It can be argued that having love would achieve the goal of harmony and social stability. They feel that love would create equality amongst people and it would make the world into a utopia for mankind. But I feel that if it was humanly possible, Love is not the only underlying base to a perfect society.
First of all mankind is not and never will be perfect. So saying that we should all live in love is a highly unrealistic idea. But it is a good idea to strive to this perfection and realizing that it is a goal that will most likely be unreached but still try and aim for it.
I feel that Love is not the only factor that needs to be considered in this. In order to achieve this society we need to have the experiences of the bad things we are trying to eliminate. This is because in order to reach the good outcome of harmony, we need to experience the trials and tribulations of life. With out them we would never know if we reached our final goal of perfection. This perfect world would be like living in a world much like in the Novel The Giver by Lois Lowry. In this novel everyone is regulated to live pain free lives with out most emotions and seeing everything in black and white. This is what I imagine life to be like if it were lived all in love. We would not know that we lived perfect lives because we would not know anything else. That is why I think that confrontation would be vital to having a perfect world. There would be no conscious way to tell if it were perfect with out the experiences of the Highs and lows in life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your response because mankind isn't perfect. There will always be problems. Love alone won't help improve soical or civil stability. This will disprove Confucious's theory of jen and li. Which is similar to the theory of yin and yang. Although there is jen, there isn't any li, and without those two concepts the world will be in chaos
ReplyDeleteHi, Stephanie. I’m glad to see you taking a clear position, but remember the one main content rule regarding blog posts: explore the possible answers first, then take a position. Show me you’re actively considering the options.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not sure why conflict is required for us to treat each other lovingly. Why does there need to be a war in Iraq for me to hold the door for someone? To help feed someone who is hungry? This does't add up. It's not complicated--just put others before you and they'll do the same for you.
Also, remember: the heart of the question is “Is love ENOUGH?”, not whether we can achieve it or not. I want to know if a society governed solely by love and kindness is even worth trying to achieve. See where I'm coming from?
The comparison to The Giver is interesting, but acting lovingly toward others doesn't mean no pain or no emotions does it??? Explain this connection more.