover through it, but to define love as such is to reduce the full splendor and goodness of love. I reject this definition on the grounds that for love to be present, it must involve an aspect of being felt to it.

I think women are naturally able to grasp this much better than men can. Take for instance, a groom preparing for marriage such as myself. If I were take care of my bride-to-be perfectly; to always provide and do things which lead to her happiness and holiness, I would be fulfilling the aspect of “willing the good” pretty darn well. However, if you were to ask most women what they would prefer from their man, to know they will be taken care of in every way or to know they are loved, they would almost unanimously reply that they would choose the knowledge that they are loved.

The biggest problem with the definition, “to will the good for the other” is that it leaves no room for the being felt dimension of love. Another way of looking at it is to say that it is possible for one to will the good of another without yet arriving at love, which is what I have tried to show in the example above. But if it isn’t to “will the good”, what is love?

In The Abode of Love, Dr. Terruwe gives an extensive account of love. Among other things, she says that love is a “feeling of emotion.” (4) That is not to say that the person does not make use of the will in love. Hopefully this is the part where those of you who were scandalized by the thought of love no longer being “to will the good” will go “ahh”. There are times when love starts to grow cold because of our human weakness, and in those times the will plays a crucial role in helping us to stay faithful. Hildebrand writes of the intentio benevolentiae of love, the “intention of benevolence.”(5) For love to be true, there must be the motivation to strive for the happiness and well being of the beloved. If we are only concerned with ourselves or fulfilling our nature, we fail to grasp love and instead fall into a form of egoism. One can even say that love is not truly present in its fullness unless one is willing the good of the other. Though I think it is impossible to define love as, “willing the good of another”, I certainly do hold that this is a necessary part of love.

It should be noted here that when I say love must be felt, I am not simply referring to the passion of love. Rather, there is a sort of “tender affectivity”, to quote Dietrich von Hildebrand, which is at the core of man. (6) I once heard remarked that love is not a roaring flame, but a candle which must be protected and treasured. It does not burn up and simmer out but is a steady growth which lights the darkest of nights. This state of tender affectivity is a crucial element of authentic love.

With these things in mind, we see that finding a “definition” of love is something that is a lot harder to do then it appears. There are multiple types of knowledge that we can have as persons. To know the definition of a thing is not to know the thing itself. Love is a mystery. Love is a gift. Love is an affective outpouring of ourselves. Love wills the good of the other. All of these things are true of love, yet none of them can strictly be called the “definition” of it.

If you enjoyed this blog please share on facebook and other social media! If you want to continue the discussion comment below!

---

Image 1
St. Thomas, Summa Theologicae I-II 26 4
Image 2
A.A.A. Terruwe, The Abode of Love p.25
Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Nature of Love, Ch. 7
Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Heart Ch. 3
Image 3

affections affectivity Dating

A Clean Slate: When It's Time to Give Love a Second Chance

6:00:00 AMAnonymous

Dating can be gut-wrenching. I mean, really, really gut-wrenching.

Unfortunately, many of us don’t need to be told this. After countless failed relationships, disappointments, messy break-ups, struggling with long-distance, or battling with chastity, it is so easy to become jaded when it comes to finding “the one.” We become so angry in our pursuit of a lifelong partner that we can even forget why it is we desire love in the first place; or worse: we start believing that we don’t deserve love after all.

The hardship of rebuilding, learning to love again, to surrender, and to trust another person after a major heartbreak is difficult and often painfully crippling. This has been especially thematic for me lately, as one of my good friends has started dating again after an unexpected split with her longtime boyfriend.

After months of tears, retail therapy, late nights talking through every detail of her breakup over glasses of wine, and evenings “treating ourselves” to a night out on the town, the one issue that she remained hung-up on was this:

it is hard to give someone a clean slate and a fresh start when we are so used to being hurt and disappointed by others in the past.

In all of her desire to move forward, her eyes have been fixed on the past. Since Guy 1 treated me this way, Guy 2 will likely be no different. Guy 1 struggled with [insert flaw here]; Guy 2 probably sucks at that, too.

