Thursday, March 29, 2012

The ZigZag Café

We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.

For today:

What do you think an appropriate self-love might look like?


Sisyphos said...


When one has a lack of self-love, probably one has too much of self-hate. If there is self-hate, then one, the subject, is split: Subject hates Subject, or Subject 1 hates Subject 2. To start self-love, one ought to start with replacing the hated subject 2 by a general other. More concretely: I love human beings, I am a human being, I love myself. It is hard though to translate this syllogism into reality.

Sisyphos said...

Hi Sisyphos,

I have some objections. First one: What if there are no objections? Secondly: If I replace the second Subjct by a general other, couldn't I also reverse that mouvement? I hate myself, I am a human being, hence I hate the other human beings?

Sisyphos said...

I have to clarify m first objection: I meant: "What if there is no love for other human beings?"

Sisyphos said...

Hi Sisyphos,

the problem is then: how to relate to the human being generally, regardless if relates to onesel or to the other. All too often we have different measures: treating our own subject 2 more leniently or treating the other human leniently. If we attempt to treat human beings universally the same, another problem arises: human beings are in a different state: some need a treatment which is more strict, some need one which is more lenient. The ulitmate question would be, then, what is our measure which helps us to decide what treatment our subject 2 needs, or/and the other human being?

Greg said...

Thanks. First comment: My thought is that a self is related and distinct to itself and to others. So, the self is "split", to speak of it like this, in a multiplicity of ways, including the deep notion of being and doing. When it comes to love and hate, I'm not sure that replacement is a live option, because each of these is connected to a web of features and factors. Maybe increasing and diminishing would be more fitting?

Second comment: Yes, and that's why replacement is not a viable configuration. Too straight and simple.

Third comment: Not sure that having no love for others is a real possibility, but I guess this depends on what love is.

Fourth comment: I don't think that the general, on its own, will be viable because oneself is always in the picture from oneself to human being generally. Leniently is an interesting word, as it seems to presuppose a standard or canon in place that makes room for such an action. There may be a number of these canons that play a role: Scripture, nature, culture, and community, to mention just a few.