Right then, I'll have a go, mate.
Can a person be honorable no matter what he does? No.
Actually, honor is strictly subject to ones point of view which depends greatly on our own belief system and culture. I don't doubt that the 911 hijackers are hailed as men of honor and even hero's by their fellow men. (and don't everyone send me hate mail, it's an extreme example to illustrate a point and I do not by any stretch of the imagination think that the 911 hijackers are in any way honorable. My point is that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who do.)
Can a person be virtuous in limbo without reference to his actions, attitudes and consistency? No.
Actions are a manifestation of ones attitudes and since they change over time there is seldom consistency in belief and actions from the beginning of ones life to the ending. As attitudes change so do actions. So your 'no' would not be 100% correct.
Can a person be a writer who never writes; a painter who never paints, a cook who never cooks? No, no and no.
Once again, I have to question the absolute in your statement. How many people, though not able to do so themselves directly can teach others to do? In a way someone who has the gift to teach others but not the talent to do so themselves writes, paints and cooks through others as surely as if they had done so themselves.
Virtues, talents and occupations require action in harmony with those concepts.
True. However as actions are dependant on our concepts and given the nature of concepts as susceptable to change, then actions can also change and are not necessarily in harmony throughout life.
That is why we have rational minds which identify and discriminate these categories in the first place.
no arguement there...
By virtue of what fact does a person "love" another person whose actions are so varied as to include behaviors which are repugnant to sanity? I'll answer for you: none.
By your own explaination earlier, it is the value that one places on another which manifests itself in 'love' whether or not the individuals actions subsequent to the placement of that value warrents the love.
Things are what they are and we call that their "nature". Whatever that nature is we identify and stick a label on it. Further, we refine the subcategories of that conceptual label with examples of differentia.
What are the categories and subcategories of unconditional love? It is an ideal and nothing more than that. It is pure Romantic notion.
I disagree. The idea is romantic but not nonexistant.
What would you pay for an item worth $1?
Who says its worth a dollar? Value is not always the same for an item from person to person. I love Betty Boop items, and may even over pay from time to time, but others could care less and may actually throua figurine away that I'd pay $20.00 for. So who's setting the value?
Under most circumstances you'd pay a dollar and maybe bargain for less. But, if your life depended on it, you might pay hundreds if it kept you alive. "A horse; a horse! My kingdom for a horse".
Everything is subject to conditional re-valuing.
I disagree. Air is a condition of life. It's value to me will never change.
Winston Smith in 1984; last page, last sentence: "At last he loved Big Brother". I think that is what we have here. We've all been to that room and now we are willing to LOVE LOVE LOVE madly without restraint!!
I'm wouldn't compare science fiction with real life, but understand what you are saying. In the 1984 example though, the intimation was that the people who did not willingly accept Big Brother were surgically altered to force compliance. I don't see anyone here who is claiming belief in unconditional love having been forcefully surgically altered. For that matter, a belief in unconditional love is not confined to those who believe in spiritual things and many atheists believe the theory just as those religiously inclined do.
The purpose of Love is what? You identify the thing you value most and bond with it emotionally. Love isn't passive or it would not be a strong emotion that carries you away.
What would be the purpose in bonding with something which is so capable of change that it is the antithesis of what you value? Why, it would require a complete disconnect between your rational mind (which sees the change) and the heart (the fixed emotional state) with cognative dissonance willful and extreme.
I believe that love and bonding are the basic foundation of the family and hense society. Were there no special bond, human and even animal families would not be as strong. That connection is strongly tied to our survival as a species. The amount of work involved in raising a single human from infancy to the point where they could survive on their own requires a special bond. Call it what you will, I'll call it love, and the human family could not survive without it.
Aha! No wonder it is the religious minded people who cling to this ideal so strongly! That's it!
No, I disagree with this point and have explained my reasons above.
A person completely given over to the split between rational evaluations and emotional addictions are so accustomed to the habit of cognative dissonance they want to see it as a badge of honor to love without condition.
Not necessarily. I am quickly becoming an agnostic and am not a slave to my emotions. Yet, I believe in the possibility of love without condition. Part of this *is* my rational side speaking since absolutes are seldom provable and I will err on the side of caution in saying that there is a possibility it exists rather than dismis it out of hand which would be illogical.
That seems to be what we are witnessing here.
We may as well say food tastes wonderful unconditionally as we reach for the salt and pepper shaker to render it palatable. It is all split-mind assertions in a romantic stupor of self-induced hysteria.
Well, that's a bit dramatic! lol I don't know what kind of cooking you are used to, but my family has never sat down to a meal and said that to me. They'll say, "this is great mom. I love it!" but I've never heard them say that, and even if they did, I'd not be offended if someone reached for the salt. I don't think I've made any split-mind assertions either, mate.
Unconditional love has no justice at its root. It is unjust to reward what is deplorable and to praise what is reprehensible. That is why God's kindness is called "undeserved kindness" because it is fiction. No god of justice could possibly countenance undeserved favor by rewarding it with the maximum expression of approval.
That's an interesting argument. For it to be true, one must throw out the entire bible.
The death of Jesus (a righteous man) is a horror of logic. Worse still is the lunacy of saying it is part of the Supreme Being's plan to let an innocent person die in place of the true criminal. That is monstrous. Only persons so immersed in cognative dissonance from years of religious preoccupations (which have wrecked the delicate mechanism of cause and effect in their mind) could seize such a PLAN and declare it wonderful!
Well, I'm not going to touch that since I'm not qualified. I have my own issues with the bible and feel there are people here in a better position to argue that particular point.
Final word: unconditional love is a symptom of a mental disorder.
Do you know of any serious work on the subject that will back this blanket statement? Come on, Terry. You are a logical minded person and know that absolutes and blanket statements are seldom entirely true. Do you have backup?
Well, I've done my best to address your points. Will it do?