You get the point.

And don’t get me wrong — I’m not criticizing my friend in the slightest! I think it’s only natural that we become guarded and cautious as we try to move forward. There is only so much that one heart can take.

I would just like this post to serve as an open letter of encouragement to my Friend. Let this be one of those little daily reminders:

love deserves a second chance.

In classic-Hannah-fashion, I take a lot of my dating cues from Dietrich von Hildebrand, who never fails to call me out of my own jadedness by reminding me that “love always assumes what is best in the other…Love entertains the more favorable opinion toward all that is doubtful” (1).

Conceptually, most of us would probably agree. Practically, however, it’s a little bit “easier said than done.” What does it look like — giving love a second chance? —giving men the benefit of the doubt? —jumping into a new relationship without the baggage of past relationships clouding one’s vision?

Per usual, the answer goes something like this:

we must be willing to surrender.

To my friend: I get it; I really do. Surrender is hard. It’s scary. Surrender can feel a lot like trust-falling off of a platform without any view of the people catching you at the bottom. And it’s okay that you feel this way; but don’t allow yourself to stay trapped in the feeling. We must be fearless in our pursuit of love if love is what we truly desire.

Love by its very nature is generous. This means that surrender looks a lot like actively choosing to forgive men in general. One man, the wrong man, may have let you down. But this cannot be held against all men, for “love’s generous credit is intimately bound up in its surrender” (2). If it is a generous love you wish to receive, it is a generous love that you must be willing to give.

The payoff, Hildebrand says, is all the greater for it; for in loving generously, one becomes “oriented completely toward the other” (3). Instead of being oriented toward the past, we are oriented to the present. This is intimately bound-up with Hildebrand’s deeply held personalism, for if we are truly responding to the value of each and every person that we come into contact with, that means we must be willing to see each individual as their own person in their own right. Just because Guy 1 failed doesn’t mean Guy 2 should be treated with contempt or skepticism. Doing so would only allow the pain to win.

Today, I just want to invite you to let love win.

This is not the end of your story. Don’t ever forget that the world is still full of beauty, your heart is full of love, and people often tend to be more kind and generous and good than we give them credit for.

This isn’t some lofty, conceptual truth either; but a real invitation to live our philosophy of personalism. After all, what good is a belief-system if it cannot be a truly lived philosophy? Realistically, “love reckons with the possibility that there may be imperfections which must be faced as unpleasant but temporary facts, even though it will never be prejudiced by them. The loving credit does not dwell in an ethereal or unreal region. It does not mount Pegasus. Rather, it fortifies itself on ground which is altogether real” (4). Be fortified in the truth that you are deserving of a fresh start.

Here’s hoping 2017 brings you blessings, joy, and a whole ‘lotta love.

_______________________________________________________________

Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Dietrich von Hildebrand Life Guide, 55.
Ibid, 56.
Ibid.
Ibid.

Image One

Image Two

Image Three

affections featured feelings

Affections: Are They For My Good?

6:00:00 AMEmma Lindle

Boromir is a character in The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien. He is in the fellowship who is accompanying Frodo Baggins, the ring bearer. Their task is to bring the ring to Mount Doom and destroy it before it falls into the hands of the evil forces and destroys their civilization. The ring has the power to make its bearer invisible, but its power can easily lead a weak man out of love for his brother and into corruption. For Boromir, disordered feelings of hatred for Frodo and greed for the ring arise. We become afraid of the faculty of the heart with its affections because of its disorders, but Boromir does not numb his heart even with its disordered desires. When his friend Aragorn comes to meet him he confesses his mangled heart and has contrition and hope leading him to a restored humility within the fellowship.His ordered affections of contrition and hope lead him to humility and unity. This was such a heroic moment to watch. Normally, man numbs his heart after a circumstance like Boromir’s with Frodo, but Boromir does not.

