Worldview Fragment: All you need is love

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The worldview fragment I have named "all you need is love" could be precisely summed up as "affection, compassion, appreciation, and goodwill are sufficient to achieve lasting utopia". Who could argue with this? What past recipient of such kind feelings would doubt their effectiveness? How many people have been transformed thereby?

Let me state immediately that love is a huge part of Christianity, too, although as I (I'm an analytical male, by the way) understand it, Christian love is less about feelings than about action: love is expressed by doing what is best for the object. I have the impression that love is the lifeblood, the heart-and-soul of Christian life. As the Bible reiterates, love is the most important and desireable quality or virtue one should pursue, but love in this sense is much more than a feeling. The array of possible meanings denoted by love can make communication tricky, which is why I grasped about for four alternative words to use in the definition in the previous paragraph. For convenience I will use the acronym ACAG to reference those words, affection, compassion, appreciation, goodwill.

All that having been said, the worldview fragment "all you need is love", as defined above, is incorrect:

• One difficulty is that ACAG are simply not constants. When someone who is close, whether emotionally or even just physically, lashes out for the flimsiest reason(s), ACAG tend to evaporate. In those moments, self-control and a determination to preserve the relationship's peace--not ACAG--must act as substitutes.
• Other problems can arise when ACAG are directed more strongly at one party than another, because a bias or preference is the natural result. If an argument or other need for mediation occurs, neutrality won't be present out of ACAG (if both claim to be the "victim", isn't it hard not to side with whichever party "deserves" more consideration or has "earned" more sympathy?). An obvious retort is that ACAG must be directed at all people equally to be any good, but the honest shall readily confess to feeling more benevolent toward the victim of an unprovoked attack than toward the aggressor, to purposely take an extreme example.
• Wise folks have observed the close connection between the emotions of love and hate. (The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.) Love and hate have similar physical manifestations, can turn into each other with alarming ease, etc. Lovers turning into angry maniacs is one of the most prevalent ways of creating drama in any medium. In a love triangle, "love" may be the sole cause of the hostility ("betrayed by my best friend and my girl!"). The point is that the two A's of ACAG, affection and appreciation, when left unrestrained, can transmute into the most awful of passions.
• On what could be thought of as the other end of the spectrum, mere ACAG are not much help in the endless examples of the minute details of existence. Newlyweds will discover this quite soon after the wedding, if not during the wedding's planning stage. For instance, what US state will one live in? Someone can't be in two distinct places simultaneously, no matter how much ACAG someone has. Take a smaller example. What color should a wall be? Assuming that a combination of colors on the same wall is not a possibility (probably due to being too garish), the wall can only be one or the other, regardless of how much ACAG someone has. Tragically speaking, if "all you need is love", more marriages would last longer.
  

ACAG are great, in Christians or anyone else. However, Christianity is more than ACAG and the associated Christmas carols. It has to be, if it claims to be a workable solution to the Human Condition, and if it claims to have a (feasible) heaven. A Christian whose Christianity does not go beyond ACAG should really drop his or her pretense to the label--if ACAG was all Jesus had to carry out to save the world, why did He bother with that business about repentance and the cross?

Grand Self-Deception

Any belief system is subject to charges of hypocrisy, a disagreement between proscribed and actual behavior, but regardless of its widespread press it's no more than one of the many breeds of deception and self-deception. Just as I've read that courage is the foundation for a good deed, self-deception may be the foundation for bad deeds. Self-deception enables typically-well-intentioned people to perpetrate evil without admitting or confessing it (to themselves, anyway). More importantly, entire groups of people can undergo self-deception at once. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if self-deception on a grand level operates as the duct-tape, buttress, or girder--perhaps even the mainspring--for society and culture. In the following I'm not writing from an exclusively Christian perspective but attempting to express a range of values.

• Consider the concept of sexiness, which is a goal for fashion and dance and media. The very word contains its real meaning, "sex". And sexiness is a positive quality, correct? After all, we're just animals, so refusing to embrace sexiness without restriction would be unhealthy and prudish! But wait--being perceived or treated as a "sex object" is definitely not positive, correct? History and past customs have shown how awful it was when people were reduced to the state of functioning as objects, so we're proud to have advanced past that point. Aren't we? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that sexiness has nothing to do with sex. The trick is to be provocative without thinking too hard about what is being provoked, see?
• Consider the concept of spirituality. Through spirituality people can reach a deeper level of existence. They can transcend. They can find the god within. They can communicate beyond the grave or use sixth senses. This is much better than those busybodies who rush around focusing on just what they can directly sense, correct? But wait--science and technology have taught us to toss out superstitions. Gods are human inventions that function as crutches for the weak-minded or weak-spirited. The supernatural is for the gullible, correct? Isn't it? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that spirituality has nothing to do with the superstitious supernatural. The trick is to be spiritual without thinking too hard about spirits, see?
• Consider the concept of personal freedom. Each person does all the harmless things he or she wants, without worry of oppression from others. Moreover, each person can pursue happiness as he or she wishes, and believe whatever world narrative he or she likes. The public should give the private free rein, correct? But wait--certain goals can only be reached as people work together. Democratic government doesn't reflect the will of the people unless the people put in effort. Some individuals are powerless to care for themselves. All economic transactions require more than one participant. Someone's personal life interferes with his or her ability to work. Duty and responsibility are what separate a functioning social system from anarchy, correct? Activities people must do? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that personal freedom is more important than duty and responsibility. The trick is to do whatever you want because it's your right to do so, but donate leftover resources to meet the minimum demands of duty and responsibility of a "decent" person, see?
• Consider the concepts of marriage and family. In so many cases, marriage and family end badly. Career offers an upward-progressing path, while marriage is the definition of a relationship that stays the same. Outside marriage, sex is a recreational activity. Inside marriage, sex turns into a monotonous chore. Children hamper someone from achieving his or her goals. The exciting years are before marriage, because marriage is "settling down". It makes no sense for people to be trapped by outdated, traditional norms, correct? But wait--large segments of the market are devoted to products for kids and raising them. On holidays, families gather to spend time together. Some people depend so heavily on family support it borders on exploitation. Without good families, humanity's future is in doubt. Sentimental media extol the preciousness of family. Over time, many single people grow desperately lonely. Marriage and family are extremely significant spurs to personal growth and adulthood, correct? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that the totally unfettered, single, self-centered person relishing life and career is accomplishing as much as if not more than the married shlubs who are discovering how demanding authentic love is. The trick is to view personal relationships in terms of emotional profit rather than as difficult but incredibly rewarding adventures, see?
  

Kirk Cameron

Consider this a comment or plea to the Web at large.

Knock off the Kirk Cameron jokes.

Stop saying he's turned into a nut, or he's been brainwashed, etc. People have beliefs, but not everybody professes the same set. Again, people have beliefs, but not everybody is passionate about their beliefs. Neither the content nor the strength of someone else's beliefs grants you the right to treat him or her with disrespect. Go ahead and disagree with someone; tolerance means you allow that person to believe what they wish. But I would call for a tougher standard than tolerance: no personal attacks, no "you have different beliefs therefore you're somehow mentally-deficient" remarks.

Even speaking in a merely practical sense, which strategy is more likely to bring others around to your point of view: heaping scorn on every other alternative and those who believe in them, or acknowledging the real reasons people believe differently and then showing how your beliefs are a better fit?