If we judge a faculty based on its disorder, we run the risk of fear overriding all the good we’re meant to receive through it. For example, our intellects are weak, but it wouldn’t be helpful to judge our intellectual faculty by looking at its limitations. The mind is not intended to forget. It is intended for memory. The same is true for the heart. We may want to discard feelings because they can be disordered. We must look at it as it is intended to work. For example, the affective response of loving kindness toward a child having a conflict with a friend, or contrition for sin. Without the feeling, something seems to be lacking. Feelings are intended as the full flourishing of man’s virtue. It seems even Bl. Mother Teresa experiencing the dark night of the soul had a sadness that her love for Jesus was not fully flourished with an affinity for him.

Our feelings are not everything, but as described by Professor Maria Wolter, “feelings are an important and primary access to values.” Opposite from sentimentality which is a deadening or flattening of feelings, spiritual feelings open us up to the axiological contours of the world describes Wolter. For example, what if a wedding had no joy, or a funeral had no sadness? Even if the good of marriage or the evil of death was perceived by the mind, even if the vows were freely chosen by the will, and the death was accepted without an act of revenge, still without the heart engaged in these events something is missing. The heart is what connects us. The affections utterly linked to our minds and wills, helps us to bring our thoughts and choices into communion with others.

We cannot deny the daily encounter with our disordered affections, but then we meet that old man who is at peace. If we were to ask him about his life, we would hear the story of a man who saw his affections as an ethical task. We would hear intertwined with the events of his life, an attitude of seriousness toward his heart and constant ordering of his affections to lead him to the point of the victorious peace he experiences today. This experience is possible for us.

[Image 1]

[Image 1]

Summer, for me, brings a lot of time with children. I was babysitting four boys, and I was struck by a moment I had with the youngest. Each day this week I’ve picked them up from Vacation Bible School, we go home and I make lunch. The youngest brother is four. On this particular day I knew he wasn’t going to make it to lunch. He was a mess, easily upset at everything, even after a snack. I like to have lunch together, but it seemed better to give him lunch before his brothers. He ate and was a new little kid.

Some of our feelings are bodily or psychic feelings. These feelings, like the little boys hunger, don’t require us to know the object of the feeling. Though it can be helpful to know what is causing the feeling, knowing the cause isn’t necessary for the feeling to be felt. He might not have been aware that he was hungry, but he still felt the discomfort and fatigue. Other examples of feelings in these categories include moodiness or migraines. We don’t necessarily know there cause, but we still feel them. Because we are not required to understand the object of these feelings, they lack a transcendent character.

The third type of feeling is spiritual. Spiritual feelings don’t necessarily refer to sanctity, but to the feelings coming from the center of our person, from our “I” or our heart. Spiritual feelings are distinct from bodily and psychic feelings because they are intentional. This means that they are meaningfully related to an object. For example, my love is meaningfully related to my siblings, God, specific people. We don’t wake up and say, “I’m in love” without having a specific person in mind. Spiritual feelings also require a personal response or stance to something. This is the opposite of reacting in a fit of anger not equivalent to the situation. Spiritual feelings allow us to respond as we cognize or think about an object and take a stance. For example, prostitution or child abuse are objects of the spiritual feeling of anger.

An understanding of the heart begins by looking at how it is intended to function, seeing feelings role in the human experience, and distinguishing the types of feelings. Our hearts are worth our effort, just as we know our minds and wills are. We experience ordered affections and see how beautifully they illuminate the human spirit. Our affections are a beautiful gift, but just as we must train the mind and the will, we must order the heart.

affective affectivity Aristotle

The Head and the Heart

6:00:00 AMAnonymous

In conversations with some of my girlfriends, and even in leadership seminars that I’ve been attending lately, the emerging theme that just so happens to be plaguing my life right now involves the questions of the head and the heart (in regards to women in particular). At least once a day for the past week, I have found myself engaging in conversations with others on female emotionality, and how more often than not, it appears that the intellect and reason take a back seat to the heart and its emotions in women. One friend asked, does it make me less feminine if I tend to think more logically and clearly and less with my emotions? Another confided in me, it’s normal for me to be feeling so unstable all the time, right? My emotions just seem to never be in check. Naturally, with my newfound love for philosophy and my annoying (my friends prefer to call it endearing) tendency to turn to books for my answers, I found a good starting place in Hildebrand’s work, The Heart.

Before delving into the balance between the head and the heart in women specifically, one should probably start by inquiring into the nature of the heart and the intellect in mankind in general. Hildebrand starts his approach to this question by acknowledging the fact that it would seem that the affective sphere has been given a second-rate position in classical philosophy. Plato, for instance, ranks the intellect incomparably higher than the heart in his Republic, while Aristotle goes so far as to claim that the intellect is possessed by the rational part of man, while the heart and its emotions belongs to the irrational part of man (1). In other words, it is our emotions that make us more like irrational animals and less like human beings! Thus, in philosophy, the affective realm is quickly slapped with the title of “passions,” and as a result, seems to be viewed as irrational and unspiritual (2). Hildebrand rightfully points out the error in this way of thinking.

The error, according to Hildebrand, enters as soon as the philosopher fails to make distinctions. The “affective sphere” covers a vast range of experiences, from bodily feelings to perfect contrition (3). Thus, when the entire affective sphere is wrongfully associated with lower types of affective experiences (such as viewing true value-responding joy or deep love in the same way as one would view a bodily feeling or a passion), then the natural result is that the entire affective realm and affective responses “become something hollow, something without serious meaning, a floating feeling, an irrational, uncontrollable wavering emotion” (4). Thus, when one experiences a true affective response to something justly deserving of it, one often becomes uncomfortable and wishes to run away from the world of “feelings” to the seeming stability and calm of the intellect. As a result, “the great and noble reality of adoration, of hope, or the fear and love of God, so intimately bound up with the existence of God, immediately dwindles down to ‘mere’ feeling when we consider these responses in themselves as the main theme” (5).

Next, Hildebrand suggests three main errors that have led many to hold these views (whether consciously or not) in regards to affectivity. The first error is when one shifts the “theme” from the object to the affective response. The second error is when one then detaches the affective response from the object. Lastly, the third error occurs when one takes something (which is not actually in the affective realm at all) and reduces it to an affective state (6).

Speaking more plainly, Hildebrand seems to be proposing that perhaps the reason why affectivity and its importance have been neglected lies in the fact that those who have analyzed affectivity and wrongfully separated the affective response from its object (error 2) therefore find themselves in a realm of uncontrollable emotion, desiring to return to the realms of the will and intellect.

We see these errors playing out in our culture every day. Instead of focusing on those things which deserve our love and admiration, people often find themselves focusing on the feeling of loving or the feeling of admiring. In a world where one’s affective responses are cut off from their objects, the affective realm becomes one of seeming chaos. Everything seems… arbitrary. In consequence, there is widespread fear and suspicion surrounding the heart and its movements. For many, feeling is no longer fashionable. It has become a crutch, or even a disability in itself. Or, as Aristotle thought, the affective realm is even something that makes me more similar to my dog than to Socrates.

In my next post, I will seek to explore the topics of the heart and the intellect in regards to the feminine nature.

(1) Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Heart

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid.

(6) Ibid.

Image One

Image Two

feeling feelings HONY

Saving Humans of New York's Face

6:00:00 AMGrace Davies

We've all seen the heartwarming, personally captioned photos posted by Humans of New York.

They're cute. They're colorful. They're personal. They're unique.

I've often enjoyed the heartwarming feelings that come from browsing HONY's photos as I scroll down my newsfeed. But I never paused to give my feelings a serious thought.

I never considered the deeper issues involved, until I read Melissa Smyth's article "On Sentimentality: A Critique of Humans of New York." This article gave me pause. (1)

In her article, Smyth shares a video of Brandon Stanton, founder of HONY, explaining how he approaches strangers on the street in order to obtain their photo.

In this video, Stanton describes his strategy to achieve "escalating levels of intimacy" with random strangers on the streets of New York City. It begins with the approach. He says:

"One thing I always look for is people standing alone ..."

And he never approaches them from behind. So far, he could be taking about trying not to frighten an animal in the street.

Stanton sums up his goal in the following words:

"stopping random people in the street and getting them to let me take their photograph ... taking an atmosphere of, kind of, fear and strangeness, and uncomfortableness, and turning that into an atmosphere of intimacy."

He will ask a broad question and then try to peel away layers until the person share something personal:

"You don't really reveal anything about yourself by saying 'seize the day.' But when you're asked to tell about a time that you didn't seize the day, then you're kind of forced to reveal about yourself."

Once Stanton has obtained a good photo and a revealing quote from the person, he generally moves on.

HONY gives random people, like myself, the opportunity to half-heartedly glance at photos of other human beings, to experience a mild sentiment in response to something deeply personal that they shared, and then to keep scrolling.

Scrolling.

This is the problem. I do enough scrolling in my life. I barely glance at the people I walk by. I scroll right on by them, without ever bothering to see them as a living, breathing person. Even if the sight of them causes me to feel some warm, fuzzy sentiment, I have not stopped to know them. I have not been challenged to love them.

In his work The Heart, Dietrich von Hildebrand says that

"sentimentality is a perverted and mediocre feeling." (2)

Mere sentiment is shallow and thoroughly uncommitted. It keeps the other person at a distance. There is no real intimacy here, only an illusion.

Now, I don't deny that HONY can have a positive impact. Stanton's photos serve as a reminder that every face has a story behind it. And I really do appreciate that reminder. Furthermore, Stanton has recently taken on some charitable work; we've all heard about his efforts on behalf of the underprivileged kids at Mott Hall Bridges Academy. This shows a level of commitment and depth that balances out his project.

But one aspect which still seems problematic about Stanton's project is that it can tend toward use. Insofar as HONY has become a business, it is difficult to maintain integrity in its methodology. It will take extra vigilance on Stanton’s part to make sure that he is not merely using the people he approaches, or merely extracting something from them to display on his wall with a pithy quote over it, making them into a commodity to elicit a sentimental feeling from his viewers.

Sentimentality involves a distortion in the way we see people; again from The Heart:

"The object assumes the role of a means whose function is to provide us with a certain kind of feeling." (3)

It seems to me that the humans of New York are exposed to being seen and used in this way when they are framed on HONY's wall.

The danger comes not only from Stanton's attitude, but also from his viewers. He garners intimate information from people, and then displays it (along with their faces) to potentially indifferent eyes.

Each of those humans is precious. Their stories are meaningful and personal. And it doesn't seem right that they be exposed to the shallow, indifferent world of scrolling. Each of them deserves better than that.

They deserve to be known by someone who cares about them: someone who is not about to walk away or scroll right past them. Their dignity demands the serious and deep response of genuine love - not a mild interest and a fleeting sentimentality.

What's the solution here?

As far as Stanton's methodology goes, it will be up to him to maintain integrity and a proper reverence for the people he approaches. And based on his recent charitable work with Mott Hall Bridges Academy, it looks like he's moving in the right direction.

But the other half of the problem is on our end, as the viewers of HONY's photos. Dietrich von Hildebrand can point us to a solution for the personal problem of sentimentality. The antidote to the attitude of indifferently scrolling past people, in a word, is love:

"The real antithesis to sentimentality is the genuine feeling of a noble and deep heart ..." (4)

Perhaps if my own outlook - my own heart - was changed, there would be no danger at all in HONY's project. Stanton's unique reminder that each face has a story behind it could actually become something profound, if it were combined with the noble response of love on the part of the viewer.

I am reminded of a piece of wisdom my older sister shared with me once. She said:

"You know, you should never judge people. Because everyone has suffered some tragedy in their life, and you don't know if you would have been able to survive the same thing."

Were I to approach HONY's portraits with this attitude, I imagine that they could become the occasion of a genuine and noble reverence. And the humans of New York City really deserve no less than that.

(1) "Sentimentality: A Critique of Humans of New York," text.
(2) "Brandon Stanton Interview, video.
(3) Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Heart (Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press, 2007), 15.
(4) Hildebrand, The Heart, 9.
(5) Stanton Fundraising Campaign, link.
(6) Hildebrand, The Heart, 15.